A closer look at the pcr test... Part 3

Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR test, stated repeatedly that the PCR test should not be used as a diagnostic tool for the simple reason that it is “incapable of diagnosing disease”. Experts the world over have been questioning the validity of the PCR test for some time, and now the judicial system in Portugal is bringing the legality of the PCR test into question.
 
The Lisbon Court of Appeal in Portugal recently ruled that the PCR test is “unable to determine, beyond reasonable doubt, that a positive result corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus”. The judges quoted a study published in The Lancet, which stated that “any diagnostic test result should be interpreted in the context of the pre-test probability of disease. For COVID-19, the pre-test probability assessment includes symptoms, previous medical history of COVID-19 or presence of antibodies, any potential exposure to COVID-19, and likelihood of alternative diagnosis. When low pre-test probability exists, positive results should be interpreted with caution and a second specimen tested for confirmation.”
 
“Prolong viral RNA shedding, which is known to last for weeks after recovery, can be a potential reason for positive swab tests in those previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2. However, importantly, no data suggests that detection of low levels of viral RNA by RT-PCR equates with infectivity unless infectious virus particles have been confirmed with laboratory culture-based methods.” The judge in this particular court case concluded that the “problem is that this reliability is shown, in terms of scientific evidence, as being more than debatable”.
 
The World Health Organisation (WHO) have finally acknowledged what many have been saying, including the judge in this court case. “WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed. The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.”
 
“WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of the test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases. This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.”
 
“Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.”
 
Dr Joseph Mercola has been highlighting this point for a long time. “Medically speaking, a “case” refers to a sick person. It never ever referred to someone who had no symptoms of illness. Now all of a sudden, this well-established medical term, “case”, has been completely are arbitrarily redefined to mean someone who tested positive for the presence of viral RNA.”
 
Dr Mercola continues by saying that if “you’re asymptomatic, your odds of a positive PCR test being accurate is therefore virtually non-existent”. Another important distinction to make is that if someone tests positive for SARS-CoV-2 using the PCR test, this does not mean that this person has COVID-19. For the person to be diagnosed with COVID-19, they must exhibit the symptoms associated with the disease.
 
Global Research explains that in the “case of certain infections, particularly viral infections, we use RT-PCR technique to confirm a diagnostic hypothesis suggested by a clinical picture. We do not routinely perform RT-PCR on any patient who is overheated, coughing or has an inflammatory syndrome.”
 
“Positive RT-PRC cases = COVID-19 patients. This is the starting postulate, the premise of all official propaganda, which justifies all restrictive government measures: isolation, confinement, quarantine, mandatory masks, colour codes by country and travel bans, tracking, social distances in companies, stores and even, even more importantly, in schools.”
 
“This misuse of RT-PCR technique is used as a relentless and intentional strategy by some governments, supported by scientific safety councils and by the dominant media, to justify excessive measures such as the violation of a large number of constitutional rights, the destruction of the economy with the bankruptcy of entire active sectors of society, the degradation of living conditions for a large number of ordinary citizens, under the pretext of a pandemic based on a number of positive RT-PCR tests, and not on a real number of patients.”

---