How corrupt politicians misused the PCR Test to commit a horrific crime

Four years ago, our freedom was taken away from us and our children by an artificially manufactured emergency. The emergency was part of a war that uses monstrous lies to hide the truth. We are only beginning to learn the full details of this crime. We must fight this battle courageously, and we must win, for if we do not, our children will be subject to an age of oppression unlike any in history.

On January 20, 2020, the first COVID case in the United States was announced in Washington state. It was based on a PCR test called the Corman Drosten PCR test - a test that was not actually published until January 23, 2020 and was known even in January 2020 to be wrong 29 times out of 30. We will review the serious drawbacks of this test later in this report.

In March 2020, despite not a single case of any child in any school transmitting this virus to any adult, corrupt government bureaucrats claimed there was an “emergency” which required closing all of the schools in Washington state. The basis for this claimed emergency was that a few people had tested “positive” for the corona virus using a version of the PCR test that was specifically designed to create huge numbers of false positive tests. In this article, we will briefly review how the PCR test works and explain how the PCR test was misused to create fear and close schools in Washington state.

What we describe in this report is a monstrous crime scene. Those responsible for this crime need to be held accountable for the crimes they committed. They must be arrested, tried and put in prison. We must never forget the harm this crime inflicted on our children, our businesses and our families.

How the PCR Test Works
PCR stands for Polymerase Chain Reaction. It was first invented in 1983 by Dr. Kary Mullis. Dr. Mullis was looking for a faster way to create or copy strands of DNA and RNA for use in genetic testing and genetic research.


His PCR process required heating up the sample in order to break each strand of DNA into two strands of RNA. An enzyme called Polymerase (the P in PCR) is used to make the copies of the RNA. Mullis originally used a normal Polymerase enzyme which needed to be continually added because it was destroyed by the heat. He then switched to a heat resistant enzyme called TAQ DNA polymerase produced by a heat resistant bacteria that lived in Yellowstone National Park to assist this PCR process. In 1993, Mullis won the Nobel Prize for creating this process.


Here is a brief summary of how PCR creates billions and even trillions of copies of an RNA strand. The sample is placed in a special chemical soup which uses the TAQ Polymerase enzyme or catalyst combined with Primers or RNA starting blocks that have been designed specifically to match with the regions of the gene you want to copy.


The soup is first heated to about 90 degrees Celsius (194 degrees Fahrenheit) in order to break the DNA into two strands of RNA. The heat is then reduced to 70 degrees Celsius (158 degrees Fahrenheit) where the RNA strands combine with the Primers to magnify the amount of the DNA region into a new copy.

Each new copy is called a cycle. Each new cycle doubles the amount of the DNA you want to study. The copy of the sample is then ran through a second cycle (heating it up and cooling it down) to further magnify the DNA region. The copy of the copy is then ran through a third cycle to magnify it. If the original sample had 10 molecules with the DNA strand you want to study, the first copy will have 20 molecules, the second copy will have 40 molecules and the third copy will have 80 molecules.


Simply put, PCR is used to amplify a single copy of a DNA segment and create millions or even billions of copies of a particular DNA segment. However, just like making copies of a picture on a copy machine, each time you to a PCR cycle, the DNA image gets small errors. These errors are also magnified with each cycle.


The Detection Limit is the amount of virus required to claim a positive test result. If there is a lot of a target virus to begin with, it should only take 20 cycles for the quantity to exceed the Detection Limit. However, if there is only a tiny amount of a virus, it will take 30 or more cycles for the quantity to exceed the Detection Limit:


The number of cycles it takes to for the amount of virus to exceed the Detection Limit is called the Cycle Threshold or Ct. Sadly, the Cycle Threshold for Washington State PCR tests was set for 37 – meaning that a person can almost none of the virus and still get a Positive Test result. To make matters worse, the PCR test can not tell if the virus is alive or dead. So a person can have trace amounts (or even no) corona live viruses and still get a (false) positive PCR test.

Where do dead viruses come from?
Every time we inhale, even if we are wearing a mask, we inhale millions of viruses and bacteria. This is especially true if we are indoors and there is little air circulation. Virus have trouble existing outdoors because they are easily and quickly killed by sunlight. This is why over 90% of all viral infections occur inside the home.

Viruses are also killed by our natural immune system – especially if we help the immune system by taking Vitamins C and D. Our immune system is so effective at killing viruses that we can inhale a lot of the corona virus and have no symptoms at all – meaning we are not actually sick and cannot transmit the corona virus to anyone else. But we can still have dead viruses picked up by the PCR test.

The most common cause of dead viruses is that our immune system has killed the viruses within 2 to 10 days. But the body can take 3 to 4 weeks to clear the dead viruses from your body:


A Long History of PCR Test False Positives
The problem with false positives was first published in a 1988 study. Source: Lo et al (1988) False-positive results and the polymerase chain reaction. Lancet 2:679.

In 1994, another study of false positives was published by Taranger. They found that while 91% of infants has a positive PCR test, only 34% of these same infants had a positive culture test. See Taranger et al (1994) Environmental contamination leading to false-positive polymerase chain reaction for pertussis. Ped Infect Dis J 13:936–937. The false positive rate was 63%.

In 1997, Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR test stated: "Anyone can test positive for practically anything with a PCR test, if you run it long enough, you can find almost anything in anybody. It doesn’t tell you that you’re sick."


In 2000, the first fatality from a false positive PCR test occurred when a woman tested positive for Lyme Disease and was given aggressive treatment which killed her. Additional PCR and other tests confirmed that she never had Lyme disease to begin with.

Also in 2000, a study was published called “Limitations of the nested RT-PCR.” (Calogero et all). The study used six different primers and a Cycle Threshold of 30. However, of the 9 non-melanoma patients, 6 tested positive for the melanoma markers (67% false positives even when using 6 primers – the COVID PCR test only uses 2 primers).

Their conclusion was the ability of “PCR to detect the presence of malignant melanoma has limited diagnostic value, due to the high percentage of false-positive results in non-melanoma patients.”

Put in plain English, even a cycle threshold as low as 30 and using 6 primers has too many false positives to be of any use for disease diagnosis. The COVID PCR test uses only 2 primers and a Cycle count of 37 – which is why the false positive rate is over 97%.

In 2005, a study was published which used a cycle threshold of 40 and included a graph showing the increase in false positives as the cycle count was increased:


The graph confirms that as the Cycle Threshold (Ct) increases, the accuracy decreases. Note that the above graph only goes to a Cycle Threshold of 20. But you can see that if you extended the Cycle Threshold to 30, the accuracy would fall to near zero.

A 2008 PCR Cycle Count study recommended a Cycle Threshold of 24. Here is the graph:


A 2011 PCR Cycle Threshold study recommended a Cycle count of 25 to 28 depending on the relative importance of avoid a false positive versus avoiding a false negative.

Here was their graph showing recommended Ct cutoffs of 25 to 28:


The parameter r represents the ratio of cost of a false-negative over cost of a false-positive. Minimum proportional cost for r = 2 (lines A), r = 0.5 (line B), and r = 1 (line C).

What is the problem with 30 cycles?
Each cycle doubles the amount of the target gene. Therefore a cycle count of 10 increases the concentration of the target gene (and therefore the likelihood of a false positive) by a factor of 1000. A cycle count of 20 increases the concentration by a factor of one million. A cycle count of 30 increases the concentration by a factor of one billion. Any Ct greater than 30 is virtually useless due to the very high percentage of false positives.

Why some researchers still used a Cycle Threshold of 40
The actual purpose of the PCR test is not to diagnose illness. It is rather a research tool designed to make billions of copies of a DNA strand so that the DNA strands can be studied. Used in the right way, it does not matter if there are false positives. All that matters is making as many copies as possible. However, even for this purpose Kary Mullis and others recommended never going beyond a cycle count of 30.

It is therefore troubling that many researchers continued to use a Cycle Threshold of 40. Having worked in several University Science labs, I suspect that the reason for the high Cycle Threshold was to “cheat the system.” This is because National Science Foundation grants and National Institute of Health grants are awarded to those who can show the best results. Bumping the Cycle Count up to 40 is a way of assuring that you will find whatever it is your looking for – even if it is not really there. It is the most reliable way to keep the funding coming in.

The Real Gold Standard... A Positive Culture Test
The real problem is not the extremely high cycle count of the current Corona Virus PCR Test. Rather, the problem is that the test is being misused to do something it was NEVER intended to do... diagnose positive cases of Covid-19. The criminals who came up with this plan lied to all of us by calling the PCR Test the “Gold Standard” when in fact it has always been extremely unreliable. The real gold standard for diagnosis of illness is a positive Culture test.


Virus isolation in cell cultures has long served as the “gold standard” for virus detection, and it is the method to which all others have been compared.

An example of the Real Gold Standard … A study published on September 1, 2020 found that about two thirds of 161 people hospitalized as patients and testing positive for the corona virus turned out to not have live corona virus when their samples were ran through a culture test.


Of 50 people confirmed by culture to be positive, all except 1 were PCR positive at or before a Cycle Threshold of 25. Of those found to be culture negative, there were false PCR positives even with Cycle Thresholds as low as 15. Above Ct of 25, 95% of the PCR positives were false positives.

So if the CDC knew that a Ct of over 25 is not reliable, why did they instruct vendors to use a Cycle threshold of 40 to 45???
Sadly, the CDC is controlled by corrupt drug companies. The four largest drug companies - that produce all 72 vaccines mandated for American children - are all convicted felons. Since 2009, those four drug companies collectively have paid $35 billion dollars in criminal penalties for defrauding regulators, for falsifying science, for bribing doctors, for lying to the public, and killing lots of people.

Call me old fashioned, but when a drug company has been convicted of killing people by the thousands just to make a buck, it is time to put that company out of business – not put them in charge of health policies for the entire US. Put in plain English, the CDC from the very start has been lying to the American people. The purpose of the PCR test was to drive up the numbers and the fear as high as possible. I wrote an entire article about the crimes committed by the CDC and their Drug Company Overlords which you can read at this link:


How the Corona Virus PCR Test was rigged
On January 9, 2020, the World Health Organization published a statement about Pneumonia cases in Wuhan China: “Over the past week, people with symptoms of pneumonia and reported travel history to Wuhan have been identified at international airports. WHO does not recommend any specific measures for travelers. WHO advises against the application of any travel or trade restrictions on China based on the information currently available.” Here is the link:

On January 10, 2020, a new virus was detected by DNA sequencing of lung fluid from a patient with pneumonia-like symptoms in Wuhan and the genetic sequence was published. Here is the January 10 2020 Tweet posting the genetic sequence.


On January 23, 2020, the first summary of a new disease in Wuhan China was published. The article claimed that risk of death was 14%. We now know that the actual risk is much less than 1 in 100,000. The article included a graph showing that the increase in infections confirmed by some unknown method (PCR? Or Culture?) did not occur until January 18 2020. Here is the link:


Also on January 23, 2020, the first diagnostic PCR test called the Corman Drosten PCR test was published. Below is an image of the three primers used (called R, E and N):


While the table above appears to use three primer gene segments called R, E and N, the authors stated that the N gene was dropped because it did not yield the results they were looking for. Thus, the Corman PCR test used only two genes instead of the normal three to .

The article described their PCR process: “Thermal cycling was performed at 55 °C for 10 min, followed by 95 °C for 3 min and then 45 cycles of 95 °C for 15 s, 58 °C for 30 s.“ Only 9 samples were tested. Even worse, the result was only a partial match for any of the targeted gene segments!

On November 27, 2020, a detailed scientific review of the Corman-Drosten PCR test by 22 scientists found 10 major scientific flaws. Here is a link to the review:

Here is a quote: “According to BBC News and Google Statistics there were only 6 deaths world-wide on January 21st 2020 - the day when the PCR manuscript was submitted. Why did the authors assume a challenge for public health laboratories while there was no substantial evidence at that time to indicate that the outbreak was more widespread than initially thought?”

Here is a summary of the first five errors the reviewers found:


Here is a quote: “For a confirmed diagnosis of a specific virus, at least 3 specific primer pairs must be applied to detect 3 virus-specific genes… This is another factor that increases the number of false positive test results… Consequently, in nearly all test procedures worldwide, merely 2 primer-matches were used instead of all three. This oversight renders the entire test-protocol useless with regards to delivering accurate test-results.”

Error #6 The target genes were too close together and failed to account for almost half of the target DNA strand. Specifically, the R, E and N sections are all located in one half of the strand while the first and most important part of the DNA is not tested at all. In addition, the S or Spike Protein section was not covered. Thus, there should have been four targets and not just two.


Error #7 The Corman PCR test did not test for a specific target that was unique to COVID-19 and did not test for a specific target to exclude the absence of other common corona viruses. This is a problem because corona viruses (also known as the Common Cold) are the most common viruses to infect humans. There are more than 200 different Common Cold viruses and 30% of these viruses have never even been identified.

Here is a quote: “The Corman PCR test contains neither a unique positive control nor a negative control to exclude other corona viruses. This is another major design flaw which classifies the test as unsuitable for diagnosis.”


Error #8 The Corman PCR test used a Cycle threshold of 45 instead of the recommend threshold of 25. Here is a quote:

“a result with a Ct value of 45 is scientifically and diagnostically meaningless (a reasonable Ct-value should not exceed 30)… At Ct = 25, up to 70% of patients remain positive in culture and at Ct = 30 this value drops to 20%. At Ct = 35, the value of a positive result is less than 3%… If someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.”


Error #9 The Corman PCR test does not account for dead viruses. While no PCR test can tell the difference between live viruses and dead viruses, lowering the cycle threshold to 25 will greatly increase the odds that a positive test is live viruses and not dead ones.

On April 27, 2020, one of the first papers warning about problems with the COVID 19 PCR test was published. Here was their chart showing a Cycle count above 33 had no live viruses. “Patients with Ct values above 33 do not excrete infectious viral particles.“


Error 10: The Corman PCR Test was not subjected to the normal scientific review process. Normal scientific studies go through a peer review process than can take a couple of weeks. The Corman PCR Test review period was less than 1 day.

Other studies confirming the inaccuracy of COVID 19 PCR Tests

In May 22, 2020, Bullard analyzed 90 positive PCR samples. He found that only 26 samples (29%) had enough live virus to grow in a culture. There were no samples with a Cycle Count greater than 24 that had live viruses. Here was his graph:


On August 13, 2020, another PCR study was published called Relationship between PCR Ct value and culture positivity in England January to May 2020”

This study found that at a Cycle Threshold of 23, 38 out of 44 people (86%) had a positive culture. At a Cycle Threshold of 37 (which is what is used in Washington state), only 5 out of 60 people who had a positive PCR test (8%) had a positive culture. This means that 92% of the people in Washington state who were told they had a positive PCR test, in fact did not have the corona virus. Here is their graph:


On September 4, 2020, Brown University epidemiologist Andrew Bostom tweeted that out of over 11,000 students who had PCR positive tests for COVID-19 at 17 Universities, there was not a single reported hospitalization. Here is the table:

On September 28, 2020, Jafaar et al., published “Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction–Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures”.  Here is the link to this study:

“At Ct = 35, of the positive PCR tests, less than 3% of cultures are positive.” Here is their graph:


In other words, some studies concluded that there was no successful virus isolation of SARS-CoV-2 at any Ct values above 24 while other studies found “less than 3%” were still viable at Ct 35. However, even then, only non-infectious (dead) viruses are detected with Ct values of 35. Based on the above studies, in September 2020, I created this graph showing the relationship between the Cycle Threshold and percent of false positives:


On November 6, 2020, a petition was sent to the FDA asking that the Cycle Threshold for PCR tests be lowered to 25.

Among the evidence supporting their petition was an article from the NY Times.

“In three sets of [PCR] testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found…The United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases, according to a database maintained by The Times. If the rates of contagiousness in Massachusetts and New York were to apply nationwide, then perhaps only 4,500 of those people may actually need to submit to contact tracing.”

Dr. Mina, a Harvard Medical School epidemiologist told the NY Times: “In Massachusetts, 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles. None of those people should be contact-traced, not one.”

On December 17, 2020, another PCR study was published which found no live viruses in any samples whose cycle threshold was greater than 24. Here is the conclusion: “positive PCR test results from samples with cycle thresholds over 24 should not be taken to indicate the presence of any actual virus.”

On May 31, 2021 a PCR study was published. Researcher of the Medical Faculty of the University of Duisburg-Essen evaluated 190,000 PCR test results from 160,000 people – and concluded, that the majority of the positive tests are actually not infectious. The researchers looked at the CT values of the individual PCR tests: On average, 60%, at times even up to 78% of the samples were tested with a so-called threshold cycle value of 25 or higher. If such high CT values are necessary to detect the virus, this means that the viral load is actually far too low for the person tested to be contagious.

Proof that the number of False Positives is directly related to the number of tests conducted on any given day
In my book, Common Sense versus Corona Virus Hysteria, which you can read for free at Common Sense Book dot org, I showed that there was a direct relationship between the number of PCR tests given and the claimed number of COVID-19 cases. Here is the link:

In July 2020, Washington Governor Inslee extended the mask and other mandates because the number of cases had doubled in June 2020. But this was entirely due to doubling the number of tests in June 2020:


While the number of tests doubled, the official ratio of positive tests fell from 60 per thousand in May to 48 per thousand in June. However, since Washington state uses a Cycle Count of 37, in order to account for the 97% false positives, we need to divide the official numbers by 30. Thus, the actual ratio of positive tests was 2 per thousand in May and 1.6 per thousand in June.

Sadly, Inslee deliberately used fake results from in ever increasing number of fake PCR tests to deceive the public into believing that there was an “emergency” requiring the destruction of thousand of businesses when no real emergency actual existed.

The same trick of increasing the number of tests given in the summer of 2021 was used to deceive people into believing their was a new increased risk. Because the number of false positives is directly related to the number of PCR Tests, all the Whatcom County Department of Health needs to do to manufacture a Corona Crisis where none exists is to increase the number of tests given on any particular week. For example, the Whatcom County Department of Health claimed that on August 23, 2021, there were 80 confirmed corona cases.


The increase in (false) positive cases was due to a huge increase in tests administered in August compared to the previous month. What is more accurate than the number of cases is the number of hospitalizations with a positive PCR test in Whatcom county which averaged 3 per day (and likely that none of them were actual cases). Most important is the Claimed Fatality Rate in Whatcom County was zero and had been for months. This, there was no need for mask mandates or vaccine mandates in Whatcom county.

The reality is that over 95% of all PCR “positive” corona cases are not contagious. These PCR positive people can not transmit the corona virus to another person. These PCR positive people can not and will not die from the corona virus – because they do not have any measurable amount of the live corona virus in their body.

The only question left is what number we should use to convert the fake case numbers and fake fatality numbers to more accurate case numbers and fatality numbers. Since the Cycle count in Washington state was 37, then the percent of false positive PCR tests is 97%. So we should divide reported cases and reported fatalities by 30. The CDC claims that over 500,000 people in the US have died from the corona virus. If we divide by 30, then the real number is about 16,667 – which is much less than the seasonal flu (which appears to have magically disappeared for the first time in history).

The CDC is clearly using fake PCR tests to falsifying the COVID-19 Death Numbers. Corrupt politicians have been lying to us on purpose. What is that purpose? FEAR, fear and more fear - to manipulate us into doing whatever we are told. Top pathologist Dr. Roger Hodkinson told government officials in Alberta that the corona virus scam was “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public.”

It is time to hold those responsible for using this fake PCR test to close our schools and businesses accountable for the "Crime of the Century” they committed against our kids and our families.


As always, I look forward to your questions and comments.


David Spring M. Ed.

DavidSpring (at) Protonmail dot com