More Reasons Not To Use PCR Tests To Detect Infection
PCR (polymerase chain reaction) is a laboratory technique used to purportedly detect specific genetic material in a sample. It is said to rely on short synthetic DNA strands called primers (and sometimes probes) that are designed to bind to a target sequence
When these primers bind, the reaction amplifies the target and produces a positive signal.
Governments and public health authorities worldwide use PCR tests to declare Covid cases, justify lockdowns, school closures, travel bans, mask mandates, and other restrictive policies.
But what if the exact primer molecule that triggered a positive result was never verified to be the correct intended sequence?
We would not be able to know with certainty that any positive PCR result was caused by the intended target sequence, because the exact primer (or probe) molecule responsible for triggering the signal was never individually verified as correct.
And this is exactly the case with commercial PCR testing today, calling into question the very foundation of the governments’ outbreak and pandemic response systems.
If they don’t really know how many cases there are, how do they know there’s a pandemic? And how can they justify lockdowns and mandates?
How Primers Are Made & Tested
Commercial primers and probes are manufactured through chemical synthesis and supplied as a white lyophilized powder purportedly containing trillions of short DNA chains.
Integrated DNA Technologies (IDT), a leading genomics company, confirms the manufacturing process is imperfect, so the powder is always a mixture. Even “high-purity” commercial products still contain errors.
A 2021 Clinical Chemistry publication confirms that chemical synthesis of primers/probes produces significant numbers of truncated and deleted molecules (deletion rates ranging from 0.2 to 11.7 percent).
But the problem runs deeper than simple impurities. Manufacturers have standard quality control tests—primarily ESI-MS (electrospray ionization mass spectrometry) and capillary electrophoresis.
But these tests only check the mass (weight) and length of the material. They do not verify that the actual sequence of any individual primer or probe molecule is correct. No routine manufacturing test isolates or sequences any single individual primer or probe chain.
There is currently no commercial process that verifies the exact base-by-base sequence of any specific molecule in the final powder.
The 2021 Clinical Chemistry paper confirms this:
“Traditional quality controls of oligonucleotide synthesis, such as mass spectrometry, have improved over time but are unable to resolve the actual oligonucleotide sequence.”
Moreover, laboratory technicians and “boots on the ground” workers who actually run the PCR tests do not verify the individual primer or probe molecules—they simply use the powder as supplied by the manufacturer.
That means we do not know, for any given PCR test, whether the primer or probe molecule that actually triggered a positive signal was the correct, intended sequence.
So how can we treat a positive PCR result as definitive proof that the intended target was even present in the sample?
The Critical Epistemic Gap
When a PCR test produces a positive signal, the test does not identify which individual primer or probe molecule initiated the amplification. The result is inferred from bulk reagent performance rather than verified at the molecule-by-molecule level.
A PCR positive is therefore not molecule-level proof that the intended target sequence was present. It cannot certify that a correct, full-length primer or probe bound the intended target, because the exact molecule responsible for the signal was never individually verified.
This creates a structural black-box limitation at the heart of the technology. Because the initiating primer or probe molecule cannot be confirmed as correct, the positive signal cannot be treated as absolute molecular proof of the intended genetic target.
This gap is inherent to current oligonucleotide manufacturing and quality control. It cannot be eliminated by no-template controls, probes, validation panels, or statistical performance data—all of which still rely on the same unverified reagents.
Policy Implications
Public health authorities and media routinely present PCR positives as definitive molecular confirmation of infection and contagiousness. PCR test results drive mainstream messaging around influenza, COVID-19, measles, monkeypox, ebola, and other purportedly infectious viral diseases.
Yet the underlying chemistry contains this unavoidable black-box uncertainty: the exact primer or probe molecule that triggered any given positive signal is never individually verified. PCR is a widely used technology, but its results must be understood within their actual limits.
Bottom Line
A positive PCR test indicates that amplification occurred, but it does not constitute definitive molecular proof of the intended target.
This limitation deserves far greater scrutiny, especially when PCR results have been used to drive major public policy decisions affecting billions of people.
Governments, media outlets, and public health authorities treat PCR positives as unquestionable molecular proof while building lockdowns, mandates, quarantines, travel restrictions, and pandemic narratives around a testing system whose triggering primer and probe molecules are never individually sequence-verified.
Meaning the entire outbreak-response infrastructure rests on an unresolvable molecular black box at the core of the technology itself.
Editor’s note: the inventor of the PCR test; Kary Mullis, publicly stated the test was never intended to detect infection of any kind. Shortly after this in 2019, he apparently died of ‘pneumonia’.
See more here substack.com
Bold emphasis added