Updated date:

Critical Examination of COVID-19 PCR Testing Reveals Mass Deception

I have been independently studying the COVID-19 pandemic, since it first gained widespread attention.

Image symbolizing critical examination of PCR testing in a COVID-19 worldwide deception operation, compiled by R. G. Kernodle

Image symbolizing critical examination of PCR testing in a COVID-19 worldwide deception operation, compiled by R. G. Kernodle

Diagnostic Testing for SARS-CoV-2 Virus

The main way of quantifying the state of emergency surrounding an alleged new coronavirus has been a process called PCR or RT-PCR, which are abbreviations for Polymerase Chain Reaction and Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction, respectively.


Health authorities and governments have universally adopted this process as a diagnostic test for the SARS-Co-V-2 virus that allegedly causes the COVID-19 disease. Given the well known limitations of this process as a diagnostic test for disease, I cannot fathom why any health-care establishment or government authority would adopt such a process as a measurement to determine public policy.
In the context of public health, calling the RT-PCR procedure a diagnostic test for a viral disease is utterly absurd, which I will explain, using the most up-to-date, specialized information that I have found, as of this writing.


U. S. Food and Drug Administration Authorized PCR for Public Use

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) explains PCR as follows:
Office of the Commissioner, U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2020). A Closer Look at COVID-19 Diagnostic Testing.

  • Molecular tests detect the genetic material or nucleic acid present inside a virus particle. The FDA has authorized molecular tests for use in a clinical laboratory setting and authorized some for use in a POC setting.[POC stands for Point Of Care, meaning outside a laboratory]
  • Most molecular tests are polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests, also called nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT). In PCR testing, a machine located in a laboratory or at a POC, depending on the test, runs a series of reactions. These reactions first convert the virus’s ribonucleic acid (RNA), if present, into deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and then amplify it (make millions of copies of the DNA); the test then detects this DNA.
  • By running multiple amplification cycles, a PCR test can sense even low levels of viral genetic material in a patient’s sample, so these tests tend to be highly sensitive (especially laboratory PCR tests).

The FDA recommends that the process should be run up to 40 cycles. This fact is plainly obvious on page 37 of instructions (click on link) by the U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Viral Diseases (2020). CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel: Instructions for Use, Catalog # 2019-nCoVEUA-01 1000 Reactions

Screen capture page 37 FDA instructions for PCR test with red highlighting by R. G. Kernodle, showing FDA 40 cycle threshhold

Screen capture page 37 FDA instructions for PCR test with red highlighting by R. G. Kernodle, showing FDA 40 cycle threshhold

Chief Medical Advisor for the United States Has Known PCR Reality All Along

On July 16, 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared in a science podcast series, This Week in Virology, approved by the American Society of Micorbiology, produced by Microbe TV, Episode 641, where he participated in an interview conducted by Rich Condit, a virologist and emeritus Professor at the University of Florida, Gainesville:

Pay attention, starting at about the 4-minute mark, where Dr. Fauci says:

  • If you get [perform the test at] a cycle threshold of 35 or more… the chances of it being replication-confident [also known as accurate] are minuscule… you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result] from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36.

If, as Dr. Fauci plainly admitted, you can almost never culture virus from a 37 cycle threshold, then millions of Americans have been told they are infected with virus on the basis of a false result, arguably perpetuating fraudulent misrepresentation or deceit on a massive scale.


If Dr. Fauci has fully known the implications of the FDA’s recommended 40 cycle threshold, again as he has clearly (without question) stated openly with great confidence, then any rational person would judge him as a chief propagator of mass medical deception.

PCR Has Impaired Civilization

COVID-impaired civilization image compiled by R. G. Kernodle

COVID-impaired civilization image compiled by R. G. Kernodle

It is this mass medical deception that has forced entire economies to suffer in the extreme. It is this mass medical deception that has compromised basic human rights in an oppressive manner never before seen in the modern world.


To be clear, PCR testing has defined the very state of emergency that has crippled society. PCR testing has defined the meaning of COVID-19 cases that serve as the unquestioned data used by leaders to justify lockdowns, social distancing, forced mask wearing, and a plethora of other measures. In short, PCR has caused global government actions aimed at micro-managing individual lives falsely in the name of responsible health care.

A Useless Diagnostic Tool Produces Pseudo Pandemics

Headline image of New York Times 2007 article about false whooping cough epidemic, captured by R. G. Kernodle from the archived article online

Headline image of New York Times 2007 article about false whooping cough epidemic, captured by R. G. Kernodle from the archived article online

The potential for PCR to grossly mislead people was clearly understood thirteen years before its widespread use in the pseudodiagnosis of COVID-19.

See Gina Kolata (Jan 22, 2007). Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasnʼt, The New York Times.

Briefly, here are details of a bizarre episode involving PCR, described in the above reference:

  • In 2007, a doctor at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center came down with a severe cough.
  • Another doctor became alarmed at the idea that she might be seeing the start of a whooping cough epidemic.
  • Within a couple of weeks, other hospital health care workers were coughing too.
  • Nearly everyone involved thought they were in a whooping cough epidemic.
  • 1,000 hospital workers were given a test, and they were furloughed from work until results came in.
  • 142 people were told that they appeared to have the whooping cough.
  • Thousands of people were given antibiotics and vaccines.
  • Hospital beds were taken out of commission, including some in intensive care.
  • Eight months later, everybody was told that it was all a false alarm – not a single case of whooping cough was confirmed with the trusted test.
  • The test was a PCR “test”.

It is precisely such an unjustified trust in PCR that has led to a seemingly endless state of emergency associated with the alleged novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2 in 2019 and 2020.

Evidence Against PCR Is Obvious

While PCR certainly has its place, it has been grossly misplaced as a diagnostic tool to gauge the severity of the alleged COVID-19 pandemic. Consider the following two professional studies on the subject, for which I have noted key quotes:

1. Rita Jaafar, Sarah Aherfi, Nathalie Wurtz, Clio Grimaldier, Thuan Van Hoang, Philippe Colson, Didier Raoult, Bernard La Scola (2020). Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction–Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures, Including 1941 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Isolates, Clinical Infectious Diseases, ciaa1491.

  • From our cohort, we now need to try to understand and define the duration and frequency of live virus shedding in patients on a case-by-case basis in the rare cases when the PCR is positive beyond 10 days, often at a Ct >30. In any cases, these rare cases should not impact public health decisions.

The above quote essentially says that, based on a group of people who returned a positive result beyond 10 days at greater than 30 cycles, such people should not be considered threats to public health.

Remember the FDA recommendation of 40 cycles – this is ten exponential increments more than these rare cases. Once again, we see how the United States official recommendation is a false measure, leading to needless, ill-informed or even negligent policies by government health officials.

2. Jared Bullard, Kerry Dust, Duane Funk, James E Strong, David Alexander, Lauren Garnett, Carl Boodman, Alexander Bello, Adam Hedley, Zachary Schiffman, Kaylie Doan, Nathalie Bastien, Yan Li, Paul G Van Caeseele, Guillaume Poliquin (2020). Predicting Infectious Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 From Diagnostic Samples, Clinical Infectious Diseases, ciaa638.

  • SARS-CoV-2 ... cell infectivity was only observed for RT-PCR Ct [Cycle threshold] < 24 and STT [Symptom onset To Test] < 8 days. Infectivity of patients with Ct > 24 and duration of symptoms > 8 days may be low. This information can inform public health policy and guide clinical, infection control, and occupational health decisions.

Here we see an even lower recommended cycle threshold of 24 (not the FDA’s 40). We see yet another highly informed suggestion to use a much lower value than the United States has been using.

Dr. Fauci’s July 16, 2020 claim, with which he obviously lost touch, thus, finds validation in the professional literature. Why he has brushed this out of view and adopted a tone of ever increasing emergency leads me to believe that he is not merely overlooking the truth, but intentionally obscuring facts that lead intelligent people to arrive at the truth.

Expert Analysis Demolishes RT-PCR as a COVID-19 Diagnostic Tool

Possibly the most incriminating piece of evidence that I have found so far is the following meticulously detailed critical review of PCR by a group of twenty-two experts. I suggest that readers click on the link and scroll to the point where their credentials appear, if there is any doubt about the competence of the writing.

Pieter Borger and twenty-one others (2020). External Peer Review of the RTPCR Test to Detect SARS-CoV-2 Reveals 10 Major Scientific Flaws at the Molecular and Methodological Level: Consequences for False Positive Result.

  • The published RT-qPCR protocol for detection and diagnostics of 2019-nCoV ... suffer from numerous technical and scientific errors, including insufficient primer design, a problematic and insufficient RT-qPCR protocol, and the absence of an accurate test validation.

Portuguese Appeals Court Invalidates PCR Positive Result as a Test for COVID-19

Image of top page in original Portuguese legal case invalidating PCR test, captured from original online document

Image of top page in original Portuguese legal case invalidating PCR test, captured from original online document

The main outcome of a November 11, 2020 court ruling (translated from the original Portuguese) was as follows:

  • In view of the current scientific evidence, this test is, in itself, unable to determine, beyond reasonable doubt, that such positivity corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus ....

Portugal’s highest court later reviewed and upheld this finding.

Why the popular media has remained silent on such an important court outcome raises even greater questions about major media companies’ complicity in perpetuating worldwide fraudulent misrepresentation.

Florida Department of Health Mandates Reporting Cycle Threshold Values

Image of top part of Florida 12-03-2020 memo mandating reporting cycle threshold values, captured from original online document

Image of top part of Florida 12-03-2020 memo mandating reporting cycle threshold values, captured from original online document

On December 3, 2020, the Florida Department of Health issued a memo requiring all testing labs to report cycle threshold values of PCR procedures attempting to diagnose COVID-19. Such an action attests to the fact that leaders in this state of the USA admitted the reality of PCR that other states of the USA failed to admit. As of this writing, Florida was still the only USA state requiring such disclosures.

Florida’s action clearly set a precedent that further highlighted other state health agencies as enablers of mass misrepresentation.

Let’s Review

  • The U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized the PCR or RT-PCR process for public use as a primary means of testing for infection from an alleged novel coronavirus called SARS-CoV-2, allegedly causing the COVID-19 disease, declared as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO).
  • With this authorization by the FDA, the U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) developed a RT-PCR test using the FDA recommended cycle threshold of 40, which is the same cycle threshold used by many other countries around the world.
  • On July 16, 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci, chief medical officer of the United States, clearly stated in an interview that you almost never can culture virus (detect a true positive result) from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36.
  • Studies in the 2020 professional literature support Dr. Fauci’s claim.
  • An extensive, technical peer review by twenty-two experts revealed that the PCR or RT-PCR process, used as a diagnostic tool to detect SARS-CoV-2, suffers from technical and scientific errors that make it unfit for purpose.
  • On November 11, 2020, a Portuguese appeals court delivered a ruling that invalidated PCR positive COVID-19 test results. The highest court of this country later reviewed and upheld the following judgment: In view of the current scientific evidence, this test is, in itself, unable to determine, beyond reasonable doubt, that such positivity corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus ….
  • On December 3, 2020, the Florida Department of Health required all testing labs to report cycle threshold values of PCR tests for COVID-19.
  • In 2007, the PCR process misdiagnosed a feared whooping cough epidemic at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, misleading thousands of people to fear the worst and to take the wrong actions for what ultimately appeared to be an ordinary respiratory disease like the common cold.

Do Something about It

What I have presented here is not merely an alternate point of view to be taken lightly, while the same mass approach to testing continues unchanged. Rather, this information is the foundation for action – to stop using PCR as a diagnostic test for COVID-19.

This information needs to be known by law makers and government officials, so that they can call out the medical establishment as the fraud that it is, with regard to the COVID-19 pseudo state of emergency.

PCR should be disqualified and discontinued for the purposes of defining cases that establish the metric driving extreme government attempts to control an alleged viral emergency that really does not exist.