The Replacement for The Flawed PCR Test Has Arrived
The COVID era exposed a diagnostic failure that can no longer be ignored: PCR-based testing is not a true “gold standard” for clinical infection diagnosis
PCR is widely treated as definitive, but mechanistically it is not an identification method—it is an amplification step that simply makes more copies of genetic material.
The real weakness comes from what many systems use after amplification: probe-based fluorescence detection, which generates a “signal” without actually confirming what is present.
That is how medicine ends up with false positives, misclassification, and policy decisions built on unstable data.
In my interview with Dr. Roger Hodkinson—a highly respected pathologist and Chairman of MultiSeq—he explains why the PCR problem is structural: probe-based testing functions like a “lock-and-key,” where partial matches can still trigger a positive signal.
Even worse, infectious syndromes (cough/cold, diarrhea, suspected STI) are rarely caused by only one organism—yet most PCR workflows are narrow, slow, and often treated as confirmatory when they’re not.
In practice, clinicians are forced into an “educated guess” model because results frequently come back days later and only cover a limited scope.
MultiSeq is attempting to replace this entire model with something fundamentally different: sequence-confirmed diagnosis. Instead of relying on probe fluorescence to “suggest” identity, it uses modified Sanger sequencing to directly read the nucleotide sequence and confirm which pathogen is actually present.
Traditional Sanger sequencing is widely recognized as a gold-standard method because it produces a verifiable sequence output (an electropherogram), but historically it was too limited for real-world diagnostics because it could only handle one target per test.
MultiSeq’s central claim is that its approach enables multiplex Sanger sequencing—meaning it can generate confirmatory sequences for multiple pathogens from a single patient sample at the same time.
Dr. Hodkinson also highlights a major vulnerability in molecular testing: cross-contamination. Opening sample tubes can generate aerosols that contaminate other samples, driving additional false positives.
MultiSeq describes an internal “bar-code”–style approach designed to detect this kind of contamination, strengthening confidence that a reported pathogen truly came from that patient’s specimen.
The bottom line is simple: a flawed testing foundation produces flawed medicine and flawed policy. PCR has been misused as a confirmatory diagnostic standard.
If a sequencing-confirmation platform like MultiSeq can be validated and scaled for real clinical throughput, it could represent a substantial upgrade in infectious disease diagnostics and potentially help correct the damage caused by years of overreliance on non-confirmatory testing.
You can learn more here: https://multiseq.bio
You can contact Dr. Roger Hodkinson on his email here: ro***@******eq.ca
See more here thefocalpoints.com
Aaron
| #
Cool another bogus test looking for things that dont exist
Germ and virus are both theories, and are not facts or proof of anything
it’s all computer modeling, ie bs
Reply
very old white guy
| #
So there will be another useless tool that cannot find or prove anything.
Reply
Anapat
| #
Looks like PCR rebranded.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
“The real weakness comes from what many systems use after amplification: probe-based fluorescence detection, which generates a signal without actually confirming what is present.”
Using the same PCR method on multiple targets does not resolve this problem. It merely produces multiple signals instead of one. If a single signal does not confirm what is present, then several signals generated by the same principle do not suddenly establish identity. The quantity of signals cannot substitute for the validation of what is being measured.
More fundamentally, the development of such tests requires scientists trained in chemistry, particularly analytical chemistry. This is not a matter for biologists, virologists, or medical practitioners, including pathologists. Genes, RNA, and proteins are molecular entities, and their identification and validation fall squarely within chemical science.
The entire testing framework rests on a prior assumption that the virus exists as a defined physical entity. That assumption has not been scientifically proven through isolation, purification, and characterization. Without that foundation, no diagnostic test can be scientifically developed and validated.
From the standpoint of experimental science, this approach amounts to self-confirmation rather than measurement. Please refrain from presenting such claims as science.
Reply
Orlandobass
| #
Your comment re: genes, proteins, and RNA and should be researched by chemical science is well taken. I believe and have been excoriated for believing medical doctors are not scientists unless they are actively engaged in research using the scientific method. As you said, they are medical practitioners with a scientific background. As a layman I understood the PCR test was not and should not have been used as a final diagnostic tool. Even Kerry Mullis stated that and had some not-so-flattering remarks about Fauci using it as such. I had covid in 2020 and the PA who diagnosed me used an antigen test first and insisted I get the PCR test, which I flatly refused.
Reply
Francois Stallbom
| #
Yes, yes and yes!
Reply