Warnings concerning high CT value of tests are months too late\u2026so why are they appearing now? The potential explanation is shockingly cynical…<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The World Health Organization released a guidance memo on December 14th, warning that high cycle thresholds on PCR tests will result in false positives<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While this information is accurate, it has also been available for months, so we must ask: why are they reporting it now? Is it to make it appear the vaccine works?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The \u201cgold standard\u201d Sars-Cov-2 tests are based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR). PCR works by taking nucleotides \u2013 tiny fragments of DNA or RNA \u2013 and replicating them until they become something large enough to identify. The replication is done in cycles, with each cycle doubling the amount of genetic material. The number of cycles it takes to produce something identifiable is known as the \u201ccycle threshold\u201d or \u201cCT value\u201d. The higher the CT value, the less likely you are to be detecting anything significant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This new WHO memo states that using a high CT value to test for the presence of Sars-Cov-2 will result in false-positive results.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n To quote their own words [our emphasis]:<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n They go on to explain [again, our emphasis]:<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Of course, none of this is news to anyone who has been paying attention. That PCR tests were easily manipulated and potentially highly inaccurate has been one of the oft-repeated battle cries of those of us opposing the \u201cpandemic\u201d narrative, and the policies it\u2019s being used to sell.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Many articles<\/a> have been written about it, by many experts in the field, medical journalists<\/a> and other researchers<\/a>. It\u2019s been commonly available knowledge, for months now, that any test using a CT value over 35 is potentially meaningless.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dr Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize for inventing the PCR process, was clear that it wasn\u2019t meant as a diagnostic tool<\/a>, saying:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n with PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n And, commenting on cycle thresholds, once said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n If you have to go more than 40 cycles to amplify a single-copy gene, there is something seriously wrong with your PCR.\u201d<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The MIQE guidelines for PCR use<\/a> state:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Cq values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and generally should not be reported,\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n This has all been public knowledge since the beginning of the lockdown. The Australian government\u2019s own website admitted the tests were flawed,<\/a> and a court in Portugal ruled they were not fit for purpose<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Even Dr Anthony Fauci has publicly admitted<\/a> that a cycle threshold over 35 is going to be detecting \u201cdead nucleotides\u201d, not a living virus.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite all this, it is known that many labs around the world have been using PCR tests with CT values over 35, even into the low 40s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So why has the WHO finally decided to say this is wrong? What reason could they have for finally choosing to recognise this simple reality?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The answer to that is potentially shockingly cynical: We have a vaccine now. We don\u2019t need false positives anymore.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Notionally, the system has produced its miracle cure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So, after everyone has been vaccinated, all the PCR tests being done will be done \u201cunder the new WHO guidelines\u201d<\/em>, and running only 25-30 cycles instead of 35+.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lo and behold, the number of \u201cpositive cases\u201d will plummet, and we\u2019ll have confirmation that our miracle vaccine works.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n After months of flooding the data pool with false positives, miscounting deaths \u201cby accident\u201d<\/a>, adding \u201cCovid19 related death\u201d to every other death certificate<\/a>\u2026they can stop. The create-a-pandemic machine<\/a> can be turned down to zero again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2026as long as we all do as we\u2019re told. Any signs of dissent \u2013 masses of people refusing the vaccine, for example \u2013 and the CT value can start to climb again, and they bring back their magical disease<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" by Tyler Durden – Saturday, Dec 19, 2020 – 16:30 Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org, Warnings concerning high CT value of tests are months too late\u2026so why are they appearing now? The potential explanation is shockingly cynical… The World Health Organization released a guidance memo on December 14th, warning that high cycle thresholds on PCR… Read More »WHO (Finally) Admits PCR Tests Create False Positives<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4699,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,34],"tags":[377,2074,2076,2075,587,378,379,11],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/unshackledminds.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/who-finally-admits.jpg?fit=500%2C225&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/unshackledminds.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4698"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/unshackledminds.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/unshackledminds.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/unshackledminds.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/unshackledminds.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4698"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/unshackledminds.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4698\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5033,"href":"https:\/\/unshackledminds.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4698\/revisions\/5033"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/unshackledminds.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4699"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/unshackledminds.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4698"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/unshackledminds.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4698"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/unshackledminds.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4698"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/unshackledminds.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/who-finally-admits.jpg?resize=578%2C260&ssl=1\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n