{"id":187427,"date":"2021-06-21T12:00:36","date_gmt":"2021-06-21T11:00:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=187427"},"modified":"2021-06-20T07:44:26","modified_gmt":"2021-06-20T06:44:26","slug":"the-failure-of-pcr-mass-testing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2021\/06\/the-failure-of-pcr-mass-testing\/","title":{"rendered":"The Failure of PCR Mass Testing"},"content":{"rendered":"

A new German study confirms and explains the failure of PCR mass testing.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/a>

PCR cycle threshold (11-37) and positive cell culture (black line, 100% to 0%). The colored bars indicate the number of positive cell cultures per ct per week after infection (1 to 3 weeks). (Jafaar\/Raoult)<\/p><\/div>\n

19 Jun 2021 – <\/em>Since March 2020, SPR has warned<\/a> that PCR mass testing in the general population (\u201ctest, test, test\u201d) is a huge mistake. The issue never was that PCR tests didn\u2019t work or that the Drosten PCR paper was \u201cpeer-reviewed\u201d in just one day. The issue is that PCR tests cannot determine<\/a> an acute infection, ongoing infectiousness, and actual disease, especially if ct values are not taken into account.<\/p>\n

Several studies have since shown that national PCR testing rates have had no influence at all<\/a> on covid mortality. In addition, a new German study re-analyzed PCR tests of 160,000 people and concluded:<\/p>\n

\u201cIn light of our findings that more than half of individuals with positive PCR test results are unlikely to have been infectious, RT-PCR test positivity should not be taken as an accurate measure of infectious SARS-CoV-2 incidence. Our results confirm the findings of others that the routine use of \u2018positive\u2019 RT-PCR test results as the gold standard for assessing and controlling infectiousness fails to reflect the fact \u2018that 50-75% of the time an individual is PCR positive, they are likely to be post-infectious.’\u201d (Stang et al, Journal of Infection<\/a>, May 2021)<\/p>\n

Why has mass PCR testing failed so badly? Most likely because of the role of pre-symptomatic transmission<\/a>: by the time someone gets a \u2018positive\u2019 test result, the infectious virus is already being neutralized, or in some cases is already long gone<\/a>. Hence PCR testing really only makes sense in targeted, preemptive high-risk settings, such as hospitals, nursing homes or early border controls, or possibly in Chinese-style preemptive, pooled mass testings<\/a> of entire 10-million-people cities.<\/p>\n

Overall, PCR mass testing has achieved essentially nothing but hundreds of billions in unnecessary costs and large-scale psychological trauma, especially in children. Nevertheless, with millions of deaths<\/a>, covid was not just a \u201ccasedemic\u201d or a \u201cfake pandemic\u201d (as the 2009 swine flu), but a PCR-driven \u201ccasedemic\u201d on top of<\/em> a real pandemic \u2013 or in other words: a \u201cstrange pandemic\u201d<\/a>.<\/p>\n

____________________________________________<\/p>\n

Related: The trouble with PCR tests<\/a> (October 2020)<\/em><\/p>\n

See also:<\/h4>\n