The Fraud of PCR Tests, Casedemics and Fear

The covid crisis has been largely led via deliberate fear-mongering with governments and media publishing huge numbers of covid positive ‘cases’, thus driving compliance with their vaccine programme.

Unfortunately the ‘gold standard’ test, the RT-PCR test, is simply not accurate, and because it tests for a contrived virome (more on this below), and not for a purified virus, 100% of tests are thus false positives!

Jon Rappoport, a researcher and journalist, reports how the CDC in the US has announced, via the CDC website, that the current PCR tests being used are not accurate, and thus PCR tests will change from December 2021.

Considering the high numbers of the vaccinated receiving positive test results, one wonders if this move isn’t in order to change the sppecifications for tests, so that ‘infections’ amongst the vaccinated appear to be less, thus driving the agenda that vaccinations work?

See the article about the CDC changing PCR tests here: https://www.nexusnewsfeed.com/article/jon-rappoport/cdc-fda-confess-they-had-no-virus-when-they-concocted-the-test-for-the-virus/ [published 29/07/2021, accessed 30/07/2021], or download a copy of the article here [PDF, 3 pages].


Not only that, but the original specifications for the PCR test for SARs-CoV-2, outlined in a paper entitled “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR“, which was published in Eurosurveillance 25(8) 2020 by Corman, Drosten, et al, has been reviewed by a group of scientists called International Consortium of Scientists in Life Sciences (ICSLS) and been found to be signifcantly flawed on a number of levels, to the point where they have written to Eurosurveillance to ask them to retract the paper.

The abstract of the review report reads:

“In the publication entitled “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR” (Eurosurveillance 25(8) 2020) the authors present a diagnostic workflow and RT-qPCR protocol for detection and diagnostics of 2019-nCoV (now known as SARS-CoV-2), which they claim to be validated, as well as being a robust diagnostic methodology for use in public-health laboratory settings. 

In light of all the consequences resulting from this very publication for societies worldwide, a group of independent researchers performed a point-by-point review of the aforesaid publication in which 1) all components of the presented test design were cross checked, 2) the RT-qPCR protocol-recommendations were assessed w.r.t. good laboratory practice, and 3) parameters examined against relevant scientific literature covering the field. 

The published RT-qPCR protocol for detection and diagnostics of 2019-nCoV and the manuscript suffer from numerous technical and scientific errors, including insufficient primer design, a problematic and insufficient RT-qPCR protocol, and the absence of an accurate test validation. Neither the presented test nor the manuscript itself fulfils the requirements for an acceptable scientific publication. Further, serious conflicts of interest of the authors are not mentioned. Finally, the very short timescale between submission and acceptance of the publication (24 hours) signifies that a systematic peer review process was either not performed here, or of problematic poor quality.  We provide compelling evidence of several scientific inadequacies, errors and flaws.

Considering the scientific and methodological blemishes presented here, we are confident that the editorial board of Eurosurveillance has no other choice but to retract the publication.”

Their conclusion is short and not sweet:

In light of our re-examination of the test protocol to identify SARS-CoV-2 described in the Corman-Drosten paper we have identified concerning errors and inherent fallacies which render the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test useless.

See the review paper here: https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/ [published 27/11/2020, accessed 30/07/2021], or download a copy of the report here [PDF, 32 pages].


Indeed, a compilation of numerous Freedom of Information (FOI) requests that have been made to health authorities and governments in various countries by different individuals, asking for proof that SARs-CoV-2 / Coronavirus has been isolated and purified, has resulted over and over again in the same answer – there is no proof that it has, or they hold no records of it.

See the compilation of FOI requests, diligently gathered here, with links to original requests: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/ [accessed 30/07/2021]. You can download a summary here of the various governments/authorities/countries where these FOI requests, already numbering more than 80, have all turned up the same answer [PDF, 5 pages].


At least two courts, one in Austria and one in Portugal, have found the PCR tests to be invalid for diagnosis.

The Austrian case found that as these tests are unsuitable for diagnosis, the actions by police and implemented lockdowns are unlawful. See: https://covidcalltohumanity.org/2021/05/03/austrian-court-pcr-test-not-suitable-for-diagnosis/ [published 03/05/2021, accessed 18/11/2021], or download a copy of the article here [PDF, 3 pages].

The Portuguese court ruled the tests unreliable and thus lockdowns unlawful. This was based on the fact that many countries run PCR tests at 35 cycles or higher, which has been found to lead to around 97% false positives. See: https://off-guardian.org/2020/11/20/portuguese-court-rules-pcr-tests-unreliable-quarantines-unlawful/ [published 20/11/2020, accessed 18/11/2021], or download a copy of the article here [PDF, 3 pages].


In August 2020, as more experts questioned the validity of PCR testing, the CDC withdrew the requirement for ‘asymptomatic’ people to undergo PCR tests. This was apparently not widely published, so testing continued.

An August 29th article in the New York Times by Apoorva Mandavilli noted how different labs ran PCR tests at different cycles, and also how the numbers of ‘positive’ cases varied significantly, depending on the number of cycles used:

Analysis of the tests processed by the Wadsworth Center shows that in July, the lab identified 794 positive tests using a threshold of 40 cycles. Using 35 as CT, positive results dropped by almost half, and about 70% of tests were no longer judged to be positive with a threshold of 30 cycles. A similar result was recorded in Massachusetts. 85-90% of people who tested positive in July using a CT of 40 were judged to be negative when CT was lowered to 30 cycles.

Imagine all those ‘positive’ cases forced to self-isolate for no good reason! See: https://covidcalltohumanity.org/2020/09/03/new-york-times-more-experts-questioning-rt-pcr-testing/ [published 03/09/2020, accessed 18/11/2021], or download a copy of the article here [PDF, 3 pages].


Also see: http://saveourknowing.org/cases-testing-fraud

Also see: http://saveourknowing.org/compendium-covid-info


Testing fence image by Queven from Pixabay

More Critical Reading