I have heard people and local media comment that Covid 19 cases are dropping almost like someone flipped a switch. Wouldn't it be interesting if you could increase or decrease positivity rates at will? Particularly if you linked your lockdown and recovery plans to case positivity as many officials around the world have? I found the switch.

Below is a link to what I believe is the only peer review of

“Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR” also known as the Corman-Drosten paper which established PCR testing as the accepted method to detect Covid 19 infection.

https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/

There are a number of flaws identified in this review but I would like to focus on item number three which I have grabbed from the linked paper in different locations. The take away is that the number of PCR cycles is important and over a certain threshold is meaningless. Note that if you increase the cycle count high enough you will likely get a positive result, this is not indicated in the below directly.

"3. The number of amplification cycles (less than 35; preferably 25-30 cycles);

In case of virus detection, >35 cycles only detects signals which do not correlate with infectious virus as determined by isolation in cell culture [reviewed in 2]; if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%"

"Between 30 and 35 there is a grey area, where a positive test cannot be established with certainty. This area should be excluded. Of course, one could perform 45 PCR cycles, as recommended in the Corman-Drosten WHO-protocol (Figure 4), but then you also have to define a reasonable Ct-value (which should not exceed 30). But an analytical result with a Ct value of 45 is scientifically and diagnostically absolutely meaningless (a reasonable Ct-value should not exceed 30). All this should be communicated very clearly. It is a significant mistake that the Corman-Drosten paper does not mention the maximum Ct value at which a sample can be unambiguously considered as a positive or a negative test-result. This important cycle threshold limit is also not specified in any follow-up submissions to date."

There has recently been "debunked" revised guidance from the WHO about PCR test cycles. Below is a poorly written reuters article "debunking" the new guidance. One quote from the article below that mentions PCR cycles.

"PCR stands for Polymerase Chain Reaction, a process used to amplify DNA, and it is run a certain number of times to detect a virus. Mackay discusses the process in detail here, explaining that to detect an otherwise small amount of viral DNA, laboratory professionals run 40 to 50 cycles of PCR, which can vary by laboratory and testing kit."

Remember, >35 cycles is generally meaningless.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-who-instructions-pcr-guidan-idUSKBN2A429W

End part 1 of 3

>>13076340

Part 2 of 3

The US CDC doesn't adequately address cycle counts, but they do indicate there are two different test types which I find curious.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/faqs.html#Interpreting-Results-of-Diagnostic-Tests

"Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 is intended to identify current infection at the individual level and is performed when a person has signs or symptoms consistent with COVID-19, or when a person is asymptomatic but has recent known or suspected exposure to SARS-CoV-2.

Screening testing for SARS-CoV-2 is intended to identify infected persons who are asymptomatic and without known or suspected exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Screening testing is performed to identify persons who may be contagious so that measures can be taken to prevent further transmission."

There is alot of interesting information on that page including emergency waivers for testing labs to increase PCR testing capacity. Based on the waivers I refer you back to the testing issues detailed in: https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/

Also the CDC answers the question: "If a CT value can be affected by factors like specimen collection, how do I know if my RT-PCR test result is accurate?

In addition to detecting SARS-CoV-2 genetic material, each RT-PCR diagnostic test also detects a small portion of a patient’s genome. Detecting the patient’s genetic material in the specimen confirms the quality of the specimen and the processing steps of the test. If the patient’s genetic material is detected, then we can be reasonably sure that the viral genetic material was not degraded, and the test result is accurate."

My understanding is contamination in a PCR test can produce a false positive. The CDC is telling the lab to use contamination in the sample to determine accuracy. I am not a doctor but DNA contamination is mentioned in other sources I have provided as potential for a false positive.

End part 2 of 3

>>13076340

>>13076355

Part 3 of 3

The article below is worth a read due to the interview content contained within, particularly if the quotes from the PCR test inventor are accurate such as the quote about AIDS testing below.

"David, in his quiet Canadian way, dropped a bombshell in his next statement:

“I think if a country said, “You know, we need to end this epidemic,” They could quietly send around a memo saying: “We shouldn’t be having the cutoff at 37. If we put it at 32, the number of positive tests drops dramatically. If it’s still not enough, well, you know, 30 or 28 or something like that. So, you can control the sensitivity.”"

https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus/

There is much more out there relative to PCR cycles. Here is Fauci talking about PCR test cycle threshold and indicating 35 is probably the upper limit.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=A867t1JbIrs

The questions you should be asking yourself and state, local and national officials are:

Have there been any changes in PCR testing protocol? Test suppler? Testing labs?

How many PCR test cycles are considered a cut off for a positive result? Has that number been revised? Is the number used scientifically supported? Show me the data supporting this conclusion.

Has there been any change in positivity reporting related to PCR cycle counts?

PCR testing is not the correct tool for the job and it can be easily modified to increase or decrease positivity rates by changing cycle count. Once you understand this you have to ask the real question. Do asymptomatic cases actually exist or are they false positives based on a flawed testing methodology? You must consider, was the flaw deliberate?