"In light of our findings that more than half of individuals with positive PCR test results are unlikely to have been infectious, RT-PCR test positivity should not be taken as an accurate measure of infectious SARS-C0V-2 incidence.
Our results confirm the findings of others that the routine use of “positive” RT-PCR test results as the gold standard for assessing and controlling infectiousness fails to reflect the fact “that 50-75% of the time an individual is PCR positive, they are likely to be post-infectious.
Asymptomatic individuals with positive RT-PCR test results have higher Ct values and a lower probability of being infectious than symptomatic individuals with positive results.
Although Ct values have been shown to be inversely associated with viral load and infectivity, there is no international standardization across laboratories, rendering problematic the interpretation of RT-PCR tests when used as a tool for mass screening.
This point has been made many times over the last 15 months.
A plethora of scientific publications and scientists all over the globe have been echoing this since the beginning of the pandemic, and I’ve written about it many times since March 2020.
Basically, PCR tests are not designed to detect and identify active infectious diseases.
Instead, it identifies genetic material, be it partial, alive, or even dead.
PCR amplifies this material in samples to find traces of COVID-19.
If the sample taken from a nasal swab contains a large amount of COVID virus it will be read positive after only a few cycles of amplification,
while a smaller sample with small amounts of genetic material will require more cycles to amplify enough of the genetic material to get a positive result.
Since the PCR test amplifies traces of COVID-19 through cycles, a lower number of cycles needed to get a positive result suggests the presence of a higher viral load for the person being tested and therefore a higher contagion potential.
This can be interpreted as, if someone tests positive via PCR when a Ct of 35 or higher is used,
the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.
In this case, false positive means a person is not infectious or capable of transmitting the virus to others.
High cycle thresholds have been used throughout this pandemic.
Manitoba Canada, for example, has confirmed that it utilizes Ct’s of up to 40, and even 45 in some cases.
Dr. Jared Bullard, a paediatric infectious disease specialist, is a witness for the Manitoba government who is being sued for the measures they’ve taken to combat COVID.
He has provided testimony regarding the unreliability of PCR testing.
Pages and pages could be filled with examples, but in favour of a short read I’ll leave it with the examples pointed out above.
When it comes to PCR testing, the concerns and issues with regards to its mass use for identifying “cases” has been a big problem throughout this pandemic,
with many experts in the field urging governments to simply focus on sick people.
Further, mainstream media and government scientists, who seem to receive all of T.V. time, have not touched upon this issue at all.
Why?
Furthermore, if we couple this information with the fact that asymptomatic spread outdoors, and even indoors, is quite low, something becomes very clear:
If we stopped testing people who aren’t sick or symptomatic, there wouldn’t be a “pandemic per say” and the number of “cases” would be dramatically lower.
You could even go as far as saying that that there would be no justification for lock downs or a justification for the mass vaccination of the population without these “positive” cases.
This entire pandemic and the measures that have been put in place by governments to combat it have all been based on “positive cases.”
Something to think about."
