The Inappropriate Use of the PCR Test as a Diagnostic Tool for Covid-19

Recently, an acquaintance was describing the difficulties he encountered on a recent trip to Israel, one of which was repeated PCR testing. In Israel, he was required to take the PCR test multiple times, where a swab was inserted deep into one nostril, then in one cheek, then the other nostril and cheek. Three of his travel partners tested positive and were forced into quarantine for a week even though they exhibited no symptoms. In the same week, another acquaintance told me that he believed the PCR test offered an accurate assessment of whether a person was sick from Covid-19, which is not true.

With these reminders of the oppressive an inappropriate use of the PCR test, I share this summary of the problems with using it as a diagnostic tool for Covid-19 or any other illness in the absence an any symptoms. Perhaps this post is one that can be shared with others who aren’t aware that the basis of declaring the “pandemic”, shutting down society, etc. is a complete sham.

The PCR test was not designed to be used as a diagnostic tool because it is unable to distinguish between inactive viruses and “live” or reproductive ones. The inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993, vehemently opposed using PCR to diagnose diseases: “PCR is a process that’s used to make a whole lot of something out of something. It allows you to take a very miniscule amount of anything and make it measurable and then talk about it like it’s important.

I provide two references (there are more). The first is to a New York Times article, which is followed by a peer reviewed scientific paper.

Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive.  Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.

(In my opinion, this article offers an excellent summary of the issue.)

Stang et al., The Performance of the SARS-CoV-2 RT0PCR Test as a Tool for Detecting SARS-CoV-2 Infection in the Population.

“In light of our findings that more than half of individuals with positive PCR test results are unlikely to have been infectious, RT-PCR test positivity should not be taken as an accurate measure of infectious SARS-CoV-2 incidence. Our results confirm the findings of others that the routine use of ‘positive’ RT-PCR test results as the gold standard for assessing and controlling infectiousness fails to reflect the fact ‘that 50-75% of the time an individual is PCR positive, they are likely to be post-infectious.’’

The higher the cycle threshold, the greater is the rate of false positives.  A cycle threshold of 35-40 generates a very high rate of false positives.

Dr. Fauci has acknowledged this publicly.  Here is an excerpt from Fauci’s key quote (starting at the 4m01s mark through to the 5m45s mark (Fauci begins his first answer to the first question at the 4m20s mark and begins his second answer to the second question at the 5m26s mark)):

“…If you get [perform the test at] a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-competent [aka accurate] are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result] from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…”

On January 1, 2022 the FDA removed its Emergency Use Authorization for the RT-PCR Test (

“After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives.”

I also reference one other study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association about COVID transmission: This article concludes that 96% of Covid-19 transmissions are symptomatic and not asymptomatic transmission:

“To study the transmissibility of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 index cases, Figure 8 in the Supplement summarizes 27 studies1921,2326,30,3234,44,45,47,50,5254,56,5961,63,64,68,69,72 reporting household secondary attack rates from symptomatic index cases and 4 studies26,43,44,52 from asymptomatic or presymptomatic index cases. Estimated mean household secondary attack rate from symptomatic index cases (18.0%; 95% CI, 14.2%-22.1%) was significantly higher than from asymptomatic or presymptomatic index cases (0.7%; 95% CI, 0%-4.9%; P < .001), although there were few studies in the latter group. These findings are consistent with other household studies28,70 reporting asymptomatic index cases as having limited role in household transmission.”

Based on this study, those who are demonstrably exhibiting Covid-19 symptoms are responsible for nearly all transmissions–as long as a person does not exhibit Covid-19 symptoms, he/she does not transmit.  My interpretation is that regular testing of those who do not exhibit symptoms offers little if any benefit even if the PCR test offered an accurate diagnosis.

Finally, the link below will take you to a video by Dr. Vernon Coleman who summarizes the myriad of injuries that have occurred as a result of mass PCR testing. He quotes scientific papers showing that the PCR test has “caused patients to have cerebrospinal fluid leaking from their noses. It has caused meningitis. It has killed people.”  Vernon rightly concludes that PCR testing “needs to be stopped now!”

This Needs to be Stopped NOW! | Dr Vernon Coleman (28 minutes)

Published by markskidmore

Mark Skidmore is Professor of Economics at Michigan State University where he holds the Morris Chair in State and Local Government Finance and Policy. His research focuses on topics in public finance, regional economics, and the economics of natural disasters. Mark created the Lighthouse Economics website and blog to share economic research and information relevant for navigating tumultuous times.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: