LONDON, England (ChurchMilitant.com) The world's most prestigious medical journal has finally admitted that polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests — used in most cases to detect COVID-19 — are "not the appropriate gold standard" for "public health measures."
The Lancet's long-overdue verdict and its call for "another approach" to testing for SARS-CoV-2 come months after distinguished virologists and epidemiologists repeatedly voiced concerns that the PCR tests were "fatally flawed."
"PCR seeks the genetic code of the virus from nose or throat swabs and amplifies it over 30–40 cycles, doubling each cycle, enabling even minuscule, potentially single, copies to be detected," the Lancet explains.
But this makes PCR "a powerful clinical test" only when a person is currently infected or has been recently infected with the COVID-19 virus, it concedes.
Most people infected with the virus are contagious for only four to eight days.
However, RNA fragments can "linger for weeks after infectious virus has been cleared, often in people without symptoms or known exposures," the paper observes.
Because of this, "50–75% of the time an individual is PCR positive, they are likely to be post-infectious," the Lancet's bombshell verdict declares. "The remaining RNA copies can take weeks, or occasionally months, to clear, during which time PCR remains positive."
Experts point out that PCR testing has, thus far, been foundational to the fear-and-hysteria narrative surrounding the so-called pandemic.
Moreover, PCR has been the proverbial "boy who cried wolf" for lockdowns and vaccination policies.
"The World Health Organization implored countries to 'test, test, test.' But what was the real motive for this? Arguably this is to serve a broader agenda, creating a biomedical surveillance system. Human beings should not be regarded as hazards," Dr. Niall McCrae, a mental health ethicist, told Church Militant.
PCR, on which incidence and mortality rates are calculated and damaging lockdown justified, is highly dubious in detecting COVID-19. Even its inventor, Kary Mullis, cautioned it is inappropriate for screening infectious disease. In the wrong hands, PCR can be used to find anything, simply by increasing the number of cycles for replicating genetic material.
Recently, British chief scientific advisor Patrick Vallance admitted that PCR detects past as well as present infection. As shown by Carl Heneghan at University of Oxford, positive results may derive from dead viral fragments that cannot replicate. If relying on PCR, a zero-COVID strategy (as declared by the New Zealand government) would be infinite.
Significantly, the Lancet paper advises health regulators to adopt rapid lateral flow antigen testing (LFT) as an alternative to PCR.
The British government has spent more than £1 billion on purchasing lateral flow tests, which is only a tiny fraction of implementing the testing regime.
The BMJ alleges the government could be pushing the rollout because hundreds of millions of Innova LFT kits were purchased before it was known how they would perform, and these kits are now shelved in warehouses around the country.
"In fact, neither of these tests is reliable: PCR is blighted by false positives, and lateral flow by false negatives," Dr. McCrae told Church Militant.
Eminent virologists who previously warned of the fatal flaws in PCR testing have been smeared as "conspiracy theorists" by establishment scientists and mainstream media.
"It is perfectly clear that the test result is error prone, as is every PCR," wrote top virologist, immunologist and epidemiologist Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi and biochemist Dr. Karina Reiss in their runaway bestseller Corona, False Alarm? Facts and Figures.
"Is it particularly surprising that goats and papayas tested positive for the virus in Tanzania?" asked Bhakdi and Reiss. "The criticism by the President of Tanzania regarding the unreliability of the test kits was, of course, immediately dismissed by the WHO."
Bhakdi and Reiss, who have had their videos removed from YouTube, warned of PCR testing as "a dangerous source of misinformation because numbers of new cases were derived from the 'background noise' of false-positive results."
"If we had not known about a new virus out there and had not checked individuals with PCR tests, the number of total deaths due to 'influenza-like illness' would not seem unusual this year," wrote John P.A. Ioannidis, professor of medicine, epidemiology and population health at Stanford University School of Medicine.
"At most, we might have casually noted that flu this season seems to be a bit worse than average. The media coverage would have been less than for an NBA game between the two most indifferent teams," the distinguished researcher remarked in a scathing debunking of COVID-19 tests.