What is the 'PCR test'?

Dr. Thomas Cowan: 'You cannot use a surrogate test to prove anything, and that is what is happening with these tests.'

Mordechai Sones ,

PCR tube strips on thermal cycler to DNA and RNA amplification
PCR tube strips on thermal cycler to DNA and RNA amplification

Tel Aviv University Faculty of Medicine Department of Microbiology and Clinical Immunology immunologist Prof. Motti Gerlic today referred to the tools we use to diagnose COVID-19, saying "the tests that give us a measure of people who have probably met the virus do not give us a true measure of sick people. A person who tests positive for the virus should be distinguished from a sick person."

The test being used is a positive polymerase chain reaction, or PCR test. Some scientists and experts have increasingly warned that the PCR test does not necessarily mean the virus is present, infectious, or viable, nor does the PCR test detect the whole virus.

Laniado Hospital Emergency Medicine Department Director Dr. Amir Shachar, one of the founders of the emergency medicine profession in Israel, said "most of the people identified as carriers are not sick, or they are very lightly ill, and I'm trying to say that this figure of 3,000 or 4,000 new patients a day is simply using wrong definitions. There is no disease that is diagnosed by identifying the contagion in the throat. There also need to be symptoms and most of the people identified as positive and get the label 'sick' are not sick."

Dr. Thomas Cowan explained: "So what is the surrogate of a RT PCR test? It's otherwise known as a viral load test, and the test is a surrogate test. It was developed a guy named Kerry Mullis, who was given the Nobel Prize in chemistry for essentially inventing the technique of this test. And he said very specifically, ‘you cannot use this test to either prove infectious etiology, or to diagnose an infectious disease.’ Which of course is interesting, because if you can't use it to diagnose an infectious disease, that of course begs the question of what can you use it for?"

Interestingly, it appears there may be a history of using PCR to help replicate biological weapons, as possibly suggested in the American Society for Microbiology papers published on the NIH website entitled Cross-Institute Evaluations of Inhibitor-Resistant PCR Reagents for Direct Testing of Aerosol and Blood Samples Containing Biological Warfare Agent DNA that says "PCR is used to detect biological warfare agents (BWAs) from various sample types," and Development of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Assays for Detection and Quantification of Surrogate Biological Warfare Agents in Building Debris and Leachate.

Dr. Cowan continues: "But let me back up here and describe what a surrogate test means, because this is very important to understanding the situation currently. A surrogate test means that in a situation where you're trying to prove causation, you have to have a gold standard test, And those postulates like with meningococcus, that is a gold standard test, it's reliable 100% of the time.

"You cannot use a surrogate test to prove anything, and that is what is happening with these tests. So, what is the surrogate test? So remember that we don't have a gold standard, we don't have isolation, purification, reinfection; we don't have viraemia, we don't have millions of copies demonstrated on an electron microscope. We essentially have no idea who has this coronavirus disease.

"So then, they take a piece of one of the coronaviruses, the new one that they found; it has a new RNA sequence that hasn't been found before - they take one of the sequences which they say is unique to that particular virus, and they do something called amplify. And what that means is, in your blood you'll have one copy of this sequence, and it's too small, you can't find it. So you stimulate it, and this is what Kerry Mullis came up with, you stimulate it, it makes 2 copies; that's one cycle. You make 4 copies, that's two. You make 2 to the 20th copies, whatever number that is; that's 20 cycles. And what you find with this test is that once you put it through approximately 36 cycles, then you start to see the color change that tells you it's positive.

"So if you do 35 cycles, it's still too small to see. If you do 36, you start to see it but you get false negatives, even though you don’t really know which is a false negative, when you don’t have anything to compare it with. So then you do 37 and you see 5% of the time of people with the symptoms, and you say, ‘that's the number’.

"But here's where it gets interesting: If you do it 40 times, you start seeing a lot more positives, and then here's something else to know: If you do it 60 times, so if you amplify it over and over and over again, it becomes positive with 100% of the people.

"Let me say that again: If you amplify it 60 times, it will be positive with everybody. That means that everybody has a piece of this RNA somewhere in their cells or in their genome or somewhere in their secretions, if all you have to do is amplify it enough.

"And the problem is, we don't know how many false positives or false negatives there are, because we have nothing to compare it to. And if all biological tests have false positives so if you test 30,000,000 people and you have a 1% false positive rate, then 300,000 people by definition will test positive and then you have an epidemic.

"Then, if you want to demonstrate that the epidemic got better, all you have to do is lower the amplification cycles to 35 and then suddenly your Vitamin C or your vaccine or chloroquine or whatever you did worked, and now there's no more people testing positive. That is fraught with problems, and that is the problem.”

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny said the test is used "in order to create enough virus in order to be used in the laboratory. So if they take one tiny little piece, and then one becomes 2, and 2 becomes 4, and becomes 8, and they do that 30 times, they end up with billions and billions of viral particles that they can study in the lab. Which, as Dr. David Ransick says, PCR is a great scientific research tool, it's a horrible tool for clinical medicine. It will generate huge numbers of false positives. No healthy person should ever be tested, it means nothing, it's defined as a case, and it will destroy your life and make you absolutely miserable. Every time someone takes a swab, that tissue sample of their DNA goes into a government database. It's to track us, it's not for looking for a virus.

"And so here's the thing; I found an article that was buried, that was actually published by the Association of Public Health Laboratories, and what this article actually does, is it goes through and talks about what the CT value or cycle threshold value is.

"So if you have a lot of virus sample already in the specimen, it only takes a few number of times of doubling it to get a billion samples for you to work with. We have a teeny tiny little bit of sample. You have to double it over and over and over and over and over again to get enough sample to work with.

"Once you get that doubling time up to 37, you’ve now got enough viral sample in the laboratory to do experiments with, and to explore, do the different things in terms of a laboratory, once you get to the CT score of 37.

"But at 37, you also have zero real virus, you have zero ability to spread that virus to someone else, you have zero infectivity, you are defined as a ‘case’ for which you have to quarantine, shut down, stop everything, hold the phone. It's closed down businesses, closed down professional sports, close down everything else, even though you absolutely, positively, 100,000% are not contagious.

"And, as far as we've been able to tell, every lab across the country uses between 35 and 37 as their cutoff before they define it to be positive. So the higher the number of the CT value, the higher the number of the cycling threshold, the lower the chances that you're sick or that you could spread anything to anybody. The higher the CT value, the more chance that you've got what's called 100% positive for which they are closing down the world."

Questions by physicians and journalists about the PCR test directed to the Health Ministry have been systematically ignored, such as the following that appeared in a Freedom of Information Act request to the Health Ministry regarding various issues related to COVID-19. This, after queries by journalists representing the entire spectrum of Israeli media outlets consistently revealed a pattern of Health Ministry avoidance of certain issues.

The following questions have yet to be answered by the Health Ministry:

Questions about the PCR tests:

1. How many of the positive tests reported so far reflect repeat tests for those people?

2. Of all the people who performed two tests in a row (ie. - within 24 hours), in how many tests were the two results different?

3. Is there a uniform standard for setting a viral threshold for a positive coronavirus test, and if so, what is it?

4. How many of the tests are borderline and is a borderline test considered positive?

5. Someone whose test was defined as borderline - what was the diagnosis?

6. In the context of the epidemiological investigations, people defined as borderline or asymptomatic - what was the percentage of people they infected?

7. What is the percentage of positive tests among medical staff in the various hospitals?

8. What is the percentage of people who have had a test had symptoms? How many of them received a negative answer?

9. What are the details of the contract agreement with My Heritage Corporation? If other private laboratories were blocked from entering the field of coronavirus testing, why?

10. How much money will the State of Israel pay My Heritage?