Chemistry COVID pandemic Science

No Proof of SARS-CoV-2 virus or that PCR test is accurate

The folks at Reignite Democracy Australia asked the Australian government Health department two questions under the Freedom of Information Act.

They asked for documents that provide factual scientific evidence for the existence of the China coronavirus (COVID19 SARS-CoV-2) from it being isolated from a symptomatic patient.

They asked for documents that provide factual scientific evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that the PCR test used in Australia 100% positively identifies the China coronavirus (COVID19 SARS-CoV-2) and not any other coronavirus.

They got their response. No such documents exist!

This is totally in line with what others have written. There is no proof that the China coronavirus (COVID19 SARS-CoV-2) even exists because it has not been isolated and purified and thus its genome accurately mapped.

Particle purification is an essential pre-requisite for proving the existence of a virus, and thus to prove that the RNA from the particle in question comes from a new virus.

Secondly the RT-PCR test used to allegedly identify the China coronavirus (COVID19 SARS-CoV-2) in Australia was reported to initially have been developed and calibrated using the irradiated (dead or inactivated) SARS-CoV-1 virus, called SARS from back in 2002-2004.

The PCR test is even called the gold standard in testing and diagnosis of COVID-19. But unless you have isolated and purified the SARS-CoV-2 virus how can you develop a gold standard in testing for the SARS-CoV-2 virus? If you can’t say with certainty what it is you are testing for because you don’t have a purified sample of the target then how can you use the PCR test to establish the validity of the PCR test used for COVID-19? In Australia they use 40 to 45 cycles in the PCR test but any number over 25 is flawed and over 35 cycles can generate 97% false positives.

In the user guide of one test available in Australia, it clearly states the PCR test does not distinguish between SARS-CoV-2, Influenza (A and B types), Human Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) A and B types. The guide goes on to say that it only provides a qualitative test (not quantitative) and a positive result should be evaluated by a health care professional in the context of medical history, symptoms and other tests.

RT-PCR performed on respiratory samples is the main diagnostic modality for detection of acute COVID-19 disease. But this is being done in Australia under an emergency exemption from the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). (Source) Therefore if under emergency exemption it means it has not been approved for normal use. That means it has not met the burden of proof required for TGA approval. So how accurate is it?

References to any isolation of SARS-CoV-2 invariably depend on PCR technology and yet its inventor, Dr. Kary Mullis states why this is not a suitable application.

“PCR detects a very small segment of the nucleic acid which is part of a virus itself. The specific fragment detected is determined by the somewhat arbitrary choice of DNA primers used which become the ends of the amplified fragment” [1]

“Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron. PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers. Although there is a common misimpression that the viral-load tests actually count the number of viruses in the blood, these tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all; they can only detect proteins that are believed, in some cases wrongly, to be unique to HIV. The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves.” [2]


By John Gideon Hartnett

Dr John G. Hartnett is an Australian physicist and cosmologist, and a Christian with a biblical creationist worldview. He received a B.Sc. (Hons) and Ph.D. (with distinction) in Physics from The University of Western Australia, W.A., Australia. He was an Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Outstanding Researcher Award (DORA) fellow at the University of Adelaide, with rank of Associate Professor. Now he is retired. He has published more than 200 papers in scientific journals, book chapters and conference proceedings.

2 replies on “No Proof of SARS-CoV-2 virus or that PCR test is accurate”

Dear John, Thank you for your ‘posts’. Could you please sum it up in your own words in language a plain man (or woman in my case) can understand. I look forward to hearing from you. Kindest regards, Jane Blakey.


Jane, I’ll try to do better.

In this post, the evidence casts enormous doubt on the validity and accuracy of the PCR test used to detect the alleged China virus infection. The SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus has never been isolated and knowing that there are about 400 different coronaviruses they can’t know which virus they are really dealing with. But until it is accurately identified we can ask, does SARS-CoV-2 virus really exist?

If they don’t have a 100% genuine reference specimen then there is no way they can test some unknown virus to determine if it is the one causing COVID19 disease. They based their PCR tests on an initial model shared by a Chinese lab. That was probably wrong since they never isolated and purified the virus either.

One research scientist wrote that he received 1500 samples to test in his lab and they couldn’t find any coronaviruses in any of them but found influenza viruses, both A and B types. So probably what we are seeing around the world is a mixture of viruses and other diseases which strongly affect the elderly and frail as does influenza. It could be a type of influenza. That needs to be considered. Influenza kills people every year. And it is worth noting that in many counties (USA, UK, Australia etc) there seems to be very little influenza in 2020 and 2021.

It has become politicised to the point that anyone suffering from a cough, fever and headache is diagnosed with COVID19. Then they put them on a ventilator and kill them. They get a respiratory disease which rarely affects younger people. Add to that a lot of data manipulation (false attribution of cause of death) and they generate a high COVID19 death count and a panicdemic. Whereas generally the annual death totals in most countries are similar to that of a flu season when compared to past years. In that case many older and frail people die from flu and other pneumonia type diseases.


Comments are closed.