This article was originally published by Ethan Huff at Natural News.
Many people are still unaware of this, but the infamous PCR test for the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) is not an accurate tool for detecting the presence of this alleged “virus” inside people’s bodies. Not only that, but the presence of a virus does not equate to the presence of disease, despite what the government claims.
The Brownstone Institute put together an excellent paper about this subject that exposes the PCR testing scheme as a fraud.
Before the PCR test was invented in 1983, scientists had to wait for viruses to grow naturally in order to identify them. PCR technology changed all this by rapidly multiplying very small amounts of viral DNA in an exponential series of heating and cooling cycles.
The process is fully automated and only takes about an hour. The problem is that it can be tuned (i.e. misused) to pick up things that are not necessarily there.
“PCR revolutionised molecular biology but its most notable application was in genetic fingerprinting, where its ability to magnify even the smallest traces of DNA became a major weapon in the fight against crime,” the paper explains.
“But, like a powerful magnifying glass or zoom lens, if it’s powerful enough to find a needle in a haystack it’s powerful enough to make mountains out of molehills.”
PCR test inventor vehemently opposed to using it to diagnose diseases
Even Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR test and winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, recognized this. He went so far as to warn against using his PCR test to try to diagnose disease.
“PCR is a process that’s used to make a whole lot of something out of something,” Mullis stated. “It allows you to take a very miniscule amount of anything and make it measurable and then talk about it like it’s important.”
In other words, PCR tests should never have been used to try to diagnose people with “covid.” And yet this is what health authorities all around the world have been doing, deceiving and enslaving the public in the process.
It turns out that the PCR test can be calibrated to a cycle count so high that it will pick up pretty much anything and render someone “positive.” This is exactly what happened with covid, especially in areas with low rates of mask-wearing and vaccine-taking.
If the government wanted to make it seem like masks were working to “stop the spread,” then it would cycle down the PCR tests in areas of high compliance – and vice versa.
The other thing to keep in mind is that trace amounts of “covid,” assuming it even exists, would not be the same kind of threat as large amounts of covid. And yet the PCR test when applied in this manner sees no difference between small or large quantities of whatever it is that is being tested.
“Bacteria and viruses are different from other toxins, but the principle is the same,” Brownstone says. “Because they multiply and increase their dose with time, maximum permissible doses need to be based on the minimum dose likely to start an infection, known as the Minimum Infective Dose (MID).”
“PCR tests magnify the number of target DNA particles in a swab exponentially until they become visible. Like a powerful zoom lens, the greater the magnification needed to see something, the smaller it actually is.”
There is currently no standard measure of viral load in clinical samples. There is also no way to reproduce PCR test results because the nucleic acid target (the pathogen of interest), platform, and format all differ.