RT PCR Test - DNA Test Becomes A Manipulation Instrument - Samuel Eckert

1/16/24, 3:21 PM RT PCR test: DNA test becomes a manipulation instrument - Samuel Eckert
HOME ARTICLE VIDEOS/UNCENSORED LIVE STREAMS ISOLATE TRUTH FUND ABOUT ME
Home  Corona facts
PCR: A DNA test becomes a

manipulation tool
 June 28, 2020 1:59 p.m  2020
Original from CoronaFakten – Raphael H.

After we showed in our previous article that the (RT) PCR test is not validated (see The PCR test is not
validated ), we will give the PCR test its last breath in this article. We show that the PCR test, even if it were
validated, is not able to detect a virus. The PCR test is one of several pillars that all collapse like a house of
cards when you take a closer look. Another finding is the fact that Koch's postulates on SARS-CoV-2 have not
been adhered to in any scientific publication to date (the gold standard for detecting a pathogen), which alone
means there is no evidence of a pandemic. Nevertheless, I would like to explain to you in more detail why this
PCR test is nothing more than a manipulation tool, because at this point we can nip this plandemic ( Telegram
Post ) in the bud.
Let's start breaking the magic, enjoy the show.
The PCR test is not binary!

An important piece of information is that the PCR test is not a binary test, it is not comparable to a pregnancy
test that tells you whether you are pregnant or not. So it doesn't provide a clear yes/no result! What they do is
they take some sort of continuum and arbitrarily say that point is the difference between positive and
negative.
PCR is a manufacturing technique!

The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) replicates a DNA section contained in a sample, i.e. part of the DNA
sequence. Since the SARS-CoV-2 virus has no DNA - it is a so-called RNA virus - the RNA is converted into
DNA via an upstream step (reverse transcription/RT). The SARS-CoV-2 test is therefore an RT PCR test. You
start with a molecule. You start with a small amount of DNA, and with each cycle the amount doubles, which
doesn't sound like much, but if you double 30 times already, you end up with about a billion times more
material than you started with. So as a manufacturing technique it's great. What they do is they attach a
https://samueleckert.net/pcr-ein-dna-test-wird-zum-manipulations-instrument/ 1/21
fluorescent molecule to the RNA as they make it. They emit a light with one wavelength and you get a
response, you get light sent back with a different wavelength. So they measure the amount of light that comes
back, and that's their surrogate for how much DNA there is.
To use PCR as a test, assume you start with an unknown number of strands and end with an exponential
multiple after n cycles. The initial quantity can be estimated from the material quantity during scheduling. A
major problem here is that since PCR is an exponential (doubling) process, the errors also grow exponentially.
In short, starting from one strand of DNA, the strand is cleaved (divided into two parts) and then
complementary strands can grow, the same process that occurs in a cell during mitosis (cell division).
The cycles set determine a positive or negative result

Unfortunately, there is no calibration with the PCR test , not only are there different PCR tests that are set to
different sequence sections of the claimed SARS-CoV-2, but every laboratory also has an arbitrary cut-off
(threshold value). can set. And this is where things get wild!
“In one paper I found 37 cycles as a cut-off”: Young BE et al. Epidemiologic Features and Clinical Course of
Patients Infected With SARS-CoV-2 in Singapore. JAMA. 2020 Mar 3 . If you did not get enough fluorescence
at 37 cycles, you are considered negative. If the fluorescence was achieved within 37 cycles, this is
considered positive.
In another paper the cut-off was 36 cycles. 37 to 40 were considered “undetermined.” This means that if
enough fluorescence, so to speak enough material, was doubled within 36 cycles, one was considered
positive, while if over 40 cycles one was considered negative. If “undetermined,” further testing was done. Li
Q. Early Transmission Dynamics in Wuhan, China, of Novel Coronavirus-Infected Pneumonia. N Engl J Med.
2020 Jan 29 .
So it's entirely possible that different hospitals, different states, Canada vs. the US, Italy vs. France, all use
different Covid test cutoff sensitivity standards. So if you cut off at 20 cycles, they would all be negative. If you
score at 50, maybe all are positive. With 36 cycles you already have a doubling of the material to almost 70
billion.
Excerpt from an interview with David Crowe :
"I think if a country said, 'You know, we have to end this epidemic,' they could quietly send around a memo
saying, 'We shouldn't set the cut-off at 37 cycles if we set it at.' Set 32, the number of positive tests drops
dramatically. If that's still not enough, you could set this to 30 or 28 cycles or something like that. This way you
can control the sensitivity.”
Yes, you read that correctly. Labs can manipulate how many “cases” of Covid-19 their country has. Is this
how the Chinese suddenly made their caseload disappear?
Note: Outside Wuhan, only 122 people in the whole of China died with a positive PCR test or no test at all, but -
even more inaccurately - a lung CT, which was used as a surrogate. This is as crazy as it is unbelievable.
So you see, with a PCR test, a government can conjure up anything and end it from one day to the next.
Inventor Kary B. Mullis' trust in the PCR test to use it as virus detection was questioned from the very
beginning of its invention; he even described this practice as an "oxymoron", i.e. a contradiction in terms (see
below ).
Patients jumped from a positive result to a negative result and vice versa
Another reason we know this is fake is a remarkable series of graphics published in JAMA by some people in
Singapore . These diagrams were published in the supporting information, indicating that no one should read
them. EFigure 3A page 6 .
So there were 18 diagrams from 18 different people. And in this hospital in Singapore, they were doing daily
coronavirus testing, and they were recording the number of PCR cycles it took to detect the fluorescence. Or if
they couldn't detect the fluorescence after…37 cycles, they put a dot at the bottom of the graph, which was
considered a negative result. So in this group of 18 people, the majority of people went from positive, which is
usually read as "infected," to negative, which is usually read as "not infected," and back to positive-infected
again. So how do you interpret this? No matter what you do, even if you set the cut-off to a different number of
cycles, that would be an arbitrary division up or down. But there is no guarantee that if you did that you
wouldn't still have the same problem. So you can't solve the problem by changing this arbitrary binary
classification. So basically this says that the test cannot detect infection. Because if this PCR test could do
this, how can it be possible that within a hospital with the best anti-infection measures in the world, patients
can be tested from positive to negative and so on from one day to the next?
The amount of RNA does not correlate with the disease!

Look again at the graph of the 18 patients. Theoretically, the PCR cycle number at which DNA is detectable
tells us the relative amount of RNA. No matter what initial amount was necessary to be considered detected
at the 20th cycle, at the 21st cycle there would be a cyclic doubling and sensitivity, and at 30 cycles there
would be a 1000-fold increase. One could therefore expect that more alleged “virus” debris will be detected in
test subjects who are ill and that a smaller number of replication cycles will therefore be necessary in their
PCR test.
This is the reason why the authors separated the first six charts from the remaining twelve. The first six were
the people sick enough to need oxygen. However, you can clearly see from the graph that the six sicker people
did not have significantly higher amounts of RNA.
An important video that we recommend (for further information) is
Viaveto – Corona – An epidemic of mass hysteria
One of the best scientific summaries of the whole Corona panic can be found at David Crowe – Flaws in
Coronavirus Pandemic Theory (this document is continually being expanded).
The PCR test does not look for a complete genome (genetic material of a living being or a
virus)
Each manufacturer of a PCR test decides at its own discretion which RNA sections (parts of the genome) they
want to test for that are most specific for them. In principle, RT-PCR can detect two different gene sequences
(“targets”) for SARS-CoV-2 and achieves specificities of close to 100% when both sequences are detected in
one sample. The test by the Berlin Charité – Christian Dorsten only detects partial areas of the claimed
pathogenic virus “ 2 (two) genes from the genome of a total of 10 (ten) genes of the corona virus ”. So we
have several massive problems here:
1. We only have one mentally constructed genetic strand of a virus made up of short gene sequences!
2. There is no scientific publication in which Koch's postulates were adhered to. The Chinese studies even
admit this, as an example A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019 , where it literally
says under the “Discussion” section: “ Although our study does not fulfill Koch's postulates ”.
3. The PCR does not search for the entire genome, but only for 2 out of 10 genes.
4. These sections also occur in other claimed “cold viruses.” It was Drosten himself who said in his podcast
that his test also worked on RNA sequences (corona) from cattle and bats. Drosten also said that his test
gives false results (false positives) when another coronavirus (cold virus) RNA sequence is present in humans
(vaccinations).
5. Inaccuracies in specificity lead to massive false-positive results. Currently with the latest RKI data there are
85% false positive results. Samuel Eckert has provided a fantastic analysis including an Excel list that
includes the infection rate. Also Dr. med. Steffen Rabe has presented an analysis of the calculation and also
provided a calculator ( download ).
6. Simply put, imagine the following example: You want to prove that a car is in the garage, so you look for a
feature that is specific to you, the exterior mirror. If you find this exterior mirror, it will be considered proof of
the existence of the entire car. Since this is already more than inaccurate, the question arises as to what this
has to do with infectivity. Just because you found an outside mirror, you claim that the car is there and there is
still fuel in the tank to drive! A good video that illustrates this can be found here: Corona RNA injection is not a
vaccination | Dr. med. Simon Feldhaus | Natural MEDICINE | QS24 May 8, 2020
7. Another example: What are the benefits of “2 (two) genes from the genome of a total of 10 (ten) genes of the
corona virus” ? Imagine you have 20 screws (RNA sections) for a cabinet (Ikea). The entire cabinet has 100
screws. The same 20 screws (RNA sections) are also found in a cabinet from a Höffner furniture store, as well
as in other cabinets. But you've never built the cabinet (virus isolated/pure culture), so you've never seen it in
reality. It has been put together mentally (genetic strand made up of short gene sequences). As in God's
name, the "supposed" finding of the 20 screws is now saying that the closet (complete genome) can also be
found in the same location of the screws (RNA sections). Infectivity is not even taken into account.
The WHO enabled even more imprecise testing to get more positive tests
However, in a publication dated March 19, 2020, the WHO ruled for regions affected by the pandemic that the
detection of just one of the targets is sufficient to find the sample “positive”:
“In areas where COVID-19 virus is widely spread a simpler algorithm might be adopted in which, for example,
screening by rRT-PCR of a single discriminatory target is considered sufficient.” ( WHO March 19, 2020 )
Due to the lack of double determination, this naturally results in a significantly lower specificity and thus a
significantly higher rate of false-positive findings. This generous offer from the WHO was of course accepted
by numerous laboratories (less regulations means lower costs), and the MVZ Augsburg reported it in its blog
entry on April 3rd. even an article in an Austrian newspaper ( Wochenblick May 17, 2020 ) (the entry has now
been deleted on the laboratory's blog, but was definitely still there on May 18 ). It is not known how many
laboratories issue positive results for the detection of a target, how many determine both targets in advance
and how many at least positive tests with one target then check with the other (re-testing as described in the
NZZ article below) - Through this double determination or re-testing, the specificity is now obviously
significantly increased beyond 99.3%. At what value? RKI, PEI & Co are silent here...
A (RT) PCR test cannot say anything about the viral load
March 22, 2022: Lothar Hirneise : Question about the PCR test
“Can someone explain to me why you need a PCR test to detect Corona? PCR tests multiply the virus BEFORE
testing. According to virologists like Drosten, the virus has to multiply millions of times before symptoms
appear. Then you no longer need a PCR test, but can detect it directly in the blood! Weird, is not it?"
This sums it up quite well. After everything we have just learned, we know that neither an entire alleged virus
(genome/genetic strand) is detected, nor whether this RNA section that is being searched for can say
anything about infectivity.
I would like to refer to the origins of PCR and recommend the following article: Christine Johnson – From
Continuum Vol. 4, No. 4, Nov/Dec. 1996, pp. 32 – 37 (English). A German translation can be found here .
Kary B. Mullis - The inventor of PCR says you can't detect a virus with it
The PCR test cannot detect a virus, this was confirmed by the inventor Kary B. Mullis himself , he even
described this practice as an “oxymoron”, i.e. a contradiction in terms). To demand scientific proof, he even
met with Prof. Luc Montagnier, the person who, according to the official narrative, is said to have discovered
the HIV virus. But he couldn't provide a single piece of evidence. ( cf. Dr. Kary Mullis ). Kary B. Mullis - Why
they cannot be used to detect HIV infection or Kary Mullis: The HIV-AIDS thesis is wrong .
A positive (RT) PCR test does not mean that you are ill
1. Instructions (p. 36) from the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on the PCR test say:
“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of an infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the cause of
clinical symptoms.”
Translated, it means: A positive test does not guarantee that the COVID virus will cause an infection at all.
And, um, if you read between the lines, the COVID virus may not even be in the patient's body.
2. The Instructions for Use for the Hologic, Inc. SARS-CoV-2 Assay (Panther Fusion®️System) test , dated
2002-03, states:
“that you can test positive (be infected) and still be symptom-free and healthy.”
“Some people become infected but don’t develop any symptoms and don’t feel unwell.” (Page 2)
3. Creative-Diagnostics Product Information about the test kit “SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit
(CD019RT)”:
“This product is for research use only and is not intended for diagnostic use.” (“This product is for research
purposes only and not for diagnostic use.”) .
The following is stated as “intended use”:
“This product is intended for the detection of the 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV). The result of detection
of this product is for clinical reference only and should not be used as sole evidence in clinical diagnosis and
treatment.”
Source of the test kit and following the general source .
As long as no isolation (Koch's postulates) has taken place, the pathogenic virus remains a
model
Where does RNA come from? Is this “foreign” RNA (a “bad” virus) or does it come from something that exists
in symbiosis with our bodies (a “good” virus)? Is it perhaps an expression of our body's defense/cleansing or
healing reaction and should therefore be viewed positively? Is it due to contamination of the sample when it
was taken or in the laboratory? Was this RNA perhaps already “supplied” in the components of the test kits, as
happened in Great Britain , for example ? These questions are central to the paradigm of virology, namely that
viruses exist and that in many cases they cause disease. What if there are no viruses that cause illness? Dr.
Stefan Lanka has brought a lot of things to light in the measles process. He won this case and not just
because of a technicality. Complete summary: Dr. Stefan Lanka – Go Virus GO .
You can find our summary in a shorter form with the essential points here: Dr. Stefan Lanka won the measles
trial .
Belief in a rapid test leads to an epidemic that never existed.
An article in the NY Times - "Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn't" highlights a story of relying on
a test that misled everyone.
“Now looking back on what happened, epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists say the problem is
that they placed too much faith in a rapid and highly sensitive molecular test that misled them.”
4 out of 5 people who receive a positive PCR result remain asymptomatic

Up to 80% of all test-positive people remain asymptomatic. Even among those aged 70 to 79, around 60%
remain asymptomatic. Over 95% of all people show moderate symptoms at most.
Finally, my tip to you is that if you ever get a positive result, request another test immediately, preferably from
the reference laboratory. Ask which test you were tested with; the deficiencies of the different tests can be
serious. This is shown by the following round robin test: Instand eV found a sensitivity of 99% and a specificity
of 92.4 - 98.6% in the last so-called round robin tests for RT PCR.
Instand Society for the Promotion of Quality Assurance in Medical Laboratories eV - Commentary on the extra
ring test 340, publication from May 2nd, 2020
Here you will find the link to the round robin test document .
Lack of a valid gold standard

This is a fundamental point. Tests must be evaluated to determine their accuracy—specifically, their “
sensitivity” and “specificity ”—by comparing them to a “gold standard,” meaning the most accurate method
available. As an example of a pregnancy test, the gold standard would be the pregnancy itself. But as
Australian infectious disease specialist Sanjaya Senanayake, for example, said in an ABC TV interview in an
answer to the question “How accurate is the [COVID-19] test?” " explained: "If we had a new test for picking up
[the bacterium] staph in the blood, we would already have blood cultures, which is our gold standard that we
have used for decades, and we could compare this new test to that. But we don’t have a gold standard test for
COVID-19.”
Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University confirms this. In her recent article, “ Interpreting a COVID-19 test
result , ” published in the British Medical Journal, she writes that “there is no such clear-cut ‘gold standard’ for
COVID-19 testing.”
But instead of classifying the tests as unsuitable for SARS-CoV-2 detection and COVID-19 diagnosis or
suggesting that only a virus detected through isolation and purification (Koch's postulates) should be a solid
gold standard In all seriousness, Watson claims that the “pragmatic” COVID-19 diagnosis itself, particularly
the PCR tests themselves, “may be the best “gold standard” available. However, this is not scientifically
based. Aside from the fact that it is downright absurd to use the PCR test itself as part of the gold standard
for evaluating the PCR test, there are no specific symptoms for COVID-19, as even people like Thomas
Löscher, former head of the Die Department of Infection and Tropical Medicine at the University of Munich
and member of the Federal Association of German Internists, admitted to us [Off-Guardian]. And if there are
no specific symptoms of COVID-19, then contrary to Watson's statement, the COVID-19 diagnosis cannot
serve as a valid gold standard. Furthermore, “experts” like Watson overlook the fact that only virus isolation,
i.e. clear virus detection, can be the gold standard.
Detecting a virus with a PCR test is like trying to tell if someone has bad breath by looking at
their fingerprint
We also have Dr. Contacted Charles Calisher, who is an experienced virologist. In 2001, Science published a
"passionate plea [...] to the younger generation" from several senior virologists, including Calisher, saying:
“[Modern virus detection methods such as] smooth polymerase chain reaction […] say little or nothing about
how a virus reproduces, which animals carry it, [or] how it makes people sick. It’s like trying to tell if someone
has bad breath by looking at their fingerprint” ( Off-Guardian ).
Follow us on Telegram for more summaries and important news.
Main channel: https://t.me/Corona_Fakten
PayPal: Support CoronaFakten ( CoronaFakten premium group )
You can send questions by email: coronafaktenfragen@gmail.com
Below is a list of our most important articles:
Corona_Facts: List of the most important articles
More recent post Older post

The fraud at the meat manufacturer Tönnies has The mask fraud has been demystified
been exposed

RT PCR Test - DNA Test Becomes A Manipulation Instrument - Samuel Eckert

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RT PCR Test - DNA Test Becomes A Manipulation Instrument - Samuel Eckert

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1/16/24, 3:21 PM RT PCR test: DNA test becomes a manipulation instrument - Samuel Eckert

HOME ARTICLE VIDEOS/UNCENSORED LIVE STREAMS ISOLATE TRUTH FUND ABOUT ME

Home  Corona facts

PCR: A DNA test becomes a

Original from CoronaFakten – Raphael H.

Let's start breaking the magic, enjoy the show.

The PCR test is not binary!

PCR is a manufacturing technique!

The cycles set determine a positive or negative result

Excerpt from an interview with David Crowe :

The amount of RNA does not correlate with the disease!

An important video that we recommend (for further information) is

Viaveto – Corona – An epidemic of mass hysteria

The following is stated as “intended use”:

Source of the test kit and following the general source .

Belief in a rapid test leads to an epidemic that never existed.

4 out of 5 people who receive a positive PCR result remain asymptomatic

Lack of a valid gold standard

Follow us on Telegram for more summaries and important news.

Main channel: https://t.me/Corona_Fakten

PayPal: Support CoronaFakten ( CoronaFakten premium group )

You can send questions by email: coronafaktenfragen@gmail.com

Below is a list of our most important articles:

Corona_Facts: List of the most important articles

More recent post Older post

You might also like