Part III - My Letter to Florida's Attorney General

The Abuse & Misuse of PCR as Official Policy

In Part II, we heard Dr. Marty Makary express his “disappointment” in the revelations made by Dr. Deborah Birx in her book, Silent Invasion. In this part of my letter to Attorney General Moody, I expound on the abuse of the PCR. If “asymptomatic spread” was the sine qua non for — as I call it — Dr. Birx’s ploy, then the misuse of PCR was the sine qua non for “asymptomatic spread”.

THE ABUSE OF PCR

Kary Mullis, the Nobel Prize winning inventor of the PCR, tells us his process is not a tool for diagnosis:

"PCR is just a process that's used to make a whole lotta somethin' outta somethin'. That’s what it is. It doesn't tell you that you're sick and it doesn't tell you that the thing you ended up with, really, was gonna hurt you or anything like that."[1] - Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry for inventing the tool that carries out the polymerase chain reaction process--PCR.     

Yet during “COVID”, we’re told PCR is the “gold standard” for doing just that.[2]

In the referenced video, Mr. Mullis also assures us that “you can’t really misuse PCR…” Oh, yes you can. You can if you purposely or through ignorance use it as something it is not – a diagnostic tool. You can if you use it to extrapolate from detection (PCR’s singular function) ➡”asymptomatic spread” ➡ pandemic ➡ global lockdown.

DETECTION, INFECTION, DISEASE, & CASES. ASYMPTOMATIC, PRE-SYMPTOMATIC, SYMPTOMATIC, & POST-SYMPTOMATIC

Even now, a quick Internet search will bring up dozens of articles on the PCR and its “gold standard” status for diagnosing infection. (Again, PCR does not diagnose anything.) Such a bold claim demands verification – or at a minimum a review of the process’s limitations.

1. The Cleveland Clinic:  From the Cleveland Clinic cited in Footnote 2, we learn we can be “positive” (PCR has detected the targeted genetic material) even without symptoms; in this case, we are said to have a SARS-CoV2 “infection”. If we get a positive PCR and we have symptoms – regardless of severity – we have coronavirus disease, a.k.a. “COVID-19”. Sick or not, in both cases, it’s a “case”.

The good news, according to the Clinic, is that “most people have mild illness” (so not “disease”?) and can recover safely at home without medical treatment. That’s good. You can also test positive after recovery from symptomatic illness in the distant past because of PCR’s sensitivity, but now…now you can’t spread SARS-CoV2. That’s good.

The “problem” comes with a “negative” test. How can that be? A negative result is not positive news? In its own words, the Clinic explains how negative isn’t necessarily good news:

“A negative test result means you probably didn't have an infection with SARS-CoV-2 at the time your specimen was collected. However, it's possible to have COVID-19 but not have the virus detected by the test. For example, this may happen if you recently became infected but you don’t have symptoms yet — or it could happen if you've had COVID-19 for more than a week before being tested. A negative test doesn’t mean you are safe for any length of time: You can be exposed to COVID-19 after your test, get infected and spread the SARS-Cov-2 virus to others.”

Is there anyone who can read the above and remain wall-eyed?

If PCR is the “gold standard” and as Kary Mullis tells us can find anything if done properly, how is it possible to be “infected” in the absence of the virus and symptoms? Is this a false negative? Either way, negative is bad.

According to the Cleveland Clinic, you can test positive, but not have “COVID” (“asymptomatic” or “post-symptomatic”). You can test negative and actually not have “COVID” – but you can also test negative and actually have it – you’re pre-symptomatic. Maybe. Based on the logic of the above, we’re all always something – pre-infected, pre-detected, post-infected. Symptomatic.  Asymptomatic, but always…always never “safe”. And neither is the whole world. Ever.

2. Center for Evidence-based Medicine, Oxford University:  Since it is admitted that a positive PCR could mean “asymptomatic” or “post-symptomatic”, determining whether the detected genetic material is actually infectious or virulent would be the next logical step.

This is standard practice for that other contagious respiratory infection – tuberculosis. A positive skin test requires follow-up tests such as sputum, physical exam, chest x-rays, etc. This is done to determine an active infection that can infect others (if susceptible) and needs treatment or a latent one, which cannot and does not. A case of TB or not a case of TB. Two steps.

In the case of “positive” PCR for “COVID”, neither the CDC nor the FDA sanctioned a second step to verify a positive PCR as an active, infectious infection -- whether through cell culture or any other means.

Aware of the limitations of PCR as a lone “diagnostic” tool, the Center for Evidence-based Medicine (CEBM) at Oxford University sought to review the data in those instances where second-step tests were done to confirm PCR results. Disputing the view that PCR is diagnostic and the “gold standard”, the authors state the following: 

“Identification of a whole virion (as opposed to fragments) and proof that the isolate is capable of replicating its progeny in culture cells is the closest we are likely to get to a gold standard [5]. RT-qPCR cannot distinguish between the shedding of live virus or of viral fragments with no infectious potential, and it cannot measure the quantity of live virus present in a person’s excreta. Although viral culture is difficult, time consuming, and requires specialized facilities, it potentially represents the best indicator of infection and infectious potential. We therefore set out to review those studies attempting viral culture, regardless of specimen type tested. We investigated the probability of successful culture with time from STT (symptom onset to test) and Ct (cycle threshold). We also examined the relationship between specimen Ct and infectious potential.”[3]

Their results, initially published in pre-print at medRxiv in August 2020, were accepted by Clinical Infectious Diseases for publication in December 2021. Acknowledging the limits of the lack of standardized testing methods, lack of standardized reporting methods, and lack of consistency in reporting Ct, the authors recommend “that a uniform international standard for reporting of comparative SARS-CoV-2 culture with index test studies be produced.”[4]

The authors conclude:

“Prospective routine testing of reference and culture specimens are necessary for each country involved in the pandemic to establish the usefulness and reliability of PCR for Covid-19 and its relation to patients’ factors. Infectivity is related to the date of onset of symptoms and cycle threshold level.

A binary Yes/No approach to the interpretation of RT-PCR un-validated against viral culture will result in false positives with possible segregation of large numbers of people who are no longer infectious and hence not a threat to public health.”[5]

Large numbers no longer infectious or never infectious in the first place. Given this, how does anyone know how many actual cases of a real, symptomatic respiratory infection people around the world actually experienced?

So, did we just not know this about PCR and the downside of mass testing of the “asymptomatic” or failing to do viral culture immediately following a positive PCR with symptoms? No. People knew. Lots of people.

3. PCR Made Them Do It:  In 2006 when a doctor at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in New Hampshire developed a non-stop cough persisting for several weeks, another doctor became concerned that the coughing doctor had pertussis (“whooping cough”). As other healthcare workers started coughing, the concerned doctor worried that the Center could be facing a whooping cough epidemic.[6]

The hospital, convinced by the coughing that it could be facing such an outbreak, PCR “tested” and furloughed nearly 1,000 healthcare workers for the three days it took to get all the results back. The tests showed that 142 workers, including the original coughing doctor, appeared to have the disease. In response, the hospital treated virtually its entire staff, dispensing thousands of antibiotics and vaccinating thousands of people.

For months, people at the hospital remained convinced they’d staved off an epidemic – until they all received a memo about eight months after the coughing doctor first started coughing. The memo clarified that

“Not a single case of whooping cough was confirmed with the definitive test, growing the bacterium, Bordetella pertussis, in the laboratory. (Bold/italics added.) Instead, it appears the health care workers probably were afflicted with ordinary respiratory diseases like the common cold.”[7]

So how did the “epidemic that wasn’t” happen? Why, “PCR led them astray.”[8] That’s right. Instead of testing the symptomatic – the coughers – with PCR followed by the definitive laboratory test if PCR “positive” and then treating as necessary – 1,445 workers ended up taking antibiotics they didn’t need and 4,524 healthcare workers (nearly ¾ of Dartmouth-Hitchcock’s staff) got vaccinated with a vaccine they did not need on the basis of PCR alone…and that’s PCR’s fault?

No…this abuse of PCR causes these “pseudo-epidemics {to} happen all the time.”[9]

In Part IV, my letter asks the question if this was just ignorance on Birx’s part, et.al. or outright incompetence.

---

[1]

[2] https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diagnostics/21462-covid-19-and-pcr-testing

[3] https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/73/11/e3884/6018217?login=false

[4] Ibid.

[5] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.04.20167932v4

[6] https://concernedamericandad.com/2021/09/12/the-epidemic-that-wasnt-following-the-same-playbook/

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid. Quote by Dr. Trish M. Perl, at the time an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins. Past president of the Society of Health Care Epidemiologists of America. Current professor at UT Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, TX