The M+G+R Foundation

The real reason for the misuse of PCR tests

Why WHO, after many months allowing it, finally admits PCR tests create false positives

A guest document by Kit Knightly

INTRODUCTION (by The M+G+R Foundation)

Almost since the beginning of the Coronavirus Campaign (*1), much has been written about the misuse of PCR tests to diagnose and account for cases of Covid-19. Malpractice on the use of PCR tests has been not only approved, but even promoted and dictated by civil and health authorities around the world.

PCR tests are a laboratory tool that deceptively and for many months has been and still are the main source of official Covid-19 infection figures. These tests, as confirmed by their own inventor, the Nobel Prize winner Dr. Kary Mullis, are not a tool that by itself can provide a clinical diagnosis. And, in any case, there are conditions of use that must be respected and that have been systematically ignored for the Covid-19 Campaign.

By the grace of God, we have come across what we consider to be the best article we have read in many months explaining and documenting, in a summarized and comprehensible way for the public, the deception behind the malpractice in relation to such tests plus the reason why WHO (World Health Organization) finally decided to say this is wrong.

Through the links provided by the author (here listed as footnotes), although most of them point to other articles at the OffGuardian's site, the diligent reader who so desires will be able to reach other external sources that support the information provided by Kit Knightly in his excellent article, originally published in (*2)

WHO (finally) admits PCR tests create false positives

Warnings concerning high CT value of tests are months too late... so why are they appearing now?

The potential explanation is shockingly cynical.

Kit Knightly

The World Health Organization released a guidance memo on December 14th, warning that high cycle thresholds on PCR tests will result in false positives. (1)

While this information is accurate, it has also been available for months, so we must ask: why are they reporting it now? Is it to make it appear the vaccine works?

The "gold standard" Sars-Cov-2 tests are based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR). PCR works by taking nucleotides - tiny fragments of DNA or RNA - and replicating them until they become something large enough to identify. The replication is done in cycles, with each cycle doubling the amount of genetic material. The number of cycles it takes to produce something identifiable is known as the "cycle threshold" or "CT value". The higher the CT value, the less likely you are to be detecting anything significant.

This new WHO memo states that using a high CT value to test for the presence of Sars-Cov-2 will result in false-positive results.

To quote their own words [author emphasis]:

"Users of RT-PCR reagents should read the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is necessary to account for any background noise which may lead to a specimen with a high cycle threshold (Ct) value result being interpreted as a positive result."

They go on to explain [again, author emphasis]:

"The design principle of RT-PCR means that for patients with high levels of circulating virus (viral load), relatively few cycles will be needed to detect virus and so the Ct value will be low. Conversely, when specimens return a high Ct value, it means that many cycles were required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain."

Of course, none of this is news to anyone who has been paying attention. That PCR tests were easily manipulated and potentially highly inaccurate has been one of the oft-repeated battle cries of those of us opposing the "pandemic" narrative, and the policies it's being used to sell.

Many articles (2) have been written about it, by many experts in the field, medical journalists (3) and other researchers (4). It's been commonly available knowledge, for months now, that any test using a CT value over 35 is potentially meaningless.

Dr Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize for inventing the PCR process, was clear that it wasn't meant as a diagnostic tool (5), saying:

"with PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody."

And, commenting on cycle thresholds, once said:

"If you have to go more than 40 cycles to amplify a single-copy gene, there is something seriously wrong with your PCR."

The MIQE guidelines for PCR use (6) state:

"Cq values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and generally should not be reported,"

This has all been public knowledge since the beginning of the lockdown. The Australian government's own website admitted the tests were flawed (7), and a court in Portugal ruled they were not fit for purpose (8).

Even Dr Anthony Fauci has publicly admitted (9) that a cycle threshold over 35 is going to be detecting "dead nucleotides", not a living virus.

Despite all this, it is known that many labs around the world have been using PCR tests with CT values over 35, even into the low 40s.

So why has the WHO finally decided to say this is wrong?
What reason could they have for finally choosing to recognise this simple reality?

The answer to that is potentially shockingly cynical: We have a vaccine now. We don't need false positives anymore.

Notionally, the system has produced its miracle cure. So, after everyone has been vaccinated, all the PCR tests being done will be done "under the new WHO guidelines", and running only 25-30 cycles instead of 35+.

Lo and behold, the number of "positive cases" will plummet, and we'll have confirmation that our miracle vaccine works.

After months of flooding the data pool with false positives, miscounting deaths "by accident" (10), adding "Covid19 related death" to every other death certificate (11) ... they can stop. The create-a-pandemic machine (12) can be turned down to zero again. long as we all do as we're told. Any signs of dissent - masses of people refusing the vaccine, for example - and the CT value can start to climb again, and they bring back their magical disease (13).

(*1) The Coronavirus Campaign - Index of documents in the domain of The M+G+R Foundation
(*2) Article originally published at (19 Dec 2020) - Copyright 2020 by OffGuardian. We have respected the text in its entirety. The only changes are in format, including our highlighting in bold/italics.
(1) The World Health Organization warns that high cycle thresholds on PCR tests will result in false positives ( - 7 Dec 2020)
(2) Search of articles at about PCR tests
(3) COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless ( - 27 Jun 2020)
(4) Has COVID-19 Testing Made the Problem Worse? ( - 15 Apr 2020)
(5) PCR Inventor: "It doesn't tell you that you are sick" ( - 5 Oct 2020)
(6) MIQE guidelines for PCR use (file in PDF format) (2009, American Association for Clinical Chemistry)
(7) The Australian government's own website admitted the tests were flawed ( - 5 Sep 2020)
(8) Portuguese Court Rules PCR Tests "Unreliable" & Quarantines "Unlawful" ( - 20 Nov 2020)
(9) Dr. Fauci publicly admitted that a cycle threshold over 35 is not going to detect a living virus ( - 11 Nov 2020)
(10) UK gov't (finally) admits Covid statistics are inaccurate ( - 17 Jul 2020)
(11) Covid-19 Death Figures "A Substantial Over-Estimate" ( - 5 Apr 2020)
(12) Covid-19 - Evidence Of Global Fraud ( - 17 Nov 2020)
(13) 12 Steps to Create Your Own Pandemic ( - 17 Sep 2020)

© Copyright 2020 of the main article by OffGuardian (December 19th, 2020)

OffGuardian is not affiliated nor associated in any way with The M+G+R Foundation. The publication of this article in our domain does not imply a recommendation for all the content found on their site. Still, we find in their site many well researched and well written articles on the Covid-19 Crisis.

Published in this site on June 24th, 2021 - Solemnity of John the Baptist

The Seal of St. Michael the Archangel © Copyright 2020 - 2024 by The M+G+R Foundation. All rights reserved. However, you may freely reproduce and distribute this document as long as: (1) Appropriate credit is given as to its source; (2) No changes are made in the text without prior written consent; and (3) No charge is made for it.

The M+G+R Foundation
Online since 1998
Introduction for First Visit Frequently Asked Questions
Home Page English Español Portugues
Search Page Index of Documents
Disclaimer About Us Contact
Back Up Home Page (Mirror Site)