![\"\"](\"https:\/\/christiansfortruth.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/coronavirus-pcr-test.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nWhat follows are the highlights of an interview with David Crowe\u2013 a Canadian researcher, with degrees in biology and mathematics, host of\u00a0The Infectious Myth<\/em>\u00a0podcast, and President of the think-tank\u00a0Rethinking AIDS<\/em>\u00a0\u2014 in which he breaks down the problems with the PCR-based Corona test in great detail, revealing how the results involve\u00a0outright manipulation and trickery<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u201cThe first thing to know is that\u00a0the test is not binary<\/strong>,\u201d he said. \u201cIn fact,\u00a0I don\u2019t think there are any tests for infectious disease that are positive or negative<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n The next part of his explanation is lengthy and detailed, but let\u2019s push through:<\/p>\n \u201cWhat they do is they\u00a0take some kind of a continuum and they arbitrarily say this point is the difference between positive and negative.<\/strong>\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWow,\u201d I said. \u201cThat\u2019s so important. I think\u00a0people envision it as one of two things: Positive or negative, like a pregnancy test<\/strong>. You \u201chave it\u201d or you don\u2019t.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cPCR is really a manufacturing technique<\/strong>,\u201d Crowe explained. \u201cYou start with one molecule.\u00a0You start with a small amount of DNA and on each cycle the amount doubles<\/strong>, which doesn\u2019t sound like that much, but if you, if you double 30 times, you get approximately a billion times more material than you started with. So as a manufacturing technique, it\u2019s great. What they do is they attach a fluorescent molecule to the RNA as they produce it. You shine a light at one wavelength, and you get a response, you get light sent back at a different wavelength.\u00a0So, they measure the amount of light that comes back and that\u2019s their surrogate for how much DNA there is<\/strong>. I\u2019m using the word DNA. There\u2019s a step in RT- PCR test which is where you convert the RNA to DNA. So, the PCR test is actually not using the viral RNA. It\u2019s using DNA, but it\u2019s like the complimentary RNA. So logically it\u2019s the same thing, but it can be confusing. Like why am I suddenly talking about DNA? Basically, there\u2019s a certain number of cycles.\u201d<\/p>\n This is where it gets wild.<\/p>\n \u201cIn one paper<\/strong>,\u201d Crowe says, \u201cI found 37 cycles. If you didn\u2019t get enough fluorescence by 37 cycles, you are considered negative. In another, paper, the cutoff was 36. Thirty-seven to 40 were considered \u201cindeterminate.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0And if you got in that range, then you did more testing. I\u2019ve only seen two papers that described what the limit was.\u00a0So, it\u2019s quite possible that different hospitals, different States, Canada versus the US, Italy versus France are all using different cutoff sensitivity standards of the Covid test. So, if you cut off at 20, everybody would be negative. If you cut off a 50, you might have everybody positive.<\/strong>\u201d<\/p>\n \u2026David, in his quiet Canadian way, dropped a bombshell in his next statement:<\/p>\n \u201cI think if a country said, \u201cYou know, we need to end this epidemic<\/strong>,\u201d They could quietly send around a memo saying: \u201cWe shouldn\u2019t be having the cutoff at 37. If we put it at 32, the number of positive tests drops dramatically.\u00a0If it\u2019s still not enough, well, you know, 30 or 28 or something like that. So, you can control the sensitivity<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n Yes, you read that right.\u00a0Labs can manipulate how many \u201ccases\u2019 of Covid-19 their country has<\/strong>. Is this how the Chinese made their case load vanish all of a sudden?<\/p>\n \u201cAnother reason we know this is bogus<\/strong>,\u201d Crowe continued, \u201cis from a remarkable series of graphs published by some people from Singapore in JAMA. These graphs were published in the supplementary information, which is an indication that nobody\u2019s supposed to read them. And I think the authors probably just threw them in because they were interesting graphs, but they didn\u2019t realize what was in them. So, they were 18 graphs of 18 different people. And at this hospital in Singapore, they did daily coronavirus tests and they grasped the number of PCR cycles necessary to detect fluorescence. Or if they couldn\u2019t detect florescence by\u202637 cycles, they put a dot on the bottom of the graph, signifying a negative.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cSo, in this group of 18 people, the majority of people went from positive, which is normally read as \u201cinfected,\u201d to negative, which is normally read as \u201cuninfected\u201d back to positive\u2014infected again. So how do you interpret this?\u00a0How do you have a test if a test act is actually, you know, 100% positive for detecting infection, then the negative results must\u2019ve been wrong?<\/strong>\u00a0And so, one way to solve that is to move the point from 37 to say 36 or 38. You can move this, this cycle of numbers. It\u2019s an arbitrary division up or down. But there\u2019s no guarantee that if you did that, you wouldn\u2019t still have the same thing. It would just, instead of going from, from 36 to undetectable and back to 36 or back to 45, it might go from 33 to undetectable to 30 or something like that. Right? So, you can\u2019t solve the problem by changing this arbitrary binary division. And so basically\u00a0this says that the test is not detecting infection<\/strong>. Because if it was, like if you\u2019re infected, and then you\u2019re uninfected, and you\u2019re in a hospital with the best anti-infective precautions in the world, how did you get re-infected?\u00a0And if you cured the infection, why didn\u2019t you have antibodies to stop you getting re-infected?<\/strong>\u00a0So, there\u2019s no explanation within the mainstream that can explain these results. That\u2019s why I think they\u2019re so important.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201c\u2026There was a famous Chinese paper that estimated that if you\u2019re testing asymptomatic people, up to 80% of positives could be false positive<\/strong>.\u00a0That was kind of shocking, so shocking that PubMed had to withdraw the abstract<\/strong>\u00a0even though the Chinese paper appears to still be published and available. I actually have a translation with a friend. I translated it into English and it\u2019s a really, standard calculation of what they call positive predictive value. The abstract basically said that\u00a0in asymptomatic populations, the chance of a positive coronavirus test being a true positive is only about 20%. 80% will be false positive<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cDoesn\u2019t that mean the test means nothing?<\/strong>\u201d I asked.<\/p>\n \u201c\u2026Uh,\u00a0they couldn\u2019t do a real analysis of false positives in terms of determining whether a test is correct or not because that requires a gold standard and the only gold standard is purification of the virus<\/strong>. So, we get back to the fact that\u00a0the virus is not being purified<\/strong>. If you could purify the virus, then you could take a hundred people who tested positive and you could search for the virus in them. And if you found the virus in 50 out of a hundred and not in the other 50, you could say that the test is only accurate 50% of the time.\u00a0But we have no way to do that because we haven\u2019t yet purified the virus. And I don\u2019t think we ever will.<\/strong>\u201d<\/p>\n Dave Rasnick has had exchanges with David Crowe about this, and concurs, \u201cTo my knowledge, they have not yet purified this virus<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201c\u2026It\u2019s like fingerprints.\u00a0With PCR you\u2019re only looking at a small number of nucleotide. You\u2019re looking at a tiny segment of gene, like a fingerprint<\/strong>. When you have regular human fingerprints, they have to have points of confirmation. There are parts that are common to almost all fingerprints, and it\u2019s those generic parts in a Corona virus that the PCR test picks up.<\/p>\n They can have partial loops but if you only took a few little samples of fingerprints you are going to come up with a lot of segments of RNA that we are not sure have anything to do with corona virus. They will still show up in PCR. You can get down to the levels where its biologically irrelevant and then amplify it a trillion-fold.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe primers are what you know. We already know the strings of RNA for the Corona family, the regions that are stable. That\u2019s at one end. Then you look at the other end of the region, for all Corona viruses. The Chinese decided that there was a region in those stable areas that was unique to their Corona virus. You do PCR to see if that is true. If it is truly unique it would work. But they\u2019re using the SARS test because they don\u2019t really have one for the new virus.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cSARS isn\u2019t the virus that stopped the world,\u201d I offer.<\/p>\n \u201cThat\u2019s right.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cPCR for diagnosis is a big problem,\u201d he continues. \u201cWhen you have to amplify it these huge numbers of time, it\u2019s going to generate massive amounts of false positives. Again, I\u2019m skeptical that a PCR test is ever true.<\/strong>\u201d<\/p>\n \u201c\u2026I don\u2019t think they understand what they\u2019re doing,\u201d he said. \u201cI think it\u2019s out of control<\/strong>. They don\u2019t know how to end this. This is what I think what happened:\u00a0They have built a pandemic machine over many years<\/strong>\u00a0and, and as you know, there was a pandemic exercise not long before this whole thing started.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It is absolutely essential to understand that testing \u201cpositive\u201d for COVID-19 does NOT mean you have the virus.<\/p>\n This PCR test does not even conclusively test for COVID-19, but rather for a small sequence of genetic material that they presume, without confirmation, to be a \u201cfingerprint\u201d of COVID-19.<\/p>\n The COVID-19 virus has NEVER been isolated in a lab.\u00a0 Never.<\/p>\n Despite what the media may claim about the accuracy of the PCR test, it is not a \u2018gold standard\u2019.<\/p>\n Depending on the arbitrary level of this \u201cfingerprint\u201d they decide is the threshold for infection, they can claim nobody is infected or everybody is infected.<\/p>\n The PCR test was never meant to be a tool to diagnose disease for this reason.<\/p>\n 99% of people who \u201cdie of coronavirus\u201d have\u00a0life-threatening conditions to begin with<\/a>, and the vast majority are elderly.<\/p>\n And, of course,\u00a0Israel is now leading the charge<\/a>, claiming the \u201cSecond Wave™\u201d of corona pandemic has arrived \u2014 and at the same time the\u00a0Israeli Health Ministry<\/a>\u00a0is admitting that 98% of corona patients have pre-existing, life-threatening conditions.<\/p>\n Textbook double-think.<\/p>\n They will \u201csave the world\u201d \u2014 tikkun olam \u2014 as a role model for the rest of us \u2014 the media will demand that we follow Israel\u2019s lead.<\/p>\n