48 Comments

There can be only one reason they aren't already telling everyone what Ct they were using for the tests.

Expand full comment

Go look at the EUA application for the swab pcr. There are no Covid-19 proteins in it. It specifically states in the March 2020 they had no sequences to put in the test. They have influenza A&B, Adeno virus, plant virus and strep. This has not been changed, superseded or anything. All pcr and RAT swab tests are based on this!

Expand full comment

Can we just stop testing, it doesn't achieve much other than fear

https://nakedemperor.substack.com/

Expand full comment

We need population studies to validate any specific use of these assays, whether it is to detect infection, contagiousness or any other thing. Before that it is established the assays are a research tool at best, currently a fraud, no matter how they are being reported. Let set the standard high, no more scams, no more corrupt business.

Expand full comment

Why can't we get these doctors to debate this topic?

Instead we have Dr mercola and Steve kirsch ( tech bro ) dismissing it by listening to a journalist explain isolation is real. Dumb asses who act just like the mass media, dismissing honest questions with bullshit

https://drsambailey.com/covid-19/why-nobody-can-find-a-virus/

Expand full comment

Whatever happened in FL? I thought they mandated disclosure of PCR cycles:

https://21stcenturywire.com/2020/12/11/florida-becomes-first-us-state-to-mandate-reporting-of-ct-values-for-pcr-tests/

Expand full comment

Atlas missed an important point--the pcr false negative is huge. This impacts asymptomatic transmission studies and vaccine trials. From Oct. 2020, referencing a Johns Hopkins study of false negative PCR test results:

"RT-PCR false negatives are related to the viral load and virus exposure time. A study has reported this issue in a literature review and pooled analysis,(5) showing that the probability of a false negative RT-PCR test on day 1 after infection is 100% and it decreased respectively to 67% on day 4, 20 % on day 8, and increased again to 66% on day 21 after infection."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7552113/

Expand full comment

The PCR fraud is the foundational flaw of Covid-19 and the worldwide public policy over reaction. All Covid hysteria is undercut by the fact that the tests are useless. Any time a paper uses the term lab confirmed via RT-PCR that paper is more than suspect. From March 15 2020, the FDA EUA RT-PCR removed 1 of the 3 genes from the assay panel. The original test was much more accurate but couldn't find many cases - as there weren't many. The CDC was rightly criticized for their dysfunctional distribution allocations and the original tests were recalled. The new tests were then created, apparently to reduce specificity by removing the N3 gene. Using </= 40 cycles + only 2 of 3 genes literally flipped the Plandemic "On".

" Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/μL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen." This is straight from the FDA EUA. This may or may not mean the virus doesn't exist but whether or not it exists is irrelevant. The tests DO NOT SPECIFICALLY TEST FOR A NOVEL VIRUS - NEVER HAVE.

Ever heard of a story of someone who skipped their test appointment only to be notified of being C19+? Urban legend? Or another explanation.

https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-covid-19-and-medical-devices/pooled-sample-testing-and-screening-testing-covid-19

Thats right, not only are we not testing for some unknown novel virus but the samples may be pooled together with many others. If one pops positive the others do as well, EVEN IF THEY GOT OUT OF LINE AND DIDNT GIVE A SAMPLE. I directly know 3 different cases of this. I was skeptical and was assured it happened and then I learned of the wonders of pooled samples.

Any PCR over 25 will be 80% false positives - even with accurate primers. Without accurate primers of testing for endemic gene sequences will be even higher, along with pooling samples.

There are hundreds if not thousands of lab protocols. I have personally screenshot one indicating </=43 cycles. PLUS. Only 1 gene needed and will be valid positive EVEN IF THE HUMAN CONTROL IS NEGATIVE.

The HIV crisis was "ended" by lowering CT count. Remember Magic Johnson - virtually undetectable (lowered CT count). So don't worry, they'll figure out the testing just in time for the midterms.

IMO exposing the PCR fraud is the only way out of this mess. And it offers among the strongest undeniable repudiations of Fraud Fauci when he stated in a July 2020 podcast . . .

"If you get [perform the test at] a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-confident [aka accurate] are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result] from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36".

IMO NO ASYMPTOMATIC PERSON SHOULD EVER BE TESTED. Testing should be reserved for part of clinician diagnosis and far more than 5% Sanger Sequencing - At least 25%.

Expand full comment

Proposing laws to get the reporting of COVID prevalence right kinda misses the point. The PCR testing regime was never about getting accurate prevalence. It was the foundation of a massive disinformation campaign.

Please educate those of us not in the field as to what Sanger testing is. A review for beginners would be much appreciated.

Expand full comment

"They should be required to confirm the PCR result 5% of all results in both the PCR+ and PCR- categories with Sanger sequencing."

I'm having trouble understanding this sentence. Do you maybe mean "IN 5% of all results..."?

Expand full comment

This is insane, talking about an imaginary virus/testing shows the level of hypnosis having been developed centuries ago by fraudsters inventing the contagion and germ theory. Wake up, the more you mask and comply, the more you validate the corruption.

Expand full comment

There is great usefulness in Dr. Atlas' presentation here but I agree with the last questioner in the video. I don't think any data anywhere at this point offers as much support for the injections that Dr. Atlas offers, even as he goes on to say the boosters will be needed monthly! Dr. Atlas delves into PCR around the 10 minute mark. Interestingly ALL remaining data throughout the speech is based on PCR +. Its all hysteria. Note at 11 minutes he presents the slide Replication Positivity vs Ct Value. 40 CYCLES IS OFF THE PAGE and percentage POSITIVITY ZEROS OUT AT 36. I will still be sharing this with vax nannies and my family.

Expand full comment

Dr. Kary Mullis invented the PCR test. What did he say about using it to diagnose disease?? Well, what he said should close the case on the 'false positive' narrative to find mega cases to push the 'fear porn' agenda of the WEF. Elephant in the room anyone???

Expand full comment

It is a sad commentary on our world, that we would need legislation in order to obtain data which should have been transparent in the first place. Seems a lost cause to me.

Expand full comment

Dr. James, thank you for your paper on this. I hope that doctors and labs have adopted the Sanger method. However, I do have one question for clarification...if you're referencing the initial Abbott PCR tests from 2020 which were widely used & continued to be used even after determining they were producing false positives, I thought that the CDC has issued a statement that they are no longer recommending these as of 1/1/22.

Expand full comment

Without standardization, any testing is just like playing the lottery for the tested person.

And even the cumulative results are just meaningless garbage.

OK, you can compare the meaningless garbage cumulative results of one country with those of another and might then find a pattern or anomaly, but in truth, even that would require the use of the same products, standards and criteria in those 2 countries, which simply isn't the case, not even with regard to US states.

As that and what you stated is basic and known information since June 2020 the latest and NOTHING changed since then, one must come to the conclusion that this is a deliberate fraud with a totally different real agenda.

Expand full comment