Warum wurden wir nicht aufgeklärt, dass PCR-Tests nicht genau sind und viele falsche Ergebnisse erzeugen können?

  • Coronaviren sind jedes Jahr verantwortlich für 1/3 aller Erkältungserkrankungen https://www.dpz.eu/de/infothek/wissen/coronaviren.html (Deutsches Primatenzentrum, Leibniz Institut für Primatenforschung.)
  • Die Reproduktionszyklen (CT – Cycle Treshhold) sind nicht von Labor zu Labor oder Test zu Test exakt gleich und können somit keinen unmittelbar vergleichbaren Messwert darstellen, der das Ergebnis immer exakt bestimmt. https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Vorl_Testung_nCoV.html
  • Auch noch längere Zeit nach Inaktivität des Virus kann ein PCR-Test positiv ausfallen, da kurzkettige Virusfragmente, die die gesuchte Genseuqenz noch vollständig enthalten, noch vorhanden sein können. https://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/120745/SARS-CoV-2-Infektiositaet-laesst-auch-in-positiven-Abstrichen-fruehzeitig-nach (Ärzteblatt – mit Verweis auf New England Journal of Medicine)
  • Selbst in Deutschland allein sind PCR-Tests und Laborbedingngen schon unterschiedlich, so dass es keinen einheitlichen Standard und somit kein einheitliches (vergleichbares) Ergebnis gibt. https://www.charite.de/en/clinical_center/themes_hospital/main_topic_coronavirus/faqs_on_sars_cov_2/
  • Je nach Infektionskrankheit benötigt es eine gewisse Viruslast (Menge an Viren), um möglicherweise einen Krankheitswert (= Symptome, oder bei Infektionskrankheiten eine Infektiösiät) zu haben. Der PCR Test kann nicht messen ob man “krank” ist. https://flexikon.doccheck.com/de/Krankheitswert https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viruslast
  • Bei einigen PCR-Tests steht wahrheitsgemäß im Beipackzettel, dass durch einen PCR-Test allein keine Diagnose gestellt werden kann, sondern zur Unterstützung einer Differentialdiagnose dient. https://clinical.r-biopharm.com/de/produkte/ridagene-sars-cov-2/
  • Die allgemeine medizinische Definition von Infektionskrankheit (Viren sind in den Körper eingedrungen und vermehren sich – aktuell) unterscheidet sich von der Definition des Infektionsschutzgesetztes !!! Nach dem Infektionsschutzgesetz muss eine Infektiösität NICHT zweifelsfrei nachgewiesen werden um Jemanden als neu infiziert zu zählen !!! Da bei einer Pandemie solch genaue Differenzierung zu aufwändig und kostspielig wäre, und auch zu lange dauern würde. Da es um den Schutz von Menschen geht, ist die Definiton hier also nicht so streng, wie ansonsten in der Medizin üblich wenn keine Pandemie ausgerufen wurde und das Infektionsschutzgestz nicht greift. Was man also mit z.B. Infizierten und Neuinfizierten genau meint, ist während einer ausgerufenen Pandemie nicht die streng wissenschaftlich erwiesene Infektion – sondern auch nur ein Verdacht!

Fazit:

  1. Ein PCR-Test kann NICHT nachweisen, ob man an Corona wirklich erkrankt ist.
  2. Ein PCR-Test kann im Idealfall nur nachweisen, dass man (ein paar) Corona Viren in sich hat(te).
  3. Die Begriffe “Neuinfizierte” und “Infizierte” die in den Medien benutzt werden, bedeuten während einer pandemischen Lage NICHT, dass die Zahlen korrekt sind und tatsächlich so viele Menschen wirklich infiziert oder erkrankt sind. Es genügt NUR der Verdacht, dass sie es sein könnten.

Selbstverständlich kann und sollte man aber Zweifel an dem Ausruf einer pandemischen Lage haben. Besonders in einer Demokratie muss man wachsam sein, da es u.a. weitgehende autoritäre Massnahmen und Eingriffe in die Freiheit erlaubt.

(3 votes)
Loading...

Similar Posts

Subscribe
Notify of
135 Answers
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Green8300
2 months ago

I’ve called this as a conspiracy theorist from the beginning…but the subject is not over yet.

The inventor and Nobel Prize winner of the PCR Kary Mullis had always said that a PCR test is made only for chemical and not for biological detection. Furthermore, it cannot prove a virus, but only fragments and a PCR cannot distinguish between corona and flu—>was also the flu during corona virtually extinct–>the flu was corona.

What you also need to know is that the SARS-Cov-2 has a specific ORF1 gene and an E gene that owns any kind of coronavirus is exciting that from April 2020 every test was positive, whether ORF1 gene or E gene…so we could not say whether it was an ordinary coronavirus or SARS-Cov-2.

Here is the text of an Augsburg laboratory from an internet archive, because this text has been deleted:

Changed result layout of the SARS-CoV2 PCR results from now on, we only output the result posiƟv or negaƟv on our findings. To date, you have received two results depending on the test used. If the sample has been analyzed by Roche, we have reported the measurement results for both target sequences of the PCR (ORF1 and E gene) separately. The ORF1 gene is specific for SARS-CoV-2, while the E gene also occurs in other coronaviruses. The cases in which only the ORF gene was amplified have already been evaluated posiƟv. Few cases with isolated posiƟvem E gene were considered to be questionable and therefore repeatedly led to questions and problems regarding further management of affected patients. Taking into account the epidemiological situaƟon and the overall dense posiƟvenrate, we are now following the WHO Recommendation and will give a result as “posiƟv” when only the E gene has been amplified. In order to simplify the findings, only a total result (posiƟv or negaƟv) appears. A result is posiƟv if at least one of the two target sequences of the SARS-CoV-2 has been detected in the scrap material. If the sample has been analyzed by methods of rBiopharm or TibMolbiol, we have previously carried out separate screening and screening tests. Analogously to the procedure described above, due to the high posiƟven prediction value, with increasing COVID-19 prevalence, we limit ourselves to the previous screening test aimed at the E gene. 03.04.2020

LG

Green8300
2 months ago
Reply to  gluchjeiser

yes that was strange at the time…I had read this at the time on their homepage and made some media houses aware of it by e-mail…because this fact with the genes has shown me from the beginning that something cannot vote…there were no reports in the media and funnyly the next day this entry was deleted on the homepage…it was from the beginning a scam with the aim of making the mRNA treatments saloonable…and that was with the genes worldwide…

Spezialmann
2 months ago
Reply to  Green8300

and a PCR cannot distinguish between corona and flu—>was also the flu during corona virtually extinct–>the flu was corona.

It’s one of your countless false claims again. Of course, the PCR tests could disassemble corona and flu viruses.

Why do you always spread so easily transparent false information?

Caius18
2 months ago
Reply to  Green8300

I’m afraid you didn’t understand the lab’s paragraph quoted here.

Green8300
2 months ago
Reply to  Caius18

what did I not understand?

DerRoll
2 months ago
Reply to  Caius18

Oh, you have to understand what you write? Unfortunately, no one has betrayed the user. Now he’s already trying to prove his absentee claims and it’s not right again. Such a conspiracy theorist has a hard time here.

Eisenschlumpf
2 months ago
Reply to  Green8300

PCR cannot distinguish between corona and flu

This is lied, or with intention unprecise. PCRs showing influenza viruses are found on influenza viruses and not on corona viruses. PCRs which show coronaviruses show coronaviruses and no influenza viruses. That they do not distinguish is clear, but they only show that they are designed for.

Green8300
2 months ago

some users could be almost a hobby gatekeeper… 😉

Spezialmann
2 months ago

One thing says nothing

Yes. It says that there has always been “simply and unexpectedly” and nothing has to do with any intention to reduce the overpopulation.

On the other hand, I had made more arguments.

You threw two more terms. They’re not arguments.

The source says that is counted incorrectly like many other sources

And she also says that this is statistically irrelevant.

The wrong number is a fact that you constantly deny.

I don’t deny it. I wrote on top:

It was counted wrong, but it was statistically irrelevant.

Because that’s what YEAR Source says: It was counted wrong, but it was statistically irrelevant. Why do you raise the first statement DEINER Source, while you ignore the second?

Caius18
2 months ago

Believe without sound knowledge what you want and just let yourself be sewn.

Green8300
2 months ago

continue to deny facts…you can seem good

Spezialmann
2 months ago

Possibly in addition to some Sudden-Deaths (simply and unexpectedly deceased) probably long-term effect of RNA, sterilization effects (lowering birth rate)

Oh, yes, ” Suddenly and unexpectedly.” There has always been this, and the number of sudden heart death has been falling for years. And would not improve the “balance” of population reduction.

Claim those who deliberately spread lies and propaganda about the media and made critics mouth dead

No, claimed the source you link. She seems credible for you, otherwise you wouldn’t have linked her. Why do you ignore this statement in the from you linked source?

Caius18
2 months ago

The VT sources where I found this text do not make exactly this difference. There are also beautiful colorful rings to see so that everyone can see how evil “gens” are. How many coronaviruses in D (not Sars-Cov2) do you know where a test on the E-gen would be positive? That can change. Lord let brains rain.

Spezialmann
2 months ago

in my opinion

Yeah, you already wrote. You’re welcome to have that opinion, but it’s bullshit.

or to counteract the overpopulation.

How’s that supposed to work? With a disease that demands a little 7 million deaths, this is less than 1 promille of the world’s population. So it really cannot be.

false censuses (dead with and died, even accident and murder victims)

This is statistically irrelevant. Even if it doesn’t fit you into the stuff and you prefer to leave the statement unnoticed.

Green8300
2 months ago

these are 2 different aspects…the one are false-positive results and the other is that consciously only the E-gene is to be tested for WHO rates…

Caius18
2 months ago

I’ve been looking a little bit about the news about this Augsburg laboratory. In this text, which you have posted twice here, the answer to the question is certainly not hidden, why there were some false positive results in this laboratory. This certainly has other reasons and these are most likely in the known sources of error in this method.

Spezialmann
2 months ago

That’s not proof. This is theory (=belief). See above.

There are countless evidence that PCR tests work and only hit Corona viruses.

Your theory or belief is huge.

in the human body anyway.

Then why not attack all people, but only those infected with SARS CoV2?

also contain sequences in other viruses

You are looking for sequences that only occur in SARS CoV 2. No other known virus has these structures. If it is a previously unknown virus, this is obviously so rare that it is not known. And then statistically irrelevant.

Coronaviruses are responsible for 1/3 of all cold diseases every year

Well, you quickly corrected yourself. Cold diseases are not just the flu.

You see, you really have no idea about the subject, but talk and talk…

You’re like flu with cold diseases. Obviously you’re the one who has no idea.

Because there is only one theory (=believe) that it is statistically irrelevant, there is no proof.

It’s in exactly the same article you’re showing for your testimony. Is your source credible or not?

Caius18
2 months ago

I’m sorry, you just don’t understand what you’re reading. I’m not your explanation.

Caius18
2 months ago

With a little over 1000 PCRs+sequencing reactions within a few years, still handmade, I already know what I’m talking about.

Caius18
2 months ago

“There is no evidence for this, on the one hand, the PCR tests are very inaccurate from home, with “insulated” searched gene sequences being wrong and also containing sequences that occur in other viruses or anyway in the human body. It’s possible to discover it only in 50 or 100 years.”

This is, unfortunately, a self-inflated bull without any knowledge of genetics and molecular biological methods. The whole text is embarrassing, by the way. It’s just as bad for the children who are supposed to have a lack of understanding of the text and for the “coronis” represented here.

Spezialmann
2 months ago

There is no evidence for that,

Of course there is. The PCR tests only apply to SARS CoV 2. You really have no idea about the subject at all.

https://www.mdr.de/know/faktencheck-corona-pcr-tests-100.html

Corona viruses are also responsible for 1/3 of all influenza cases every year.

Influenza viruses are responsible for the flu. Corona and Influenza viruses are completely different virus groups. You have no idea about this topic.

Because that wasn’t your question, you wanted to prove that it was wrong

It was counted wrong, but it was statistically irrelevant. Why didn’t you quote that restriction?

Spezialmann
2 months ago

Or 7 million influenza and vaccine

What do you want with flu? The Corona test starts with Corona, not with flu.

I have already answered that, please learn to read carefully.

You just jumped out, didn’t answer. Why aren’t you honest and write that it didn’t past you into your little world and you didn’t quote it?

Spezialmann
2 months ago

Yeah, because there’s no safe evidence. There were certainly various seriously ill people, maybe a little more and more sick than a normal flu wave.

There were 7 million Corona deaths worldwide and several hundred million infected. To deny this and then to talk about “something more than a normal flu wave” is completely absurd.

Proof that people who didn’t die of Corona were counted.

Yeah, that’s in your article. But also that this is not statistically relevant. Why didn’t you quote this place?

in my opinion

Yo, you can think. It’s bullshit.

Spezialmann
2 months ago

Wrong. That’s just when you believe that the tests work well enough or that there was actually a Corona pandemic.

Oh wow, now you’re denying that there was a pandemic. You have the full program.

For example, if test is false negative or if no test has been made.

There can be anyone claiming to search for any short-chain gene sequences from a huge chain that may exist 😉 only in the Corona virus.

You obviously have no idea how a PCR test works. Congratulations, you’re embarrassing yourself with every comment.

So: Statistically completely irrelevant.

This is what people who may have created a fake pandemic to benefit from it or reduce the population. I don’t believe such people.

This is in the article you link. Why do you link something that contradicts your opinion?

Spezialmann
2 months ago

These are just theories.

No. Both the overcrowding and the under-creation are facts.

Similarly, one could say there was a huge overstatement because the tests provide false results.

No, because the error rate of the test was extremely low.

But that’s not right, I had proved that until at least 2023 was counted incorrectly (dead with and died), I bet today is so.

How would you have proven something from 2023 with an article from 2021? In addition, I have already explained to you that the “with” or “an” question only plays a role in your circles, otherwise not because there was also a not inconsiderable understatement.

That’s not true, there were also casualties, murder victims, self-defenses, etc.

This is again an article from 2020, i.e. the beginning of the pandemic. And – why don’t you cite completely from the article? It says:

That’s true. However, the situation described is very rare, so that the number of deaths is not distorted.

So: Statistically completely irrelevant. Again, you link an article that is quite the opposite of what you say. Are you reading what you’re linking? Or are you just pulling out what seems to fit you in the stuff?

You don’t know who buys the goods at the supermarket. In vaccination you know exactly who comes and who you give the injection – this is the difference.

You’re really on something big, go on! That also applies to the rest of your disgusting statements.

Spezialmann
2 months ago

The user has no other view, but explains what it has with your alleged sensation – nothing.

Green8300
2 months ago

so that you can read again… another user has a different view, that’s legitimate…you know what’s inside?

Green8300
2 months ago

let me know…but please with books written in front of the test pandemic, because there is everywhere that C viruses are basically harmless cold viruses…beautifully that you managed to google the Dunning-Kruger effect…

Caius18
2 months ago

Oje, here unfortunately someone massively under the Dunning-Kruger effect

Green8300
2 months ago

no it is not…a coronavirus is basically a harmless virus…you know…for your educational gap I can’t and your story is really cute

Caius18
2 months ago

Sorry, the comment is slipped.

Caius18
2 months ago

This is basically wrong. A friend of mine has visited a bat cave on Cuba and has become very ill. Probably an unidentified coronavirus. He was very sick for a long time. A pandemic has not become of it because it was apparently not so easy to transfer from human to human. I know Mexican biologists who, when they catch bats for examination, have been wearing mouthguards long before “Corona”. Whoever talks the risk here is no longer to help.

Spezialmann
2 months ago

Why do you post the same thing you wrote in your answer again as a comment? Since you have already been explained that the alleged sensation is not at all?

And what you have not yet explained: Why do you spread the wrong information, PCR test could not distinguish between Corona and Influenza?

Green8300
2 months ago

Here is the text of an Augsburg laboratory from an internet archive, because this text has been deleted:

Changed result layout of the SARS-CoV2 PCR results from now on, we only output the result posiƟv or negaƟv on our findings. To date, you have received two results depending on the test used. If the sample has been analyzed by Roche, we have reported the measurement results for both target sequences of the PCR (ORF1 and E gene) separately. The ORF1 gene is specific for SARS-CoV-2, while the E gene also occurs in other coronaviruses. The cases in which only the ORF gene was amplified have already been evaluated posiƟv. Few cases with isolated posiƟvem E gene were considered to be questionable and therefore repeatedly led to questions and problems regarding further management of affected patients. Taking into account the epidemiological situaƟon and the overall dense posiƟvenrate, we are now following the WHO Recommendation and will give a result as “posiƟv” when only the E gene has been amplified. In order to simplify the findings, only a total result (posiƟv or negaƟv) appears. A result is posiƟv if at least one of the two target sequences of the SARS-CoV-2 has been detected in the scrap material. If the sample has been analyzed by methods of rBiopharm or TibMolbiol, we have previously carried out separate screening and screening tests. Analogously to the procedure described above, due to the high posiƟven prediction value, with increasing COVID-19 prevalence, we limit ourselves to the previous screening test aimed at the E gene. 03.04.2020

I hope you can read this sensual…

Spezialmann
2 months ago

that each relevant C virus has been counted as a deadly virus and thus treated

No, just SARS CoV2. And that was anything but troubleless.

Spezialmann
2 months ago

The scope is so small that this question only plays a role in circles of conspiracy believers.

The question does not have to be “on or with” but “the one who died earlier because he was infected”. If the answer is yes, it is a Corona death.

Moreover, the link shows that there was also a massive understatement – deceased who were not tested at all. This is likely to be at least statistically equal, if it does not even lead to a higher sub-arrangement.

Green8300
2 months ago

you don’t understand the scope of on and with etc…this is exactly the same with the tests (ORF1 gene)…that had all the consequences for the people…Leave Basic Law…Working insolvent etc.

Spezialmann
2 months ago

they are at present Total

Just what I had written: At the beginning yes, later no more. And at no time, for example, accident victims with a positive test were counted as corona victims. As described in the article, it is about people with basic diseases, which are also additionally affected by corona.

And secondly, patients with basic diseases infected with COVID-19 who cannot be clearly shown what was ultimately the cause of death (“dead with”).

Here the question arises whether they have lived shorter because they have infected themselves with corona. If this is the case, Corona is the cause of death.

Nonsense, you could not specifically kill many individual people with food or other products – only with specially adapted injections.

Why? You’ve established that vaccines have batch numbers. There are many other products. So why do you think it is possible to produce a single vaccine specifically and deliver it, but not other things? Inconsistent.

It was not unlikely at all, probably only the protests prevented it at all.

Sure, you’re obviously running behind every regular table parole and conspiracy count.

Green8300
2 months ago

should I be like this, even though I see it differently… but what did that say in the reverse? that every insane C virus was counted as a deadly virus and treated so…just forget that due to precisely these numbers the basic law was expelled and the people were grazed…Companies broke etc…

Caius18
2 months ago

You don’t seem to know the difference between corona and flu viruses. This actually says everything.The other text does not fit the first sentences at all. If a virus changes quickly, it can be advantageous to detect two different sequences from a virus from one and the same sample. There are probably very specific primers and somewhat less specific primers used here. Because the Corona virus was mainly in circulation in the population, it seems that there is no double evidence. In addition, the text states that there were problems if only the E gene was not detected by the ORF gene. There are two possibilities here, either the patients had another corona virus or the patients had “Corona” but with mutated ORF gene. The effort to break these two cases has not been made.

Green8300
2 months ago

let the hobby gatekeepers…they aren’t worth giving them valuable life…you can spit facts into the face and they still don’t see it

Eisenschlumpf
2 months ago

I believe it was entirely wrong-positive. What you think is your thing. There is no evidence.

So you admit that you have no evidence on the subject and only suspect it.