Article from 2010 shows that Covid19 PCR test was discredited by Pro Vaxxer’s.

An article from 2010 actually written by PROVAXXXERS against Anti-Vaxxxers wrote a scathing rebuke of PCR test, essentially saying it’s WORTHLESS.

Professor Stephen Bustin, based at Queen Mary University London, was one of the research scientists who gave evidence
against Dr Wakefield in 2007, and about the quality of the science he used to prove his now-discredited theory about the MMR vaccine.

Wakefield, now struck off the medical register by the GMC, relied on a method called qPCR (quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction).

According to Bustin, tissue handling, assay design and data analysis vary widely between laboratories and experiments.
This frequently produces misleading results and the experiments cannot be reproduced. It leads to inappropriate
lab work, research that is not properly validated, and erroneous conclusions, the vast extent of which is widely disregarded.

The quality of qPCR protocols is appalling,” he said.

“In layman’s terms, carrying out a scientific experiment is like baking a cake – you follow a recipe. And if you don’t follow the recipe, you get a terrible cake.”

[link to (secure)]

April 14, 2020
The Infectious Myth – Stephen Bustin on Challenges with RT-PCR
[link to (secure)]

Dr. Stephen Bustin, a PCR expert, discusses PCR, essentially saying it is a USELESS metric to detect a ‘coronavirus’, because it’s IMPOSSIBLE to take a purified sample in the first place.

The enzyme polymerase will react with the RNA from the cell’s secondary structure, and ALSO the so-called ‘virion’, and the technicians are incapable of separating the two. Thus any two tests can and will show DIFFERENT results, with them incapable of telling which is the correct test result.

He then goes on to say that if you get HALF of the DNA out of the testing you’re LUCKY! It can’t even find the DNA they’re claiming to with these tests!

The CoronaVirus is a strand of RNA, but the test was never meant to test for RNA, its primary purpose is to test DNA, not individual RNA strands, and certainly not a secondary structure of antigens which are ancillary to the RNA.

The test can, and will show false positives depending on the sample used, and even the primer the test uses, even the room temperature can change the test results.

Here’s a lab manual and a detailed study proving what I’m saying:

[link to]

[link to (secure)]

Even the CDC and WHO admit they don’t know what they’re testing for, and the test doesn’t work:

[link to (secure)]

From “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel” [1]:

Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.”

From the World Health Organization (WHO): “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) technical guidance: Laboratory testing for 2019-nCoV in humans”[2]:

[link to (secure)]

“Several assays that detect the 2019-nCoV have been and are currently under development, both in-house and commercially. Some assays may detect only the novel virus [COVID] and some may also detect other strains (e.g. SARS-CoV) that are genetically similar.”

“Protocol use limitations: Optional clinical specimens for testing has [have] not yet been validated.”

They don’t know what sample to use!? Garbage in, garbage out.

[link to (secure)]


“…The SARS-CoV-2RNA [COVID virus] is generally detectable in respiratory specimens during the ACUTE phase of infection. Positive results are indicative of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA; clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine patient infection status…THE AGENT DETECTED MAY NOT BE THE DEFINITE CAUSE OF DISEASE (CAPS are mine).

Oh really?

[link to (secure)]

From a manufacturer of PCR test kit elements, Creative Diagnostics, “SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit” [4]:

“Regulatory status: For research use only, not for use in diagnostic procedures.”

Uh, so you’re not even supposed to use the test anyway?

Can show positive for:

“non-specific interference of Influenza A Virus (H1N1), Influenza B Virus (Yamagata), Respiratory Syncytial Virus (type B), Respiratory Adenovirus (type 3, type 7), Parainfluenza Virus (type 2), Mycoplasma Pneumoniae, Chlamydia Pneumoniae, etc.”

Translation: This test will show a false-positive for ANY virus, including the FLU. What is the test proving, then? Who knows? Flip a coin.

“Application Qualitative”

Translation: This means the test is not suited to detect how much virus is in the patient’s body.

These tests are a joke. They CANNOT prove someone is infected.