THE PCR TEST IS AN INVALID MEDICAL DIAGNOSTIC TOOL. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS. POST CONSTANTLY UPDATED WHILE NEW KNOWLEDGE ARISES.

We will keep this post constantly updated, while new scientific knowledge unfolds. We will describe scientific topics in as simple language as possible. Our goal is to help citizens understand the topics behind their rights and take legal action. See below for updates:

The most used test for decision making in matters of Covid-19 is the RT-PCR test (Polymerase Chain Reaction). Several legal and scientific instances are questioning the validity of the RT-PCR test. This test is behind questionable political, administrative, and legal decisions. This test has evident fallacies that can justify legal action. One of them lies in the difference between positivity and infectiousness.

Citizens are facing limitations of their freedom on the basis of this test. They are facing collateral damage to their business activities. The finances and mental health of entire families suffer for it.

Update   Wednesday, March 31, 2021 Lancet Article “SARS-CoV-2 shedding and infectivity” From the article:

“The immune system can neutralize viruses by lysing their envelope or aggregating virus particles; these processes prevent subsequent infection but do not eliminate nucleic acid, which degrades slowly over time.”

“Assessing potential infectivity is a labour-intensive process, but the presence of nucleic acid alone cannot be used to define viral shedding or infection potential”

The PCR-test detects the presence of the nucleic acid material only. This means that the PCR test cannot be used to define infectivity.

Dangerous cognitive dissonance is happening or being used as a manipulative tool: being positive to PCR-test does not mean that you are infective to others.

A proper evaluation of infectivity requires a broader medical evaluation. Only the PCR-test is not enough.

Link to article:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30868-0/fulltext

General Info About The Test

The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approved it for emergency use. See FDA link below this article. In plain English “emergency use” means that there is not enough sureness of the test’s validity. Therefore, emergency use approval.

Still the test is in use to justify actions limiting freedom. It is in use to justify limitations or closure of business activities. This caused and is causing huge collateral damage.

Difference between positivity and infectiousness.

Positivity and your infectiousness are not the same thing. The fact that a person is positive to the test does not mean the same as being able to infect another person. For this reason, decisions taken by authorities should follow infectiousness, not positivity.

Virus infectivity is the capacity of viruses to enter the host cell and exploit its resources to replicate and produce infectious viral particles.

Affecting the host cells is the precondition for defining infectivity!

The RT-PCR test detects the presence of the genetic material of the virus. It does not detect the degree of your infectiousness. The test detects the viral genetic material in “cycles”. The number of the cycles is called CT-value. The detection of the genetic material happens by detection of a fluorescent signal. This works by repeated cycles. Most RT-PCR tests use Ct cutoffs of 35-40 cycles. Any sample with a Ct value below the cutoff would be a positive. These even changes basing on the manufacturer!

The FDA emergency approval limits the test to reporting only positive/negative results. This is a big problem from the legal point of view. The CT cycles have an inverse correlation with the amount of virus material. The lower the value the higher the presence of the virus material.

“Positivity” has different meanings depending on the number of cycles needed to detect the amount of viral material in your case.

Most RT-PCR tests use Ct cutoffs of 35-40 cycles. At Ct value below the cutoff, you would hear this:

“Sir/Madame you are positive to the test. You need to enter quarantine” or “Sir/Madame you are positive to the test you need to shut off your business.” An entire residential area can face closure. You can get stuck in a foreign country while traveling.

We are talking here of serious interference with citizens’ legal and human rights.

This is a huge problem because:

1. The reliability of the test changes with the CT-value. Values below 24 – 20 tells that the virus genetic material is in the sample in greater quantities. Values above that begin to be unreliable even regarding the amount of material.

2. The results do not say anything on how you might infect other people. This is because:

The only reliable way for detecting virus infectivity is using cell cultures. The method is by using so called experimental cells (Vero cells).

In a study ninety positive samples were in incubation with experimental cells. Only twenty-six samples (28.9%) demonstrated viral growth. See link below.

Basing on this research all the others faced administrative decisions only based on being “positive” to the test.

In a word:

PCR-test permits the psychological manipulation of citizens (and governments as well)

This happens by cognitive dissonance.

“Sir/Madame you have the virus in your sample you are infectious to other people!”

For this reason:

1. If you tested positive ask in written and if necessary, by the help of a lawyer your laboratory CT value.

2. Ask in written explanations of how you were infectious as per medical evaluation! In the case you were without symptoms. In the case you were object of restrictions affecting your freedom. In the case it affected your business in a damaging way. The testing only is not enough.

The Team

https://www.fda.gov/health-professionals/closer-look-covid-19-diagnostic-testing

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/10/2663/5842165

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *