‘Sciency but rubbish” – the PCR test and its role in creating the fake coronababble pandemic

Intro by Steve Cook

It ought to be obvious to anyone in possession of a functioning brain that NOTHING we are told by our government and its MSM propaganda arm can be trusted. NOTHING.

This is so thoroughly true that we would be safe to adopt the position that if the government or media are saying it, it isn’t  true.

This should have been obvious BEFORE the fake pandemic psyop was launched but at least that particular vicious caper, in virtually every aspect, provided an opportunity for all of us to come to a greater understanding of how these mind games are played.

Let’s take one key aspect of the Coronababble psyop, the use of the “sciency but rubbish” PCR Test. It is used  by Governments worldwide as a tool that enables fraudulent “cases” of a “novel” virus to be created by the bucketload.

These scary numbers of fake “cases” have been used successfully to scare the bejeezus out of millions of people.

The fear then rendered those millions malleable enough to accept any rule, restriction, diktat or intervention no matter how ludicrous or downright sinister foisted on them by government. This included having them line up like cattle for shots so clearly and self evidently ineffective and outright dangerous that no-one in their right mind would let their government inject them “for their own good”.

As a result, millions of people now have health issues caused by those shots  and the full extent of the death and destruction they are causing has yet to unfold over the ensuing years.

There are many aspects to this fraud but let’s focus on the fraudulent use, with malice aforethought, of the PCR test by  criminals in government who know EXACTLY what they are doing.

The article below was featured in The Expose and written by the Science Officer of Anew UK.

The PCR Scam: PCR Does Not Detect SARS-CoV-2.- by a Biomedical Scientist


On January 23, 2020, the scientific journal Eurosurveillance, published a study by Dr. Christian Drosten et al claiming to have developed the first test for detecting infection with a novel coronavirus first identified just days before in the Chinese city of Wuhan. Drosten is the German governments’ chief scientific advisor for covid, Germany’s de facto “Anthony Fauci”. The Drosten paper was titled, “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR”.

This paper was immediately endorsed by the corrupt Director General of the WHO, Tedros Adhanom, the first non-medical doctor to head the WHO. Since then, the Drosten test for the “virus” (Real-Time-Polymerase Chain Reaction or RT-PCR test) has spread via the WHO worldwide as the most used test protocol to determine if a person might have covid-19, the alleged illness caused by the alleged virus SARS-CoV2.

When this paper was written there was a total of just 6 deaths attributed to the Wuhan “coronavirus” in the whole world. Why did Drosten et al assume a major challenge for public health laboratories when there was no evidence at that time to indicate that the outbreak was going to become a widespread pandemic?

On November 27, 2020, a group of international virologists, microbiologists, and other scientists published an appeal for Eurosurveillance to retract the Drosten paper. This appeal is a damning external peer review, from twenty-three leading scientists, including scientists who have patents related to PCR, DNA isolation, sequencing, and a former Pfizer chief scientist. To date Eurosurveillance has refused to retract this paper and has issued an unsatisfactory non-explanation for not doing so.

Drosten et al have serious conflicts of interest which initially were not mentioned. Two of the authors of the paper (Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken) are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance. Another author Olfert Landt is CEO of TIB-Molbiol, and Marco Kaiser is senior researcher at GenExpress and serves as scientific advisor for TIB-Molbiol.

TIB-Molbiol was the first company to produce PCR kits based on the protocol published in the Corman-Drosten paper, they distributed these PCR test kits before the publication was even submitted. Victor Corman and Christian Drosten failed to mention their affiliation with the commercial test laboratory “Labor Berlin”. Both authors are responsible for viral diagnostics at this laboratory and the company operates in the field of RT-PCR testing.

The very short time span between submission of the manuscript and acceptance for publication (24 hours) indicates that a systematic peer review process was either not performed or was of poor quality. The subsequent analysis of the original paper constitutes a genuine peer review and accuses Drosten et al of scientific incompetence, identifying at least ten different fatal flaws in their test protocol.

An accurate test for a “virus” isn’t possible without first knowing the components of the virus you want to detect and these components can’t be known without having isolated/purified that virus beforehand. The authors of several articles that supposedly describe the isolation of SARS-CoV-2 have admitted when specifically asked that they have not purified the “virus” The virus was not isolated in the true dictionary or true scientific sense of the word. Virologists have disingenuously redefined this word.

Detractors often claim that it is impossible to really isolate a virus because they have to be cultured in cells. That is simply not true. Biologists who study viruses that infect bacterial cells (bacteriophages) routinely isolate those viruses in the true sense of the word. Why can’t virologists studying “viruses” they claim cause human disease use the same techniques?

Facebook “fact checkers” refute the claim that SARS-CoV-2 has not been purified by referring to one study in which better purification than usual was achieved using a sucrose density centrifugation step:

“A preparation of a virus can’t get much more ‘purified’ than this.”

It is not good enough to perform proper purification just to obtain some nice pictures (cryo-electron tomography)of what you assume to be a virus. This purification should be standard procedure for all researchers for all their experiments. This is especially true when it comes to genomic sequencing (the basis for the PCR test), protein antigen determination (the basis for lateral flow tests), and virulence studies (the basis for draconian social measures). Unfortunately, this is not standard procedure in the world of virology.

The identification of unknown pathogens using molecular genetic tools alone is impossible because the target sequence is not known, and so PCR-specific initiators (primers) cannot be properly designed. The supposed novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 “genome” is based on in silico (theoretical computer generated) sequences, uploaded by a laboratory in China and not on isolated SARS-CoV-2 particles.

There has been much speculation about gain of function research outsourced to the Chinese, but this ignores the fact that there is no highly virulent viral pandemic. It was not necessary to release a real pathogen in order to impose draconian social measures, all that was necessary was to upload a genetic sequence of dubious origin to the internet.

What was considered to be viral RNA was extracted from complex mixtures without any proof that the RNA belongs to a virus. “Scientists” then speculate about mutations, recombinations, genotypes, molecular evolution, strains, new variants, and other jargon that conveys the false idea that a “virus” is being studied.

Restriction enzymes are added that cut the nucleic acid molecules at certain locations and always by the same length for a given sequence. If many fragments of genetic sequence of the same or very similar size are generated it is assumed to belong to a virus rather than the host genome which it is assumed would generate random cuts and fragments of variable size.

This unscientific assumption does not take into account that there are “virus-like particles”, “retrovirus-like particles”, “endogenous retroviruses”, “exosomes”, “extracellular” particles and mitochondrial DNA that can produce many copies of the same sequence. There are numerous types of particle that possess the same characteristics as “viruses” and so can produce large numbers of identical copies when cut by enzymes.

Computer programs are used that make predictions on how genetic sequences should be combined. The sequences are manually assembled and edited to produce a final sequence of the “viral genome”.

The genetic sequences used in PCR tests to supposedly specifically detect SARS-CoV-2 are present in dozens of sequences in the human genome and in the genomes of about a hundred microbes. The RT-PCR does not detect the so-called SARS-CoV-2 virus, but rather fragments of human RNA and those of numerous microbes. These fragments are likely to be present in respiratory samples taken from healthy people.

Jesus Garcia Blanca used the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST), a sequence alignment search tool that allows a given sequence to be compared with all known sequences stored in the NIH databases (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) to investigate the specificity of the SARS-CoV2 PCR tests.

This is an essential step routinely performed by any competent scientist when designing a PCR test. This ensures that the test is specific and does not generate false positive results due to cross-reaction with other sequences that might also be present in the samples being tested.

Garcia Blanca discovered that one PCR primer that is supposed to be specific to SARS-CoV-2 actually corresponds to 74 fragments of the human genome and a hundred microbial fragments as well.

This is shocking but unsurprising because the now notorious Cormen-Drosten PCR paper formed the basis for these tests and was plagued by poor primer design, a problematic and insufficient RT-PCR protocol, and no proper test validation.

The test and the manuscript fail to meet the standards for an acceptable scientific publication. The scientific inadequacies, errors, flaws, major scientific and methodological problems invalidate both the paper and the test responsible for locking down the world.

Drosten et al provided confusing unspecified primer and probe sequences which is very unusual. Six unspecified positions could easily result in the design of several different alternative primer sequences which do not detect the supposed SARS-CoV-2 sequence. These unspecified positions should have been designed unambiguously.

The paper also failed to define what constitutes a positive or negative test result. An SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) should include a validated and fixed number of PCR cycles after which a sample is deemed positive or negative. Above 35 cycles, rapidly increasing numbers of false positives are to be expected. Drosten et al and the WHO recommended 45 cycles. A PCR result using 45 cycles is scientifically and diagnostically meaningless. If a maximum of 35 cycles was specified, the number of “coronavirus” positives would be less than 3% of the reported number.

The Corman-Drosten paper describes 3 primer pairs, but these primers only cover roughly half of the “viral genome” rather than spanning the entire “genome”. This is another factor that decreases specificity for detection of supposed intact virus RNA and increases the chances of false positive test results. The positioning of the targets in the region of the viral genome that is most heavily and variably transcribed is another weakness of the protocol.

These primer design errors are inexcusable as there are software packages available to help design RT-PCR tests that work correctly. All a scientist has to do is copy and paste the target sequence into the software and the software will come up with a list of suggested primer and probe combinations. The software calculates all of the relevant parameters to ensure that the PCR will work properly without producing spurious results.

Considering the serious design errors, the amplified PCR products could be anything (and probably are) which perhaps explains why proper validation of positive results was not done in the Cormen-Drosten paper. The PCR products resulting from the Drosten method have not been validated at the molecular level which is another major error in the protocol. The PCR product should be run on a gel to ensure it is the expected size and this product should be sequenced to confirm its exact identity.

No clear SOP was provided to unequivocally specify the relevant parameters, so that all laboratories are able to set up the exact same test conditions. A validated universal SOP is essential, because it enables the comparison of data within and between countries. It points to flawed science that such an SOP does not exist. Laboratories are therefore free to perform the test as they consider appropriate, resulting in an enormous amount of variation.

Dr Stephen Bustin, one of the world’s leading experts on PCR, says that under certain conditions anyone can test positive. He considers both the arbitrariness of establishing criteria for results and the choice of the number of cycles to be nonsense because they can lead to anyone testing positive.

An appeals court in Lisbon, Portugal ruled on 11 November 2020 that the Drosten PCR test endorsed by the WHO is not valid to detect coronavirus infection and that it is no basis to order nationwide or partial lockdowns. This ruling should obviously apply to all nations.

“Doctor” Christian Drosten and officials at Frankfurt’s Goethe University, where he claims to have received his medical doctorate in 2003, are accused of degree fraud. Drosten will now probably face court charges for holding a fraudulent doctoral title. That should be the least of his worries.

The PCR test is scientifically worthless and all “positive” results obtained should be invalidated. Widespread use of this completely inaccurate test has resulted in global lockdowns as well as economic and social catastrophe.


1 Victor M Corman,Christian Drosten et al “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR”, Eurosurveillance, 25/3 (23 Jan 2020).

2 Borger et al. (2020) External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results. ICSLS

3 Response to retraction request and allegations of misconduct and scientific flaws. https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.5.2102041

4 The scam has been confirmed: PCR does not detect SARS-CoV-2, but endogenous gene sequences. Jesus Garcia Blanca. https://rightsfreedoms.wordpress.com/2021/07/19/the-scam-has-been-confirmed-pcr-does-not-detect-sars-cov-2-but-endogenous-gene-sequences/

5 Coronavirus Scandal Breaking in Merkel’s Germany. F. William Engdahl. 10 December 2020. http://www.williamengdahl.com/englishNEO10Dec2020.php


Visit People’s Media at Liberty Rising



The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)


Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.


Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.


Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

About Steve Cook 1883 Articles
Director, UK Reloaded
Contact: Website

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


%d bloggers like this: