{"id":8456,"date":"2020-12-23T18:09:47","date_gmt":"2020-12-23T23:09:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/esterlund.com\/blog\/?p=8456"},"modified":"2020-12-23T18:09:47","modified_gmt":"2020-12-23T23:09:47","slug":"who-finally-admits-pcr-tests-create-false-positives-health-wellness-sott-net","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/esterlund.com\/blog\/who-finally-admits-pcr-tests-create-false-positives-health-wellness-sott-net\/","title":{"rendered":"WHO (finally) admits PCR tests create false positives — Health & Wellness — Sott.net"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"PCR<\/a><\/p>\n

Source: WHO (finally) admits PCR tests create false positives — Health & Wellness — Sott.net<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Kit Knightly
\nOffGuardian<\/a>
\nFri, 18 Dec 2020 06:58 UTC<\/p>\n

The World Health Organization released a guidance memo on December 14th,\u00a0warning that high cycle thresholds on PCR tests will result in false positives<\/a>.<\/p>\n

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?<\/strong><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

To quote their own words [our emphasis]:<\/p>\n

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\u00a0may lead to a specimen with a high cycle threshold (Ct) value result being interpreted as a positive result.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

They go on to explain [again, our emphasis]:<\/p>\n

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.\u00a0In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Of course, none of this is news to anyone who has been paying attention.\u00a0That 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.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Many articles<\/a>\u00a0have been written about it, by many experts in the field,\u00a0medical journalists<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0other researchers<\/a>. It’s been commonly available knowledge, for months now, that any test using a CT value over 35 is potentially meaningless.<\/p>\n

Dr Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize for inventing the PCR process, was clear that it\u00a0wasn’t meant as a diagnostic tool<\/a>, saying:<\/p>\n

with PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And, commenting on cycle thresholds, once said:<\/p>\n

If you have to go more than 40 cycles to amplify a single-copy gene, there is something seriously wrong with your PCR.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The\u00a0MIQE guidelines for PCR use<\/a>\u00a0state:<\/p>\n

Cq values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and generally should not be reported,”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This has all been public knowledge since the beginning of the lockdown. The Australian government’s\u00a0own website admitted the tests were flawed,<\/a>\u00a0and a court in Portugal ruled they\u00a0were not fit for purpose<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Even Dr Anthony Fauci has\u00a0publicly admitted<\/a>\u00a0that a cycle threshold over 35 is going to be detecting “dead nucleotides”, not a living virus.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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?<\/p>\n

The answer to that is potentially shockingly cynical:\u00a0We have a vaccine now. We don’t need false positives anymore.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Notionally, the system has produced its miracle cure.\u00a0So, after everyone has been vaccinated, all the PCR tests being done will be done\u00a0<\/strong>“under the new WHO guidelines”<\/strong><\/em>, and running only 25-30 cycles instead of 35+.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Lo and behold, the number of “positive cases” will plummet, and we’ll have confirmation that our miracle vaccine works.<\/strong><\/p>\n

After months of flooding the data pool with false positives,\u00a0miscounting deaths “by accident”<\/a>, adding\u00a0“Covid19 related death” to every other death certificate<\/a>…they can stop. The\u00a0create-a-pandemic machine<\/a>\u00a0can be turned down to zero again.<\/p>\n

…as 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\u00a0they bring back their magical disease<\/a>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Source: WHO (finally) admits PCR tests create false positives — Health & Wellness — Sott.net Kit Knightly OffGuardian Fri, 18 Dec 2020 06:58 UTC The World Health Organization released a guidance memo on December 14th,\u00a0warning that high cycle thresholds on PCR tests will result in false positives. While this information is accurate, it has also … Continue reading WHO (finally) admits PCR tests create false positives — Health & Wellness — Sott.net<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[54,29],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/esterlund.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8456"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/esterlund.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/esterlund.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esterlund.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esterlund.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8456"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/esterlund.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8456\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8458,"href":"https:\/\/esterlund.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8456\/revisions\/8458"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/esterlund.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8456"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esterlund.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8456"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esterlund.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8456"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}