Misleading PCR

You fell and cried as our people were starving

Now you know that we blame you

You tried to walk on a trail we were carving
Now you know that we framed you
--The Who 

A retired Pfizer (PFE) scientist explains what these pages have already noted. Even a seemingly low 0.8% false positive rate creates misinformation when underlying infection prevalence is low.

He suggests that, in the UK, broad 'Pillar 2' testing using the PCR amplification methodology to diagnose cases has resulted in about 90% of official case counts to be false.

Moreover, he claims that PCR (i.e., polymerase chain reaction) techniques are better employed as laboratory research tools rather than for population disease screening. The large degree of amplification required to pick up a strand of viral genetic code is prone to significant error. In particular, PCR tests cannot distinguish between living virus and a short strand of RNA that broke into pieces some time back.

His analysis tells him that UK health officials have used faulty case counting using PCR tests that deliberately misled legislative bodies and the public.

The same is true for the US.

position in PFE