December 19, 2020 ~ By Levana Lomma
Scientists have known for some time that there are serious flaws when it comes to using the RT-PCR test to detect a virus. Questions around it’s accuracy since as far back as the AIDS epidemic prove that those in the know have been in the know since before this Plandemic began.
In 2007 a New York Times article titled, “Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t” detailed how a Whooping Cough “epidemic” turned out to be a “false alarm” due to faith in the “highly sensitive molecular test” being used to look for pertussis among healthcare workers that were falling ill. Further lab results revealed otherwise and Gina Kolata wrote, “it appears the health care workers probably were afflicted with ordinary respiratory diseases like the common cold.”
This is the same situation found today with the PCR test, which has been touted as the “Gold Standard” in which to detect SARS-CoV2, but simply cannot be considered reliable in determining the presence of any live virus because the process of amplification can result in any number of viral particles, dead or alive, producing a positive result not indicative of infection.
On December 14, 2020 the World Health Organization finally issued a notice revealing a “problem” with the RT-PCR test to be considered by health care workers. The notice reports:
WHO has received user feedback on an elevated risk for false SARS-CoV-2 results when testing specimens using RT-PCR reagents on open systems.
Leading to a call for healthcare workers to determine whether an adjustment in Cycle Threshold may be necessary:
to account for any background noise which may lead to a specimen with a high cycle threshold (Ct) value result being interpreted as a positive result.
This is exactly what has been said over and again by many experts, including Dr. Anthony Fauci himself: A Ct value above 35 cycles can result in a positive test from an amplification of particles that have absolutely nothing to do with SARS-CoV2.
The notice goes on to say…
[W]hen specimens return a high Ct value, it means that many cycles were required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain. Thus, the IFU will state how to interpret specimens at or near the limit for PCR positivity. In some cases, the IFU will state that the cut-off should be manually adjusted to ensure that specimens with high Ct values are not incorrectly assigned SARS-CoV-2 detected due to background noise.
This goes right along with what the inventor of the test himself had said as well: that the PCR test was not designed for and should not be used for diagnosis. Yet here we are, basing every economic policy and all regulations around returning to a “normal” life on the number of “confirmed” cases.
It is nothing less than criminal to have known all along the serious flaws in the PCR test and continue to use it to make life and death decisions that will have a lasting effect on us all.
The real question is: what will we do with this admission by the World Health Organization? Will there be a significant change in the course of this insanity train? Or will we just ignore this FACT just like the 1.4% Infection Fatality Rate and the WHO guidance that mask wearing should be reserved for those who are sick?
WHO is really calling the shots?
Somebody Had To Say It 