One of the most disputed aspects of the Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) test is the cycle threshold. In our previous article, we discussed how the PCR test works. In summary, the swab collects RNA from your nasal cavity and the back of your throat. This RNA is then reverse transcribed into DNA. The snippets of DNA are so small that they must be amplified to make them detectible. Each round of amplification is called a cycle. The number of amplification cycles is called the cycle threshold.
A study published in the European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Disease showed that at a cycle threshold of 17, 100% of the positive results were confirmed to be accurate. According this study, 17 cycles would be the ideal cycle threshold. However, when the test was run at 33 cycles, 20% of the positive results were confirmed to be accurate, meaning that 80% of the positive results were in fact false positives.
The Corman-Drosten Review Report shows that “if someone is tested positive by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.”
Dr Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in the U.S., stated that if “you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more… the chances of it being replication-confident are miniscule… You almost never can culture a virus from a 37 threshold cycle… (or) even 36”.
According to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), it is extremely unlikely that the PCR test will detect live viruses in samples that have gone through more than 33 cycles. Further research concluded that patients with positive PCR tests that had a cycle threshold above 33 were not contagious, and could safely be discharged from the hospital or home isolation.
Dr Joseph Mercola explains that “when you go above 30 cycles, insignificant sequences of viral DNA are magnified to the point where they produce a positive test result, even if your viral load is extremely low or the virus is inactive and poses no threat to you or anyone else”.
In addition to this, Dr Mercola explains that the “chances of getting a true positive on the first day of COVID-19 symptom onset is approximately 40%. Not until Day 3 from symptom onset do you have an 80% chance of getting an accurate PCR result. By Day 5 the accuracy shrinks considerably and by Day 8 the accuracy is nil. Now, these are symptomatic people. When you’re asymptomatic, your odds of a positive PCR test being accurate is therefore virtually non-existent.”
According to the Vaccine Reaction, numerous experts have stated that anything higher than 30 cycles should not be used. Changing the cycle threshold from 40 cycles to 35 cycles eliminated approximately 43% of the positive results. Furthermore, changing the cycle threshold from 40 cycles to 30 cycles eliminated roughly 63% of the positive results.
Dr Michael Mina, MD, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, stated that “in Massachusetts, from 85 to 90% of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles”.
Reiner Fuellmich, a founding member of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee, states that the “consensus is that anything over 35 cycles is scientifically indefensible… and would be considered unreliable and scientifically unjustified”.
The graph below shows the percentage of positive results for each cycle threshold.
In the U.S., the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) have recommended running the PCR test up to 40 cycles, whilst the World Health Organisation (WHO) previously recommended testing at 45 cycles.
However, according to Principia Scientific International, the World Health Organisation has finally admitted that the PCR test has a “problem”, and that they have received “feedback on an elevated risk of false SARS-CoV-2 results when testing specimens using RT-PCR reagents in open systems”. The authors continue by stating that the “crux of the “problem” is a wholly arbitrary cycling process which “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”.” As the inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, stated, the PCR test was “never designed to diagnose diseases”.
“Clear and conclusive scientific evidence proves that these tests are not accurate and create a statistically significant percentage of false positives. Positive results more likely indicate “ordinary respiratory diseases like the common cold”.”
If the inventor of the PCR test clearly stated that the test should not be used to diagnose infection, and the cycle threshold is set so high that the false positive rate is up to 97%, then one must ask… Why are we using the PCR test to detect for SARS-CoV-2 and to diagnose COVID-19? If we have a test that is quite clearly flawed, do we really have a pandemic? And if don’t have a pandemic, why have our governments enforced border closures, hotel quarantine, mask mandates, lockdowns, social distancing, and school and business closures that has ultimately led to the destruction of the economy and the loss of life?
Our articles and rebuttal pieces are written by our writers on our volunteer team