Reverse Transcriptase PCR, is a variation of the polymerase chain reaction and is "the gold standard" when it comes to sars-cov-2 detection.
Are the PCR tests the gold standard? Let's have a look.
The National Human Genome Research Institute tell us "the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a fast and inexpensive technique used to "amplify" - copy - small segments of DNA. Because significant amounts of a sample of DNA are necessary for molecular and genetic analyses, studies of isolated pieces of DNA are nearly impossible without PCR amplification."
Okay, so this makes sense, the PCR test is used to amplify the amount of genetic material it is trying to find. However, where do the problems lie?
PCR tests are not used for measuring infectious levels or if you are shedding the virus. The best the PCR tests can do is effectively guesstimate whether or not the sample collected is showing the patient to be infectious. The data collected in this study shows, when the Ct (cycle threshold) sample is at low values it shows nearly 100% of this virus was shed, meaning the patient will be very likely infectious. However, at higher Ct values of over 35 cycles where only trace amounts of virus was detected, virtually none of the virus could be cultured so those patients are not infectious.
The study also goes on to conclude: "as the human infectious dose remains unknown, the significance of low titres of infectious virus for human-to-human transmission remains uncertain."
The issue is, the test coming back to you after you give a sample isn't going through these nuanced issues. All you receive is a positive result regarding whether the test has picked up the genetic material. This is a huge problem. As I hope you can appreciate already, the media have not done a great job in explaining what the PCR test explicitly does and doesn't do. The PCR test is being used to cover almost everything as the perfect answer to justify the actions taken by Governments which just isn't the case.
Lets move on to the next hurdle: False readings.
A quick read of this summary demonstrates just how complicated the readings of the results from the PCR test is. There is much room to find false positives and false negatives demonstrating how incredibly nuanced analysis of the results should be.
Global Biotech Insights acknowledge the vast problems with the PCR tests - "Whether positive or negative, the PCR test is only indicative of whether the virus is present at the time the test is taken. It neither rules out whether the patient was infected in the past and therefore has developed immunity, nor that the patient is at an early stage and will show symptoms in the future."
This study conducted in 2008, free from all the manipulation and politicisation of the covid-19 "pandemic"also concluded there is plenty of room for error in the PCR readings:
"False-positive PCR test results can occur if the sample was contaminated with pathogen genetic material (during either sample collection or sample handling and DNA extraction). In addition, the PCR process itself can introduce false-positive results through excessive cycling, poor primer performance, or post-PCR analysis contamination. False-negative PCR test results can result from low numbers of amplicons, poor primer performance, or the presence of inhibitory substances (urea and heme3,4) in the sample."
This paragraph should make you concerned - excessive cycling of Ct can produce false positives. The normal amount is somewhere between 25- 40 cycles, any more is almost guaranteed to create false positives. I can't find out what our cycle threshold is in the UK, however, one can assume, more rounds of amplifications can create the impression of more "cases" however, say a vaccine comes along you need to prove is effective, lowering the number of cycles would be very easy to guarantee that result.
On this note, I feel it is needed to point out a positive test reading is not a case, a case should be someone who is hospitalised with symptoms - something else the media deemed unimportant to stress to us.
Yet another study also highlighted the weakness of the PCR test proving the rumored "reinfection" narrative was completely unsubstantiated.
"The country’s infectious disease experts said that dead-virus fragments were most likely cause positive results for SARS-CoV-2 infection among 260 people who have recovered from the disease. The tests even showed the presence of these fragments even weeks after making full recoveries. Oh Myoung-don, who spearheads the central clinical committee for emerging disease control in South Korea, said there was little reason to believe the cases had emerged from reactivation of the virus or reinfection."
Another interesting opinion to consider is the creator of the test himself. His name was Kary B. Mullis, who unfortunately died last summer, just prior to the outbreak of said "pandemic."
He has been very vocal in making sure the scientific community knew that the: "PCR is just a process that allows you to make a whole lot of something out of something. It doesn’t tell you that you are sick, or that the thing that you ended up with was going to hurt you or anything like that." He even went on going as far as to say the test was weaponised by none other Fauci to diagnose AIDS back in the 80s. This is an issue I am woefully unable to tackle for obvious reasons. However, it is interesting to see Kary B. Mullis was taking on the same people back then as we are now - Fauci and the big money, big pharma cartel.
It is also interesting to observe that some test kits being rolled out say these are not used for diagnosis but research only. I'm not sure why this is case, if you know please tell me.
To try and formulate some conclusion I can only really say, the PCR tests are not the Gold Standard we are constantly told (by certain scientists on a certain pay cheque.)
This blog is not pretending to be a scientific authority and prove the science is wrong. I am not a scientist, I do not know for certain the ins and outs of the tests. Reading the science has been hard and complicated, but most importantly, incredibly boring. What I believe I have done is illustrate how one sided the presentation of the PCR testing, and the rhetoric of tests in general has been. It has been heavily skewed to one obvious bias - the golden standard, unquestionable and undeniable. The media should be explaining the other sides to us but they do not. They only report one side, and at the beginning completely dismissed critics of the tests. Only in the last couple of months did we see more of Carl Heneghan and Sunetra Gupta et al. It has been so appalling, and so blatant that the media was censoring and suppressing conflicting evidence and voices during the onset. I was told I was a conspiracy theorist in April when I first read about PCR tests for saying they aren't completely reliable. "Are you an expert?!" they shouted - no, but I know I've read more than you.
It is incredible how much power the media have and how biased they can present a narrative.
My personal opinion is, the PCR tests are just good enough to keep the medical world on board (who aren't big pharma) however, also just easy enough to manipulate and present the statistics they wish too in order to get us to comply with their agenda - the Great Reset. That is my speculation only! It explains why so many Doctors and Scientists are asking questions regarding the reliability of the results we're witnessing, but not an all out assault.
I believe a simple solution is decentralisation - relying on a monopolised, socialised healthcare system causes these issues. They're inefficient, unaccountable, powerful, oppressive more expensive and just generally very appalling at everything they do. Keep healthcare decentralised along with everything else. At least we can keep the "experts" accountable and make sure they stick to a single message. It also frees medical establishments to use the tests they deem fit for purpose. At the moment, everyone listening to PHE is not ideal because if they do make a mistake, everyone makes the same mistake. Centralised healthcare is incredibly unwise I believe.
One issue I would also like to have answered is why does a test sample have to be so intrusive, touching the nasal membrane, when we're told to wear masks because droplets could be devastating? Why isn't a mouth sample good enough? I'll leave that with you. Please tell me and link me the evidence if you do know.
Lastly, when the BBC have to start reporting the unreliability of PCR tests - that's a very good indication that they must be. They are trying extremely hard not to disrupt the fear porn narrative! It's only taken them 6 months to do some actual journalism.
For further reading, two excellent summaries from Evidence Based Medicine can be found here: