Nobody Knows What the Supposed “Covid-19 Test” Is Even Testing For

Food and Drug Administration: 'Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus'

Nailed them, with their own words.

In this article, I’ll present quotes from official sources about their own diagnostic test for the coronavirus. I’m talking about fatal flaws in the test.

Because case numbers are based on those tests (or no tests at all), the whole “pandemic effect” has been created out of fake science.

In a moment of truth, a propaganda pro might murmur to a colleague, “You know, we’ve got a great diagnostic test for the virus. The test turns out all sorts of results that say this person is diseased and that person is diseased. Millions of diseased people. But the test doesn’t really measure that. The test is ridiculous, but ridiculous in our favor. It builds the picture of a global pandemic. An excuse to lock down the planet and wreck economies and lives…”

The widespread test for the COVID-19 virus is called the PCR. I have written much about it in past articles.

Now let’s go to published official literature, and see what it reveals. Spoiler alert: the admitted holes and shortcomings of the test are devastating.

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

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

Translation: A positive test doesn’t guarantee that the COVID virus is causing infection at all. And, ahem, reading between the lines, maybe the COVID virus might not be in the patient’s body at all, either.

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

“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.”

Translation: Some PCR tests register positive for types of coronavirus that have nothing to do with COVID—including plain old coronas that cause nothing more than a cold.

The WHO document adds this little piece:

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

Translation: We’re not sure which tissue samples to take from the patient, in order for the test to have any validity.

From the FDA:


“…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). Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.”

Translation: On the one hand, we claim the test can “generally” detect the presence of the COVID virus in a patient. But we admit that “the agent detected” on the test, by which we mean COVID, “may not be the definite cause of disease.” We also admit that, unless the patient has an acute infection, we can’t find COVID. Therefore, the idea of “asymptomatic patients” confirmed by the test is nonsense. And even though a positive test for COVID may not indicate the actual cause of disease, all positive tests must be reported—and they will be counted as “COVID cases.” Regardless.

From a manufacturer of PCR test kit elements, Creative Diagnostics,

“SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit”:

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

Translation: Don’t use the test result alone to diagnose infection or disease. Oops.

“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: Although this company states the test can detect COVID, it also states the test can read FALSELY positive if the patient has one of a number of other irrelevant viruses in his body. What is the test proving, then? Who knows? Flip a coin.

“Application Qualitative”

Translation: This clearly means the test is not suited to detect how much virus is in the patient’s body. I’ll cover how important this admission is in a minute.

“The detection result of this product is only for clinical reference, and it should not be used as the only evidence for clinical diagnosis and treatment. The clinical management of patients should be considered in combination with their symptoms/signs, history, other laboratory tests and treatment responses. The detection results should not be directly used as the evidence for clinical diagnosis, and are only for the reference of clinicians.”

Translation: Don’t use the test as the exclusive basis for diagnosing a person with COVID. And yet, this is exactly what health authorities are doing all over the world. All positive tests must be reported to government agencies, and they are counted as COVID cases.”

Those quotes, from official government and testing sources, torpedo the whole “scientific” basis of the test.

And now, I’ll add another, lethal blow: the test has never been validated properly as an instrument to detect disease. Even assuming it can detect the presence of the COVID virus in a patient, it doesn’t show HOW MUCH virus is in the body. And that is key, because in order to even begin talking about actual illness in the real world, not in a lab, the patient would need to have millions and millions of the virus actively replicating in his body.

Proponents of the test assert that it CAN measure how much virus is in the body. To which I reply: prove it.

Prove it in a way it should have been proven decades ago—but never was.

Take five hundred people and remove tissue samples from them. The people who take the samples do NOT do the test. The testers will never know who the patients are and what condition they’re in.

The testers run their PCR on the tissue samples. In each case, they say which virus they found and HOW MUCH of it they found.

“All right, in patients 24, 46, 65, 76, 87, and 93 we found a great deal of virus.”

Now we un-blind those patients. They should all be sick, because they have so much virus replicating in their bodies. Are they sick? Are they running marathons? Let’s find out.

This OBVIOUS vetting of the test has never been done. That is an enormous scandal. Where are the controlled test results in 500 patients, a thousand patients? Nowhere.

The test is an unproven fraud.

And, therefore, the COVID pandemic, which is supposed to be based on that test, is also a fraud.

“But…but…what about all the sick and dying people…why are they sick?”

I’ve written thousands of words answering that question, in past articles. A NUMBER of conditions—none involving COVID, and most involving old traditional diseases—are making people sick.

Source: Jon Rappoport’s Blog

  1. ravenise says

    Who are you going to trust, the American FDA? I almost died from this virus, I know its a serious threat.

    1. itchyvet says

      What evidence were you supplied with, that you had contracted Corona Virus and not influenza ?????????

  2. Elene says

    This is an extremely uninformed article. Please listen to actual scientists.

    1. Stein says

      What about the given sources?

    2. SEAN THOMAS says

      I agree. There’s nothing more dangerous than someone who tries to analyze the evidence and think for themselves. It should be illegal.

      1. noscams says

        I just heard on the radio that Washington state “COVID fatalities”
        included victims who tested negative for the virus; amazing timing.

    3. Mayday says

      “actual scientists”carry out actual science…not merely repeating self justifying mantras.

      1. itchyvet says

        NO ! What scientist do these days, is punch in numbers to a compter, allow the computer to do the analyising, then come and tell us, “This is the result of our modeling”. IMHO, that is NOT science.

        1. SEAN THOMAS says

          They get paid to generate the results their employer wants.

          1. itchyvet says

            My belief as well, learnt from first hand experience.

        2. Mayday says

          We are on the same page

    4. noscams says

      It is, but people with no technical knowledge have no way to filter out the political scientists..Also, I know Jon Rappaport is biased against PCR in general because it’s a qualitative, not quantitative test, although qualitative analytical methods are used routinely in physical and life sciences.

      1. SEAN THOMAS says

        The creator of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, said it was worthless at diagnosing disease. He didn’t believe in the one virus=one disease theory.

        1. noscams says

          Of course it’s useless in diagnosing disease. It’s a DNA amplification test; useful in genetics, forensics, etc, to increase a small amount of DNA by hybridizing it to its complementary sequence of base pairs.
          PCR can prove the presence of virus. It can’t be used to correlate virus DNA with disease symptoms.

          PCR testing for COVID-19 is a propaganda tool that’s being used to confuse correlation with causation in the same way that temperature measurements have been used to blame normal climate on the combustion of fossil fuels for nearly 3 decades.

          A patient with a record-high COVID-19 titer determined by PCR will be a COVID-19 fatality if they die of a gunshot wound.

    5. mr b says

      what is an “actual scientist”?

  3. Charles Homer says

    As shown in this article, a recent study on the CDC website examines the effectiveness of social distancing and self-quarantining:

    These two methods are, however, very effective at destroying an economy and reducing our freedoms.

    1. ravenise says

      As I said from day one, what we need is a state instituted system to ensure national supply chains remain in tact. To have workers on standby to replace any critical essential worker that becomes infected by covid19; pay them handsomely, fly them anywhere in the country and provide them with free accommodations, people will be lining up knowing they are saving their country and can actually find a job. Hey, what can I say, its better than cutting your own jugular and total self destruction.

    2. ravenise says

      oink vaye money over lives, oink vay; i stayed in self quarantine, i almost died and im 36, not gonna spread that to others, ill die alone in isolation before i would infect others.

      1. itchyvet says

        So, you say you stayed in isolation, that means you were not treated by any Doctors ? Am I right ?

    3. Mayday says

      Thanks for the link.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.