WHO finally admits: PCR tests are unreliable!

Have ‘conspiracy theorists’ just proven themselves right about the “fake rescue plan” from COVID?

Did ‘youtube scientists’ just get confirmation that everything is a political game after all?

Photo: Sputik / Vitaly Timkiv

The World Health Organization finally recognizes the problematic reliability of PCR tests
After months of great efforts by top experts to point out the inadequacy and unreliability of PCR tests to diagnose COVID 19, despite unprecedented media censorship, it was not until January 13, 2021, that the World Health Organization acknowledged their problems. an hour after Biden’s inauguration on January 20th. The WHO sent a notification to laboratory experts for the use of the PCR test (original text).

It has issued new guidelines and recommendations that explicitly acknowledge and confirm exactly what all these experts have said over the past months. And even literally in the same words.

From the abundance of material from the Internet, a dozen valuable contributions were selected, which are at the end of this review under the title “Sources”.

To them, top doctors and scientists present clear and irrefutable evidence of the misuse of PCR tests. Not to mention that all of them were regularly censored and discredited because their opinions did not fit into the official narrative.

The thesis of asymptomatic transmission is closely related to this issue. Namely, reputable experts claim that asymptomatic transmitters are in fact only false positive cases – thus detected due to misinterpretation of PCR tests. A large number of false-positive people, they claim, do not carry a significant amount of the virus that would make them sick, so they have no symptoms and cannot pose a danger to others. However, the introduction of repressive measures against the entire population of this planet, the drastic restriction of human, civil and religious freedoms and the destruction of educational and health systems as well as national economies are based on the PCR tests used in this way.

It is hard to believe that WHO experts did not know about the possibilities of misinterpreting PCR tests or that they had no idea about the protests of numerous doctors and scientists. Finally, even the author of these tests, Nobel laureate Kary Mullis, publicly warned of the possibility of misuse or misinterpretation of PCR tests, but also the fact that the test is not intended to diagnose the disease but it is very important how the test is applied (Appendix under number 5 in Sources below): “It doesn’t tell you that you’re sick, and it doesn’t tell you that the thing you ended up with was really going to hurt you or anything like that. It’s the application that matters. ”

However, the European Commission’s document entitled Guidelines on the types and effectiveness of in vitro diagnostic tests for COVID-19 of 15 April 2020 clearly states:

“The World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) are currently recommending RT-PCR tests to diagnose COVID-19.”

We well remember how the president of that organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, fanatically insisted on mass testing (“Test, test, test” !!!) all spring. It was necessary to inflate the numbers well, but also panic and fear in people.

New guidelines of the World Health Organization

Here are the most important highlights from the article on the new WHO guidelines (Appendix No. 12 in the Sources):

“Although PCR tests are widely used in the United States as well as around the world to determine positive cases of COVID, they are not designed to be used as diagnostic tools as they cannot distinguish inactive viruses from“ live ”or reproductive viruses.

In addition, the WHO has previously recommended 40 “amplification cycles” of the test to determine if someone is positive for COVID or not.

Namely, the greater the number of amplification cycles (magnifications), the more likely it is that a false positive result will occur. Anything over 30 cycles actually magnifies the samples so much that even insignificant viral DNA sequences are eventually magnified to the point that the test reads positive even in cases where someone’s viral load is extremely low or the virus is inactive and does not pose a danger to that person. someone else.

Simply put, the higher the number of amplifications (magnifications), the more false positive results are obtained.

The WHO is now providing guidance on the application of a lower sensitivity threshold for the PCR test, which practically guarantees that the number of positive cases of COVID will automatically drop drastically worldwide.

Users of in vitro diagnostic medical devices must carefully read and follow the instructions for use to determine whether the manufacturer recommends manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold.

The World Health Organization’s guidelines for diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 suggest a careful interpretation of weakly positive results. The cycle threshold (Ct) required for virus detection is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. If the test results do not match the clinical picture, a new sample should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

The WHO reminds users of in vitro diagnostic medical devices that the prevalence of the disease changes the predictive value of test results; as the prevalence of the disease decreases, the risk of false-positive results increases. This means that the probability of a positive person being truly infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus decreases, as does the prevalence (prevalence) of the disease, regardless of the declared specificity of the test.

Most PCR tests are intended to serve only as an aid in diagnosis. Therefore, healthcare providers must consider any outcome, taking into account the time of sampling, the type of sample, the specificity of the test, the clinical observations, the patient’s medical history, the confirmed status of the people they have been in contact with and the epidemiological information. “


This news has far-reaching and serious consequences for the whole world. It is important to note and expose several aspects of this latest move by the World Health Organization:


The WHO issues new instructions on January 13, 2021, on the eve of Biden’s inauguration, which clearly shows its bias. Had they published those guidelines a few months ago, it would have gone in Trump’s favor, and it is well known about their conflict with Trump when he denied them funding accusing them of covering up the pandemic in China. Timing is closely related to goals.

Objectives of the new guidelines

Given the fact that the new guidelines are planned to reduce the number of cycles in the processing of PCR tests, this, as they say, will result in a significantly lower number of infected in the coming period. This “success” will, of course, be attributed to:

a) vaccines and their “effectiveness”, which should encourage mass vaccination,

b) At the same time, the reduction in the number of infected will be presented as a “successful” result of unprecedented and unjustified repressive measures in all countries. We must not forget the centralist way of managing the crisis, which is clearly seen in practically the same measures taken in most countries, as well as in the use of identical names and phrases of Orwellian-intoned New Speech in all languages: new normal, social distance, next 2 weeks are key, straighten the curve, invisible enemy, stay responsible, think of others. we are at war, we will win…

Without diminishing the potential danger of this disease, especially for vulnerable groups, it is impossible not to notice a carefully planned and well-coordinated strategy for managing the corona crisis.

We follow the development of events. Every violence against a man comes to an end. Let’s never forget that!


  1. dr. sc. Velo Markovski, infectologist, professor at the Faculty of Medicine


  1. dr. sc. Krešimir Pavelić, doctor, dean of the Medical Faculty in Pula


  1. European Commission: Guidance on the types and efficacy of in vitro diagnostic tests for COVID-19


  1. Bulgarian Association of Pathologists


  1. How reliable are pcr tests for viral diagnosis? A review.

In this article he saw a video, and in the article there is a transcript: Interview with Kary B. Mullis – Nobel Prize winner and inventor of PCR tests – in which Mullis warns of the possibility of misuse or misinterpretation of PCR tests, but also the fact that the test is not provided for disease diagnosis.


  1. David Knight show: A Forbidden Video in which Kary B. Mullis, a Nobel laureate and inventor of PCR tests, expresses his negative opinion of Dr. Fauci. Worth a look !!


  1. Članak: PCR test cannot be used to diagnose covid or any other viral infections


  1. Presentation by the German lawyer Reiner Fuellmich in which he presents the results of the work of the Commission of Inquiry into the Crown of which he is a member. Over the course of 4 months, the commission gathered irrefutable evidence and testimonies from a number of eminent physicians and scientists from other fields of biomedical sciences about the unreliability of PCR tests and their misuse in order to impose restrictive measures. A video with a translation that is definitely worth watching!


  1. Swiss immunologist, professor emeritus, Beda Stadler


  1. A documentary Hold up with translation in which, among other things, the facts about the unacceptable misuse of PCR tests are presented. Definitely worth a look!


  1. WHO guidelines


  1. Children’s Health Defense




Source: СРБИН.ИНФО by srbin.info.

*The article has been translated based on the content of СРБИН.ИНФО by srbin.info. If there is any problem regarding the content, copyright, please leave a report below the article. We will try to process as quickly as possible to protect the rights of the author. Thank you very much!

*We just want readers to access information more quickly and easily with other multilingual content, instead of information only available in a certain language.

*We always respect the copyright of the content of the author and always include the original link of the source article.If the author disagrees, just leave the report below the article, the article will be edited or deleted at the request of the author. Thanks very much! Best regards!