COVID New World Order pandemic Politics Science vaccines

Covid 19 and the PCR test – No pandemic, only junk data!

Reposted from GREATREJECT · 07/06/2021

Our world, once thriving with energy and life, has now become a dystopian landscape of barren streets and masked people with a look of foreboding in their eyes.

Governments around the world have enforced unprecedented restrictions on people’s lives, imposing lockdowns that closed down most of society for months at a time. Stopping people from visiting their family, isolating the elderly in care homes and destroying millions of people’s livelihoods.

By Gavin Phillips

These draconian laws were brought in to control an alleged pandemic created by a new virus called SARS-CoV-2 that creates the respiratory illness of Covid 19. The numbers of so called ‘cases’ and deaths ‘attributed to Covid’ are churned out daily by the media fanning the fear. The hurricane force driving this pandemic is the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test (RT-PCR). So, it’s vitally important that we understand exactly how the RT-PCR test works and its limitations.

The PCR test was invented by the late American Kary Mullis in the mid 1980’s for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1993 in Chemistry. Mullis died in August 2019.

One of the PCR’s applications is to increase genetic material found in crime scenes in order to help the police identify the criminal. The PCR test increases the amount of genetic material by using a Cycle Threshold (CT). Each CT rate doubles the amount of genetic material.

The CT rate that PCR tests are run at relating to whether someone has SARS-CoV-2 in the sample, is vitally important. Dr. Roger Hodkinson, a pathologist knowledgeable in PCR, told me that PCR tests should be below 32 cycles. If you run a PCR at over 32 CT, you start to get a lot of false positives. The higher the CT the greater the likelihood of false positive results.

The importance of the CT value was shown in a landmark court case in Portugal in November 2020. Four German tourists were forced to quarantine in a hotel in the Azores after one of them tested positive with a PCR test. The Germans brought a court case stating that they were ‘illegally confined’ in the hotel.

The Germans won their case when the Lisbon Appeal Court ruled that they were illegally held in a hotel based on a PCR test. The judges referred to a study of the PCR test by the Oxford Academic at the end of September. The study showed that any asymptomatic person being tested with a PCR test at a 35 CT or higher ‘’the probability of…receiving a false positive is 97% or higher.’’

Although it is unknown exactly at what CT value the German tourist’s PCR test was run at, virtually all European and US labs are running PCR tests at 35 CT or above, often
at 40 CT.

The judges were also critical of the fact that the supposed infected person was never seen by a doctor. Only a doctor can make a medical diagnosis. This very important court case was totally ignored by the mainstream media (MSM).

Another problem with PCR tests is getting false positives from the DNA of other organisms, often referred to as cross reactions. There are billions of different DNA’s from the multitude of life forms on our planet. Some of the cells in other organisms will have parts of their genetic sequence that are identical to SARS-CoV-2. A PCR test can give a positive for a partial genetic sequence match with DNA contamination from a plant, animal or other life form.

This was further verified by the late President of Tanzania John Magufuli. Magufuli wanted to test the reliability of the PCR test. His government randomly obtained samples from different non-human entities. Three that were tested was a goat, a sheep and a pawpaw ( a type of fruit). The samples were given human names and ages. In May 2020 Magufuli stated that the pawpaw and goat tested positive.

Due to the highly sensitive nature of PCR, it can also pick up viral fragments that may represent a recent SARS-CoV-2 infection. Let’s say you were sick with Covid 19 and then made a full recovery. Even 3 or 4 weeks later, you could still test positive, because the test cannot differentiate between a ’live’ or dead virus.

It’s also incorrect to assume that a positive PCR test equates to a clinical diagnosis of a disease in people. Positive results are not ‘cases’, they are simply positive results, many of which are actually false positives. Never in the history of medicine would a medical diagnosis be based solely on a PCR test. You need the skill and expertise of a doctor to evaluate symptoms and examine the patient. Dr Hodkinson added, “in medicine we don’t treat the numbers, we treat the whole patient”.

We keep hearing the number of supposed ‘cases’ by governments and media worldwide, but a positive PCR is never automatically considered a case in medicine. A case is someone who is visibly sick and/or is presenting to hospital, not a healthy person who happened to test positive with a test that is prone to many errors.

January 2020 – The Corman/Drosten PCR Protocol

In January 2020 a scientific paper was published by Eurosurveillance which is a scientific journal. Its commonly referred to as the Corman-Drosten paper, although other scientists contributed to it. Both Christian Drosten and Victor Corman are German virologists.

The RT-PCR test protocol in this paper was recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) to countries worldwide. This test was incorrectly said to be the ‘Gold Standard’ for testing people for SARS-CoV-2. The established ‘Gold Standard’ is DNA sequencing by the Sanger method.

In November 2020 an extensive review of the Corman-Drosten PCR protocol was carried out by many scientists (PCR experts) and was submitted to Eurosurveillance. The report cited 10 major flaws with the Corman-Drosten paper and asked Eurosurveillance to retract it. I will cover 3 of these major flaws, but a link to the full review report is provided at the end of this article.

+ In January 2020 Drosten did not have a sample of the virus (SARS-CoV-2) to design a PCR test that would accurately test for the virus. The Drosten test was based on, quote ‘’…in silco (theoretical) sequences, supplied by a laboratory in China, because at the time neither control material of infectious (‘live’) or inactivated SARS-CoV-2 nor isolated genomic RNA of the virus was available to the authors.

+ The Drosten paper recommends a CT value of 45 Cycles. As mentioned previously, any PCR test run at 35 CT (or over), will return an enormous number of false positives. Quote …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) ( including NHS laboratories in the UK ) , the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.

A reasonable CT value should not exceed 30. …a CT value of 45 is scientifically and diagnostically absolutely meaningless.

+ No Standard Operational Procedure (SOP) for laboratories to run the PCR tests. Quote, There should be a SOP available…so that all laboratories are able to set up the identical same test conditions. To have a validated universal SOP is essential, because it facilitates data comparison within and between countries…It points to flawed science that such an SOP does not exist. The laboratories are thus free to conduct the test as they consider appropriate, resulting in an enormous amount of variation.

It defies belief that the WHO would recommend a PCR protocol with a CT value of 45, unless their intention was to create as many false positives as possible.

German/American Lawyer Dr. Reiner Fuellmich

Reiner Fuellmich is the lawyer who successfully won lawsuits against Deutsche Bank and Volkswagen. Fuellmich created the German Corona Investigative Committee on July 10th 2020 with three other people, with Viviane Fischer and two other attorneys, Dr. Justus P. Hoffman and Antonia Fischer.

They decided to ask three questions. How dangerous is the virus really? How reliable is the Drosten-PCR test? How much damage do these anti-corona (Lockdowns) measures do, both to the economy and to the health and wellbeing of the world’s population?

As Fuellmich says: Now the latter is very easily answered. This is probably the worst crisis that the world has ever been in. With so many people dying…completely in vain, people who didn’t get an operation, surgical procedures that were postponed… doctors and nurses whom I have known for years tell me, Reiner, there’s something wrong, this entire hospital is almost empty, there’s no one here.

… I called a good friend of mine, someone who knows a lot about medicine, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg. Wodarg is the doctor who stepped in 12 years ago when we had a very similar situation with the Swine Flu (2009). …the same people who advanced the theory of ‘’everybody’s going to die’’, did it back then. Including Prof Drosten, including Neil Ferguson of Imperial College of London (UK).

They all pushed this story, but eventually that (the Swine Flu) turned out to be just the common flu. By the way, that’s what this looks like, the WHO issued a statement which confirmed Professor John Ioannidis study, from Stanford University, that the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of Covid 19 is between 0.14 and 0.15, which is about the same as the flu. Bear in mind that both Ioannidis and the WHO based their projections on the worldwide official figures of Covid deaths that are based on the totally flawed PCR tests. Once you remove a large percentage of the deaths as false positives, the IFR would be far lower.

Fuellmich spoke with many other experts, including Professor Sucharit Bhakdi (retired from the University of Mainz) and Dr. Mike Yeadon, former Vice president of Pfizer.

They all came to the same conclusion, whatever we’re dealing with, this is no worse than the common flu.

Fuellmich and his team decided early on to focus on the many flaws with the PCR test as the most important evidence that proves that there was no medical pandemic. As Fuellmich says, There’s a false positive PCR pandemic, not a Covid pandemic. It (the PCR test) is not even approved for diagnostic purposes – that is why this test only has a so-called emergency use authorization in the US, and not full approval.

Fuellmich is part of a team of over 30 lawyers, from Germany, the US and Canada. In the US and Canada, the lawyers will be leading class action lawsuits representing many people whose livelihoods were destroyed by the lockdowns. Fuellmich says that this is a deliberate crime against humanity; ‘’this has nothing to do with the world’s health.’’


I would like you to consider a question.

Why do you think that governments around the world ignored the hundreds of scientists that were telling them about the many flaws that the PCR test has relating to testing people for SARS-CoV-2?

One thing we now know for certain, there never was a pandemic. There was the illusion of a pandemic created by the PCR testing fraud. The mass testing of millions of healthy people which produced millions of false positives. In unison with a campaign of fear promoted by governments through the media.

Recently I was walking with my 3 yr. old niece Emily in a large town in the UK. What was once a bustling shopping centre was now just rows of closed shops. I recalled that there was an open-air food vendor marketplace which was open.

As we drew closer, we could hear someone singing. There was a well-dressed young lady, an aspiring singer and actress. She then started singing ‘’Somewhere over the Rainbow’’ from the Wizard of Oz. She sang quite beautifully so quite a crowd had gathered.

For those few minutes everyone’s hearts and spirits were lifted, even Emily started dancing. I began thinking of the performing arts, the dancers, actors, singers and theatre. So many people’s lives have been damaged by these appalling and unnecessary lockdowns.

We have learned a few important lessons from this though. Firstly, our need as human beings to embrace each other. To reach out to each other, have a hug, shake hands and talk to each other without a disgusting mask on.

It has also shown us that we should never allow any government to take away our inalienable human rights ever again. We should never allow a government to dictate to us where we can go or who we can see. Governments should never be allowed to force us to take experimental vaccines in order to access public services, or to travel anywhere we chose to go.

Let’s rise up and remove the shackles of false fear and embrace each other. In the immortal words of Martin Luther King… Let freedom ring…from every mountainside, let freedom ring. when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city…we will be…free at last. Free at last.

In the spirit of celebrating our humanity, I would like to leave you with part of the beautiful poem ‘’Song of Myself’’ by Walt Whitman

I depart as air—I shake my white locks at the runaway sun;
I effuse my flesh in eddies, and drift it in lacy jags.

I bequeathe myself to the dirt, to grow from the grass I love;
If you want me again, look for me under your boot-soles.

You will hardly know who I am, or what I mean;
But I shall be good health to you nevertheless,

And filter and fibre your blood.

Failing to fetch me at first, keep encouraged;
Missing me one place, search another;
I stop somewhere, waiting for you.

You can contact Gavin Phillips at gavinph at
Gavin encourages whistleblowers to contact him so we can expose this Covid fraud.
Twitter: @photopro28
Telgram: Gavin Phillips


Dr. Roger Hodkinson and Klaus Steger reviewed the PCR science
Portuguese Appeal Court
The Corman-Drosten review paper link
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich reviewed the section about his work in an email exchange
with Gavin Phillips.

Watch this interview of Dr Reiner Fuellmich by Steve Bannon on War Room Pandemic Episode 1007.

For just the interview segment click here on Steve Bannon interviews Attorney Reiner Fuellmich: How globalists planned the COVID Plandemic for 10 years.

Or on REVEALED: How Globalists Planned the Covid-19 Pandemic for 10 Years

David J. Rockefeller in his notorious 2010 Rockefeller Lockdown Document he also calls for the creation of a pathogen low in mortality but highly contagious to infect the human respiratory system. This fact supports the validity of Reiner’s statement about the ten year preparation.

For the whole War Room episode on Episode 1,007 – The Ten Year Plandemic… How Globalists Used Wuhan as a Springboard for World Control

False positive PCR tests

The following iss reposted from Dr Malcolm Kendrick’s blog.

In light of the method used in the plandemic I think this article is worth reading. First they report a case or two in the lamestream media, then they implement massive PCR testing which yields 97% false positives with cycle threshold set above 35. From this they get about 0.8% of all PCR as false positives. Then these are called COVID positive — mind you they are totally healthy people — and the fascist governments lockdown their states again and again.

28th September 2020 by Dr Malcolm Kendrick

(This post contains an erratum regarding a technical issue, at the end)

There has been a lot of noise about false positive COVID19 tests in the news. So, I thought I would try to explain what it all means. Or do my best anyway.

There are two measures in most medical screening tests which are usually defined as the ‘sensitivity’ and the ‘specificity’ of a test. In my opinion, these two words are far too close together in sound, so they are very easy to mix up in your brain.

I find it easier to think of the accuracy of test results in this way.

  • False negatives
  • False positives

A false negative is a result which informs someone that they do not have a disease, when in fact they do.

A false positive is a result which informs someone they do have a disease, when they don’t.

Ideally a test should never give a false negative (100% sensitivity) nor give a false positive (100% specificity). There is no known test that does this. In general, there is a trade-off going on between these two measures.

By which I mean, if you aim for 100% sensitivity, the specificity often falls away – and vice-versa

For example, in cancer screening the primary objective is you must never miss a case. So, the sensitivity rate is set very high. By definition the rate of false negatives is very low.

A shadow on the breast, a few strange cells here, a few strange cells there – ‘that might be cancer, better to be safe than sorry. Don’t take the risk’. Positive cancer test.

To put this another way. The fear of missing any cases of cancer results in the number of false positives being high. This raises the question with COVID19. Is it better to underdiagnose – many false negatives. Or over diagnose – many false positives?

Note I am talking here primarily about the naso-pharyngeal swab tests (i.e., antigen tests) which are used to see if you have the virus NOW and not the blood (antibody) test done which may be done later to see if you have ever had the virus.

This issue does not seem to have been discussed. If you want to prevent spread of COVID19, you would presumably want very few false negatives in these swab tests. Otherwise people will be told they don’t have the disease – when they do – and happily go off spreading it around. Equally, you would be relaxed about false positives. People would isolate when they don’t need to, but not a great health issue.

Weirdly, however, this does not seem to be the case.

COVID19 false negatives

With COVID19, there are a lot of false negatives, with some studies quoting figures as high as 50%. That is, half of those told they are not infected with COVID19, are probably infected1. A systematic review got figures between 2% and 29%. So, we could call that an average of 16%?

As you can see, these figures are clearly all over the place. This is in major part because there is no ‘gold-standard’ COVID19 test. By which I mean that we do not have a ‘test of tests.’ Namely, the expensive and time-consuming test by which we absolutely can know if someone truly is infected. The test against which your ‘field tests’ can be calibrated/verified.

Indeed, currently, there is no current agreement as to what ‘infected’ means with COVID19. Does it mean finding viral particles in the nose, sputum, or throat – or all three? Does it mean finding viral particles in these places, and also isolating it in the bloodstream, or lungs? Does it mean finding evidence of antibodies specific to COVID19 two to three weeks following ‘infection?’ Or what? It would be nice to know.

COVID19 false positives

More troubling, right now, than the very poor sensitivity of COVID19 testing (high number of false negatives) is the knotty question of how many false positive tests there are? This is important, because we are told that cases are rising and rising as we suffer a ‘second wave’ of COVID19.

However, if we have a high rate of false positives, then the rise in ‘cases’ could be driven by a rise in testing – and nothing else. And you don’t need a high percentage of false positive tests to do this. If the false positive rate is as little as just one per cent (1%) this means the majority of people told they are positive for COVID19, do not have COVID19!

I know that most people find this a difficult one. It goes like this.

First, you have to know the estimated prevalence of the disease in the community. That is, the total number currently infected. Last time I looked it was one in nine hundred. For the sake of this calculation I shall call it one in a thousand. [Or, to put it another way, sixty-seven thousand people in the UK (population 67 million) are currently infected with COVID19].

Using this one in a thousand figure. This means, if you randomly tested ten thousand people, you would expect to find ten COVID19 cases [forgetting the false negatives for now].

On the other side of the coin. If the false positive rate is one per cent, you would have an additional one hundred false positives cases.

10,000 x.01(1%) = 100

Putting this another way. With a prevalence of one in a thousand, and a false positive rate of one per-cent you would have ten true COVID19 positive cases, and ninety false positives. Ergo, the vast majority of people told that they have COVID19, do not. Is this actually happening?

There is heated debate. As in much heat and little light.

In order to shed a little light, I have been communicating with a senior scientist in a COVID19 facility who feels things have gone very wrong. Below is his take on the false positive situation, from a couple of weeks ago. It is highly technical, but for those who can follow it, I think the author makes some critical points. I have not named him for, were I to do so, he would almost certainly land in very hot water. However, the references are verifiable.

What do positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests mean? (Absolutely Nothing!)
The Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test is the “Gold Standard” COVID-19 antigen test used in our laboratory. The specificity of this test from the manufacturer’s package insert1. [Here referred to as negative percentage agreement or NPA) is 95.6% or 0.956 when expressed as a fraction].

I don’t know about other RT-PCR tests, but I imagine the specificity will be similar for all widely used commercially available kits.

The specificity of a test is defined by the equation:

SP = TN / (TN + FP)

Where SP = specificity, TN = number of true negatives, FP = number of false positives.  TN + FP = the total number of tests carried out.

Now the latest Government figures from Monday 7th September state that 350,100 tests were carried out and 2,948 people tested positive 2. So, if we apply the above equation to our PCR test and the Government’s figures, we get:

0.956 = TN / 350,100

Therefore, the number of true negatives is:

TN = 350,100 * 0.956 = 334696

Therefore, the number of false positives, FP we would expect from 350,100 tests is:

FP = 350,100 – 334,696 = 15,404

This is more than five times the number of positive tests reported, which means we cannot have any confidence that any one of those positive tests represents a genuine case.

What these figures show is that it is totally inappropriate to use RT-PCR as a screening test for a virus in an asymptomatic population when the prevalence of the infection is very low.

Even if there were a test with 99% specificity, you would still expect to get 3500 false positives from performing 350,000 tests – which is still greater than the number of “cases” reported. When the number of “cases” is lower than your rate of false positives, then a positive result on its own is virtually meaningless.

The PCR test is best utilized as a diagnostic test to confirm the diagnosis of an infection based on clinical signs and symptoms. It certainly should not be used as a screening test when there is low prevalence of disease and should NEVER be used as the sole determinant in the diagnosis of a case.

One source of false positives is the persistence of fragments of viral RNA long after a patient may have recovered and is no longer infective. These fragments will be amplified by PCR and will give a positive result that is indistinguishable from a genuine case.  We’ve had a patient whose swabs have been testing positive in our lab every week for over 3 months!

Non-specific amplification is another possible source of false positives. The nasopharyngeal swab samples are “dirty” samples: they are full of bacterial, fungal, other viral, and host DNA and RNA. Some of these will have high percentage sequence homology [NB homology basically means a similar sequence of base pairs- my words] to the gene sequences targeted by the PCR assay and these can also be amplified. The risk that this may have occurred is higher if the positive test has a very high Cycle Threshold (Ct) value – say 35 or above.

Recently, it has come to my attention that one of the primers – an 18-base primer for a region of the RdRP gene – has exact sequence homology with a region on human chromosome 8 3,4.

So, if any laboratory uses a PCR assay with that particular primer, they’re likely to get a lot of false positives!

Politicians and Health Officials are basing their numbers of cases entirely on the results of these tests, which are not fit for this purpose.

They are then using these figures to terrorise the population, and to justify decisions to impose local lockdowns, and increase nonsensical general restrictions which are having a massive impact on people’s lives and their health, and also on the economy, particularly hitting small businesses hard.



In this blog I included a piece on false positives from a senior laboratory scientist. A number of people wrote in suggesting that the calculation was wrong. I contacted the scientist on this matter, and he has written:

In performing my calculation, I was unable to calculate the number of true positives (TP) because I did not have a figure for the prevalence of COVID-19. Since the prevalence seemed to be close to zero from the results obtained in the laboratory where I work, I assumed that TP would be negligible compared to the total number of tests carried out, and therefore did not include this in the equation I used. I acknowledge that the number of false positives (FP) calculated was thus an approximation.

I have since learned that the prevalence is approximately 0.1% according to the ONS, which means that my value for FP is actually a very good approximation, and this validates my argument that the number of false positives far outnumbers the number of true positives.

I hope that clarifies matters

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 “Covid 19 and the PCR test – No pandemic, only junk data!”

Hello sir,

Very good information, But I think you should work in your field (The Physic). I really enjoy your physic’s articles and You were one of the people who influenced me a lot. I hope you return to where you belong – THE CMI.



Didn’t you read why I don’t work with or recommend CMI any more?
CMI never owned me. I worked with them as a volunteer; they never paid me for anything I did except book royalties (for books I wrote). I have always been a disciple of Jesus Christ first and foremost; the physicist part of me is very much secondary. I live to serve the risen Lord not any organisation.

Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.