Was Declaring PCR Positives Using Single Genes The Rule And Not The Exception?
A friend of mine took a PCR test after arriving home from holiday abroad on 5th October 2021. At that time the government required a PCR test be undertaken upon returning and if you were positive you had to quarantine for 10 days.
This is his PCR test result from Randox Laboratories, using their PCR test, launched on 26 January 2020. He was found to be positive for the coronavirus.
You will notice that two genes were tested: the “ORF1ab-gene” and “E-gene”, and one of the genes was positive, with a CT value of 33.57. The E-gene result was undetermined.
Seven months before, in March 2021, we exposed that the UK lighthouse laboratories breached WHO EUA and violated manufacturer instructions for use because they were calling positives on single genes rather the ‘two from three’ genes’ required by the WHO. This was being done throughout winter 2020/21 in the UK clearly creating a ‘casedemic’. See here for details.
Not only did the Randox PCR only test for two genes but, as with the UK lighthouse laboratories, it declared a positive on one only, thus also breaching WHO guidelines. Either that or an indeterminate result on the other gene was judged to be equivalent to a positive (just to be safe?).
In their defence at least Randox were open enough to acknowledge in their test was useless (this statement remains on their website):
Out of curiosity my friend then dutifully self-monitored the progress of his ‘illness’, using LFTs, for 10 days from the 5th October to end of his self imposed quarantine on the 15th October. The LFT results were all negative as shown here:
Clearly, he was not infected with SARS-CoV-2.
What this proves is that single gene testing was common practice not only within the NHS lighthouse laboratories but also in private laboratories and this went on throughout 2020 and late into 2021.
Obviously one motive was to maintain the perception of a pandemic. My friend also suspects another motive was at play. At the time he was single-shot-vaccinated and had refused all other offers of the second and subsequent or booster vaccines. Hence, he was unvaccinated (or even ant-vaxx?) in official eyes. A quick check of his NHS record would reveal this status.
His suspicion is that his positive result and the application of a single gene test was intentionally set as a lower bar to ensure that the unvaccinated were more likely to be labelled as infected than those vaccinated. This covid positive status would then act as means to punish the unvaccinated (quarantine and loss of earnings etc) and would help boost the casedemic numbers.
Source: Substack
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Saeed Qureshi
| #
It is impossible to develop a test for something (like a virus) without its reference standard, i.e., a virus sample. As no virus sample is available, there cannot be valid tests, and by extension, there cannot be COVID-19. They fooled everyone with fake tests and fake science, aka medical “science,” which is not a science to start with but a fraud.
Reply
VOWG
| #
As usual you are correct Saeed. I wonder why people refuse to see the truth?
Reply
karlito
| #
also, at PCR 35 cycles 97% of positives are false positives… some countries used up to 50 cycles… https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/72/11/e921/5912603
Reply
Wisenox
| #
“because they were calling positives on single genes rather the ‘two from three’ genes’ required by the WHO”
Both standards are low. The rapid PCR tests are using Sanger Sequencing, which is analogous to fingerprinting.
The idea is that unique subsets of nucleotides are specific to an organism, so it is unnecessary to sequence the entire genome.
This, of course, is flawed in that it must assume a known superset that does not exist. For example, to assume a virus is the sole possessor of a subset is wrong in the event that all subsets remain unknown, which they do.
Although worded poorly, what I described is the reason that papayas test positive. They share enough of the nucleotides in the subset to account for a positive interpretation.
This means that Sanger sequencing can be easily flawed, incorrect or manipulated simply based on the choices of nucleotides tested for.
Additionally, a clinically significant number of nucleotides should match in order for precision and accuracy to be meaningful. The 1 to 3 nucleotide test base used for covid tests is far too weak to extract meaningful diagnostic information.
So, both the choice and number of nucleotides are important.
The number of cycles is a problem, because some nucleotides and peptides are fine in low amounts, but pathogenic in large amounts. Artificially multiplying the number of nucleotides and then claiming a person is sick from it is ludicrous.
Ig4 antibodies are fine in the body at low amounts, but are pathogenic in large amounts causing bulbous phemphigoid and other maladies. (We are likely to see an increase in these illnesses amongst Xolair users).
Lastly, PCR is not able to differentiate between source material. Meaning, it is incapable of differentiating whether a nucleotide comes from a fruit or a bacteria and therefore cannot tell you that you have a virus; it doesn’t know.
Reply