Search
Listen to Text Below

The Conscious Resistance Network presents: The PCR Deception

Researched, written, and narrated by Derrick Broze
Edited by Becca Godwin

Listen to video audio in the player above.

Also watch on Minds / Flote / Bitchute / Odysee / Hive

Script:

Reports are streaming in, declaring a Dark Winter for the world due to COVID19. The media rushes to tell the public that case numbers are on the rise again. In response, case numbers are used to support calls for lockdowns, travel and dining restrictions, and the push for compulsory vaccines. 

However, in recent months an abundance of evidence has shown that the “gold standard” procedure for detecting COVID-19 is unreliable and could be producing untold numbers of false positives. If this is the case, why are health officials around the world calling for more tests? 

This report is a brief look into the history of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) procedure and the evidence that PCR is unreliable and should not be used as a determinant for the number of COVID-19 cases or as a factor in political decisions. Please share with friends and family to keep them informed, and if someone shared this with you, please watch with an open mind.

In the months since the COVID-19 panic began health authorities around the world have encouraged the public to “get tested” to help track the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the strain of coronavirus that causes COVID19. However, as fear and hysteria subside, the scientific community and public at large are calling into question the efficacy of the test used to determine a patient’s status. 

The main test that is used to determine an individual status involves the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method. This incredibly sensitive technique was developed by Berkeley scientist Kary Mullis, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1993. The PCR method amplifies a small segment of DNA hundreds of times to make it easier to analyze. For COVID19, a process known as Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is used to detect SARS-CoV-2 by amplifying the virus’ genetic material so it can be detected by scientists.

PCR is sometimes described as a technique or process, but for simplicity we will refer to it as a test. PCR is viewed as the gold standard, however, it is not without problems. PCR amplifies a virus’s genetic material and then each sample goes through a number of cycles until a virus is recovered. This is known as the “cycle threshold” and has become a key component in the debate around the efficacy of the PCR test.

In late August 2020, I attended a press conference in Houston, Texas to ask Houston Health Authority Dr. David Persse about concerns about PCR. 

Dr. Persse says that when the labs report numbers of COVID-19 cases to the City of Houston they only offer a binary option of “yes” for positive or “no” for negative. “But, in reality, it comes in what is called cycle-thresholds. It’s an inverse relationship, so the higher the number the less virus there was in the initial sample,” Persse explained. “Some labs will report out to 40 cycle-thresholds, and if they get a positive at 40 – which means there is a tiny, tiny, tiny amount of virus there – that gets reported to us as positive and we don’t know any different.”

Persse noted that the key question is, at what value is someone considered still infectious?

“Because if you test me and I have a tiny amount of virus, does that mean I am contagious? that I am still infectious to someone else? If you are shedding a little bit of virus are you just starting? or are you on the downside?.”

He believes the answer is for the scientific community to set a national standard for cycle-threshold. Unfortunately, a national standard would not solve the problems expressed by Dr. Persse.

UK Parliament and Scientists Have Concerns About PCR Test

In the first weeks of September 2020 a number of important revelations regarding PCR came to light. First, new research from the University of Oxford’s Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and the University of the West of England found that the PCR test poses the potential for false positives when testing for COVID-19. Professor Carl Heneghan, one of the authors of the study said there was a risk that an increase in testing in the UK will lead to an increase in the risk of “sample contamination” and thus an increase in COVID-19 cases.

The team reviewed evidence from 25 studies where virus specimens had positive PCR tests. The researchers state that the “genetic photocopying” technique scientists use to magnify the sample of genetic material collected is so sensitive it could be picking up fragments of dead virus from previous infections. The researchers reach a similar conclusion as Dr. David Persse, specifically they state:

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

Heneghan, who is also the editor of BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, told the BBC that the binary approach is a problem and tests should have a cut-off point so small amounts of virus do not lead to a positive result. This is because of the cycle threshold mentioned by Dr. Persse. A person who is shedding an active virus and someone who has leftover infection could both receive the same positive test result. Heneghan also stated that the test could be detecting old virus which would explain the rise in cases in the UK and said setting a standard for the cycle threshold would eliminate the quarantining and contact tracing of people who are healthy and help the public better understand the true nature of COVID-19.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzZwV8qowYM

Shortly after Heneghan’s criticisms the UK’s leading health agency, Public Health England, released an update on the testing methods used to detect COVID-19 and appeared to agree with Professor Heneghan regarding the concerns on the cycle threshold. On September 9, 2020, PHE released an update which concluded, “all laboratories should determine the threshold for a positive result at the limit of detection.” 

This is not the first time Heneghan’s work has directly impacted the UK’s COVID-19 policies. In July 2020, UK health secretary Matt Hancock called for an “urgent review” of the daily COVID-19 death numbers produced by Public Health England after it was revealed the stats included people who died from other causes. The Guardian reported that Professor Heneghan and a fellow scientist released a paper showing that if someone dies after having tested positive for COVID-19, their death is recorded in the COVID-19 death statistics. A source in the Department of Health and Social Care told The Guadian, “You could have been tested positive in February, have no symptoms, then hit by a bus in July and you’d be recorded as a COVID death.’”

Heneghan also recently told the BMJ , “one issue in trying to interpret numbers of detected cases is that there is no set definition of a case. At the moment it seems that a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive result is the only criterion required for a case to be recognised.”

“In any other disease we would have a clearly defined specification that would usually involve signs, symptoms, and a test result. We are moving into a biotech world where the norms of clinical reasoning are going out of the window. A PCR test does not equal covid-19; it should not, but in some definitions it does.”

Heneghan says he is concerned that as soon as there is the appearance of an outbreak there is panic and over-reacting. “This is a huge problem because politicians are operating in a non-evidence-based way when it comes to non-drug interventions,” he stated.

Heneghan is correct that the scientific authorities ought to take false positives seriously, especially when a person can be sent to isolate or quarantine for weeks due to a positive test result. Even the U.S. FDA’s own fact sheet on testing acknowledges the dangers posed by false positives:

“ in the event of a false positive result, risks to patients could include the following: a recommendation for isolation of the patient…. unnecessary prescription of a treatment or therapy, or other unintended adverse effects.”

A CDC fact sheet also acknowledges the possibility of false positives with the PCR test.

Professor Heneghan believes the confusion around COVID-19 has come as a result of a shift away from “evidence-based medicine.” In a recent opinion piece published at The Spectator, Heneghan wrote that patients have become a “prisoner of a system labelling him or her as ‘positive’ when we are not sure what that label means.” He warns:

Governments are producing a series of contradictory and confusing policies which have a brief shelf life as the next crisis emerges. It is increasingly clear the evidence is often ignored. Keeping up to date is a full time occupation.

More evidence for the unreliability of PCR came on November 11, 2020, when the Lisbon Court of Appeal ruled that PCR ““in view of current scientific evidence, this test shows itself to be unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt that such positivity corresponds to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.” 

The decision relates to an appeal by the Regional Health Administration of the Azores,Portugal which forced four German citizens to comply with a 14 day quarantine in a hotel room. After the four citizens appealed the decision, the panel of judges concluded that “the number of cycles of such amplification results in a greater or lesser reliability of such tests. And the problem is that this reliability shows itself, in terms of scientific evidence (…) as more than debatable.”

The ruling was criticized by some scientists in Portugal and has been completely ignored by the United States media and politicians. 

On December 3, 2020, the Florida Department of Health announced a new update requiring all laboratories conducting COVID-19 tests to record new details for the PCR test. 

The update notes that all Florida “laboratories are subject to mandatory reporting to the Florida Department of Health (FDOH),” including for “PCR, other RNA, antigen and antibody results.” The update adds new requirements for the PCR test, asking labs to record the “cycle threshold” (CT) values for the process. The FDOH document states:

“Cycle threshold (CT) values and their reference ranges, as applicable, must be reported by laboratories to FDOH via electronic laboratory reporting or by fax immediately. 

On December 14, the World Health Organization (WHO) posted a notice on their website warning that PCR may not be entirely accurate for detecting SARS-CoV-2. The WHO memo admits that using too high of a cycle threshold will likely result in false positives. 

“Users of RT-PCR reagents should read the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is necessary to account for any background noise which may lead to a specimen with a high cycle threshold (Ct) value result being interpreted as a positive result.”

“The design principle of RT-PCR means that for patients with high levels of circulating virus (viral load), relatively few cycles will be needed to detect virus and so the Ct value will be low. Conversely, when specimens return a high Ct value, it means that many cycles were required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain.”

The fact that the Florida Department of Health and the WHO is taking this step is another sign that an increasing number of health professionals and regulators are questioning the accuracy of PCR. Unfortunately, both of these stories have been ignored by the mainstream media.

As noted earlier, this incredibly sensitive technique was developed by Berkeley scientist Kary Mullis, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1993. By the mid-90’s, Mullis had become skeptical that PCR was able to detect HIV and made several statements towards the end of his life indicating that he believed the technique was being improperly used by researchers.

(https://www.bitchute.com/video/7BEyMO5Un2Cc/ whole video)

As we approach 2021 the public is being told that a Dark Winter is waiting, with governments and media predicting a rise in cases and deaths. However, it’s important that we pause to acknowledge the many concerns surrounding the PCR test before international health authorities crash the economy, send millions into poverty, and threaten civil liberties. We must help the public understand the limitations of the PCR test and the dangers of resting public health policy on such a flawed process. 

Finally, we must also hold accountable those who continue to promote PCR and refuse to answer these questions or even acknowledge these concerns. We cannot ignore the disastrous results produced by policymakers who failed to heed warnings about PCR. 

Thank you for watching. Please share this video with your friends and family.

21 Responses

  2. Gen Agustsson

    You’re almost a true exposer like I am so great job on the truths man! Stop listening to people who lie to us or about us! We need more true exposers like ourselves!

    Reply
  3. SIMON

    MORE TESTS =MORE ILLEGAL DNA TESTING=THEY WANT ALL 8-9 BILLION DNA SAMPLES=IMAGINE IF HITLER,MOA & STALIN HAD EVERYONES DNA???????

    Reply
  7. Paul Cardin

    The problem arising now is that since we now have vaccines for Covid19 and the WHO is showing early signs of a change in policy on PCR testing, any resultant drop in what have become known as “cases” could easily be attributed to the effect of the vaccines, and here we go again, dealing with a new and different surge of false reporting via the usual dominant news channels.

    Is this a deliberate tactic on the part of the authorities, with the support of the complicit media?

    And if such a ruse is uncovered, the reputation of vaccines could be further corroded in the eyes of the public. Could this be the driving, Gates-esque eugenicist motivation in the long term? A globally low take-up of ALL vaccines with an accompanying rise in epi / pandemics everywhere and a threat to population numbers?

    Or would our increasing refusal to be vaccinated provide the justification they need to make vaccines compulsory everywhere?

    Reply
  9. Lorraine

    Derrick, The work you are doing is priceless and I can’t express how grateful I am for you and your work, words fail me . I’m alone for Christmas because my family wanted me to get a PCR test and I wouldn’t but I was not able to explain to them why I distrusted the test in such a way that they could hear or understand. . Then your video showed up validating my choice not to take the test.. even though I am not with I am fine knowing that I stood for my truth and knowing how much I love my family despite our different perceptions. Thank you for this powerful Christmas present. You are leaving a legend of amazing work behind you for all those willing to see behind the veils of continuous deception. Merry Christmas to you and to those you love!!! You are deeply deeply appreciated , more than you probably realize…

    Reply
  10. Ian

    Thanks for this Derrick, it’s really excellent, I will share it. What is the video embedded into the text that cannot be played? It says the account associated with the video has been terminated? Im just wondering if it may have been one of my videos, as I did quite a few videos on the PCR test, but my you tube account was deleted yesterday.

    Reply
  11. Maureen

    good for you for not taking the test. what is it going to take for this reality to take affect.

    Reply
  13. ConcAmDad

    Derrick, Awesome work! I was eager to watch it after the recommendation from LAV.
    Unfortunately, I could not make it through very long. The music is too distracting-overbearing. Can you consider a remix version without or at least way softer in the BG-it would be easier to share and hopefully get people to watch. Thanks again for the great work.

    Reply
  14. Steven DR

    Derrick, your still image in this video of Dr. Carl Heneghan with the quote:

    “One issue in trying to interpret numbers of detected cases is that there is no set definition of a case. At the moment it seems that a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive result is the only criterion required for a case to be recognised.”

    Infers he said those exact words.

    The quote actually belongs to Elisabeth Mahase @emahase_ 
    news reporter at the BMJ (British Medical Journal)

    and it is found here: Covid-19: the problems with case counting  https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/370/bmj.m3374.full.pdf

    This is a slight error on your part. You are one the best content creators out there. I will continue to subscribe and share as much as possible. Peace

    Reply
  15. David M Pelly

    No one has ever proven the existence of covid19. Not even the CDC.

    PCR is not a test. It is factory of what ever the operator wants to manufacture.

    Therefore all so called PCR tests are false. PCR testing is a hoax.

    All vaccines are toxic to some degree.

    The present vaccines for covid are extremely toxic.

    https://brandnewtube.com/watch/professor-dolores-cahill-why-people-will-start-dying-a-few-months-after-the-first-mrna-vaccination_Xzj51AfbKzU16xK.html

    This is not a pandemic. It is a plandemic, planned decades ago.

    The plan is to reduce the world population by at least 80% in the near future.

    There is lots of credible information online to support and prove the above.

    Reply
  16. Eric M.

    Hello Derrick,

    Valuable information here and I would like to thank you for that, however, would you be so kind to list the sources at the bottom of the page please, or be specific on the transcript itself with the name of the publication and the date it was published please? It would have greater credible depth when it is shared to others who are not awake yet and give them the opportunity to go and check for themselves. In a world of disinformation, it is very vital to have list of sources listed. Cheers!

    Reply
  17. Mac

    Thanks Derrick
    A very engaging video except for one problem. I couldn’t hear much of it bcause the editor decided not overwhelm you work with a very nasty sound track. A big no no is documentary editing. Would luv it if you would release a version without the nasty soundtrack. Your presentation is too important to be missed.
    Thanks!

    Reply
  18. David Malcolm Currie

    Thanks for the clear and concise summary of the PCR test, which is another psychological operation, along with operation “stupid-1984”. I would call it “CV-19”, except the “SARS-CoV-2” virus has not been proven to exist, so “CV-19” doesn’t exist either. People are getting sick, as usual, clearly those sicknesses are being called “CV-19”. So we have a useless test for a virus that doesn’t exist – no? Did you know every “hot spot” of the ‘pandemic’ last year happened just after 5G was turned-on in the same areas, including Wuhan and Northern Italy (Lombardy) at the beginning of this mass psyop, but then many other population centers followed that pattern. The so-called “Spanish Flu” pandemic of 1918-1920 was likely caused by the many vaccines forced on personal returning from WW-1, and population centers they were returning too. Fear porn was used to scare people into getting vaccinations (there were dozens), and people were forced to wear masks and social distance. Medical researchers back then couldn’t prove “Spanish Flu” was contagious, even injecting body fluids from a sick person into a well person! The many epidemics before and after the “Spanish Flu” GENOCIDE all followed the same pattern. People got sick from some environmental factor, usually toxins in the air, food, water, and soil, with unhealthy lifestyle habits making people sicker. Then the medical authorities used drugs and/or vaccines to make people sick. HIV/AIDS is another pandemic that fits the pattern: HIV doesn’t exist, and AIDS was begun by an experimental hepatitis vaccine given to gay men, later AIDS was caused by deceiving patients into thinking they were sick, by using the fake HIV test, thereby deceiving patients into taking AZT and other toxic drugs. AIDS is not even a sexually transmitted disease, although several other diseases are. The way we get sick, is from intimate contact, toxins in the air-food-water-soil-medicine, and/or unhealthy lifestyle habits, especially poor nutrition. “The Contagion Myth” is a little book that clearly explains how humanity is being deceived by medical “authorities”, and have been for centuries!

    Reply
  19. E. Grogan

    Derrick: I’m very glad you did this topic, although I haven’t listened to it yet just wanted to let you know something – my husband was a virologist/immunologist for many years, with 55 yrs virology research under his belt. He also worked in Public Health (the folks who are supposed to advise govt, M.D.’s etc. on how to manage a pandemic) for many years and worked with a Nobel prize-winning scientist on her research team at her invitation. He has known about PCR procedure for decades. The creator of PCR was Kerry Mullis who won a Nobel prize in 1993 for it. There is a video on You Tube (about 4 min long) with him talking and saying PCR was NEVER to be used as any kind of test for anything. It is a procedure to learn more about DNA sequences. It should NEVER be used as a test. Almost 3 yrs ago, soon as he heard that PCR was being used to test for covid he hit the ceiling and was very upset about this. I’m glad you’re getting the word out.

    Reply
  20. Helenwatcher

    Every two years the Only Watch auction is celebrated… But what is it exactly It is a biennial charity auction of unique timepieces created by the finest brands for research [b][url=https://www.watchesbiz.co/]Replica Watches[/url][/b] on Duchenne muscular dystrophy.
    [b][url=https://www.watchesbiz.co/rolex-replica-watches/]Replica Rolex[/url][/b] With more than 40 million Swiss Francs collected since 2005 and [b][url=https://www.watchesbiz.co/hublot-replica-watches/]Hublot Replica[/url][/b] around 50 brands represented, Only Watch is the hespremier international watchmaking charity event.[b][url=https://medium.com/@helenwatcher/the-best-dive-watches-99ad59ccbb8d
    ]Fake Watches[/url][/b] It takes place under the patronage of HSH The Prince of Monaco and at the initiative of Luc Pettavino

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

98 − 89 =