Scientists Say the COVID19 Test Kits Do Not Work, Are Worthless, and Give Impossible Results

A pregnancy test is 99% accurate. The coronavirus spectrum test kit is 20% accurate or worse. If a test is only 20% accurate, is the better word “inaccurate”?

Please take about 1 minute to at least glance at the bold copy. My prior article got 30,000+ views and was criticized for my commentary. Here is my limited comments: The CDC and FDA both admit the COVID19 test kits suffer from false positives and false negatives. They just fail to tell you those rates. But others have revealed those rates. “the false-positive rate of positive results was 80.33%” and 85% false negative rate. The test kits don’t work. If the test kits don’t work, or are less reliable than a coin flip, then all the data on “who has it” is utterly meaningless and it’s all a total fraud and hoax. People are still dying, but from the same illness as always: the flu. So, what follows is only exact quotes from the articles, and links. Below are 15 sources giving commentary on the reliability of the COVID19 test kits in use.

From the maker of the test: “SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit (CD019RT)

Regulatory status: For research use only, not for use in diagnostic procedures.”

“The New York SARS-CoV-2 Real-time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel has been designed to minimize the likelihood of false positive test results. However, in the event of a false positive result, risks to patients could include the following: a recommendation for isolation of the patient, monitoring of household or other close contacts for symptoms, patient isolation that might limit contact with family or friends and may increase contact with other potentially COVID-19 patients, limits in the ability to work…”

CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel For Emergency Use Only… “Positive results are indicative of active infection with 2019-nCoV but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease. ”

“Negative results do not preclude 2019-nCoV infection”

“Inadequate or inappropriate specimen collection, storage, and transport are likely to yield false test results.”

“The possibility of a false negative result should especially be considered if the patient’s recent exposures or clinical presentation suggest that 2019-nCoV infection is possible, and diagnostic tests for other causes of illness (e.g., other respiratory illness) are negative. If 2019-nCoV infection is still suspected, re-testing should be considered in consultation with public health authorities. “

” Positive and negative predictive values are highly dependent on prevalence. False negative test results are more likely when prevalence of disease is high. False positive test results are more likely when prevalence is moderate to low. “

Should I be testing all patients for COVID-19?

Clinicians should base their decisions on whether a patient should be tested for COVID-19 on:

  • Signs and symptoms,
  • Local epidemiology, and
  • If the patient has had close contact with a confirmed COVID-19 patient or a history of travel from an area with sustained transmission within 14 days of symptom onset.”

[Potential False-Positive Rate Among the ‘Asymptomatic Infected Individuals’ in Close Contacts of COVID-19 Patients]

Results: When the infection rate of the close contacts and the sensitivity and specificity of reported results were taken as the point estimates, the positive predictive value of the active screening was only 19.67%, in contrast, the false-positive rate of positive results was 80.33%. The multivariate-probabilistic sensitivity analysis results supported the base-case findings, with a 75% probability for the false-positive rate of positive results over 47%. Conclusions: In the close contacts of COVID-19 patients, nearly half or even more of the ‘asymptomatic infected individuals’ reported in the active nucleic acid test screening might be false positives. “

[Potential false-positive rate among the ‘asymptomatic infected individuals‘ in close contacts of COVID-19 patients].[Potential_false_positive_rate_among_the_’asymptomatic_infected_individuals’_in_close_contacts_of_COVID_19_patients]_


“Nearly 10 percent of the human genome is made of bits of virus DNA. For the most part, this viral DNA is not harmful. In some cases, scientists are finding, it actually has a beneficial impact.”


“For context, Goodman says a “really good” r-squared, in terms of public health data, would be a 0.7. “Anything like 0.99,” she said, “would make me think that someone is simulating data. It would mean you already know what is going to happen.””


” There’s no evidence the PCR test is even being used at all! “

“PCR basically takes a sample of your cells and amplifies any DNA to look for ‘viral sequences’, i.e. bits of non-human DNA that seem to match parts of a known viral genome.

The problem is the test is known not to work.

It uses ‘amplification’ which means taking a very very tiny amount of DNA and growing it exponentially until it can be analysed. Obviously any minute contaminations in the sample will also be amplified leading to potentially gross errors of discovery.

Additionally, it’s only looking for partial viral sequences, not whole genomes, so identifying a single pathogen is next to impossible even if you ignore the other issues.

The idea these kits can isolate a specific virus like COVID-19 is nonsense.”

The Test is Not Binary

Tests for infections are usually reported as positive or negative (sometimes ‘reactive’ and ‘unreactive’. One of the reasons for this is that, in many cases, multiple tests are required, and it is common to conclude that someone is infected with some negative tests and that someone is uninfected with some positive tests. The results of a complex multi-test algorithm are also usually reported as positive or negative, but interpreted by doctors and patients as infected or uninfected. 

” But, in reality even individual tests are not binary, not positive or negative, but a range of numbers that are arbitrarily divided into positive on one side and negative on the other. Possibly there is a grey area that allows other factors, including the bias of the doctor or laboratory, to enter into the interpretation, or that will require further testing. “

Positive to Negative and Back Again

The majority of the 18 patients had a positive test, followed by a negative test, followed by a positive test. Some had this several times.

If a negative test means uninfected, then this is impossible. You cannot rid yourself of the virus, and then be reinfected the next day, and then infected the day after and uninfected again.

The simplest answer to this conundrum is that negative tests do not mean uninfected. But the corollary is that positive tests do not mean infected. Which would make the test worthless.”

Stanford epidemiologist warns that coronavirus crackdown is based on bad data

If we had not known about a new virus out there, and had not checked individuals with PCR [virus] tests, the number of total deaths due to ‘influenza-like illness’ would not seem unusual this year.

Patients who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 [COVID-19] are disproportionately those with severe symptoms and bad outcomes.” [That’s ascertainment bias, confirmed above where the CDC says to only test sick people.]

George Avery • 3 days ago

I am an epidemiologist and health services researcher, one with particular expertise and experience in public health emergency preparedness. I have been saying the same thing as John – I spoke for about 45 minutes last week with a reporter from ProPublica, trying to explain the concept of ascertainment bias and why the case fatality rates being tossed about were horribly exaggerated. Frankly, the real impact from a health standpoint in the US was likely to be no worse than the 1956 or 1968 influenza epidemics, even without the extreme measures. In fact, we are reaching a point where the long-term damage from the panic-driven response may well be worse than the impact of the disease.

Epidemiology is the study and analysis of the distribution (who, when, and where), patterns and determinants of health and disease conditions in defined populations.


Some notes on those test kits I saw you asking about on Twitter yesterday.
They don’t do antibody tests. They do a thing called PCR testing, which basically takes a sample of your cells and amplifies any DNA to look for ‘viral sequences’, i.e. bits of non-human DNA that seem to match parts of a known viral genome.
The problem is the test is known to be bullshit.
It uses ‘amplification’ which means taking a very very tiny amount of DNA and growing it exponentially until it can be analysed. Obviously any minute contaminations in the sample will also be amplified leading to potentially gross errors of discovery.
Secondly, it’s only looking for partial viral sequences, not whole genomes, so identifying a single pathogen is next to impossible even if you ignore the other issues.
All these Mickey Mouse test kits being sent out to hospitals do at best is tell the analysts you have some viral DNA in your cells. Which most of us do, most of the time. It may tell you the viral sequence is related to a specific type of virus – say the huge family of coronavirus. But that’s all.
The idea these kits can isolate a specific virus like covi-19 is utter bullshit.
And that’s not even getting into the other issue – viral load.
If you remember the PCR works by amplifying minute amounts of DNA. It therefore is useless at telling you how much virus you may have.
And that’s the only question that really matters when it comes to diagnosing illness. Like I said, everyone will have a few virus kicking round in their system at any time, and most will not cause illness because their quantities are too small. For a virus to sicken you you need a lot of it, a massive amount of it. But PCR does not test viral load and therefore can’t determine if a osteogenesis is present in sufficient quantities to sicken you.
If you feel sick and get a PCR test any random virus DNA might be identified even if they aren’t at all invo
lved in your sickness. Leading to false diagnosis.
And coronavirus are incredibly common. A large percentage of the world human population will have covi DNA in them in small quantities even if they are perfectly well or sick with some other pathogen.
Do you see where this is going yet?
If you want to create a totally false panic about a totally false pandemic – pick a coronavirus.
They are incredibly common and there’s tons of them. A very high percentage of people sick by other means (flu, bacterial pneumonia, anything) will have a positive PCR test for covi even if you’re doing them properly and ruling out contamination, simply because covis are so common.
There are hundreds of thousands of flu and pneumonia victims in hospitals throughout the world at any one time.
All you need to do is select the sickest of these in a single location – say Wuhan – administer PCR tests to them and claim anyone showing viral sequences similar to a corona virus (which will inevitably be quite a few) is suffering from a ‘new’ disease.
Since you already selected the sickest flu cases a fairly high proportion of your sample will go on to die.
You can then say this ‘new’ virus has a CFR higher than the flu and use this to infuse more concern and do more tests which will of course produce more ‘cases’, which expands the testing, which produces yet more ‘cases’ and so on and so on.
Before long you have your ‘pandemic’, and all you have done is use a simple test kit trick to convert the worst flu and pneumonia cases into something new that doesn’t actually exist.
Now just run the same scam in other countries. Making sure to keep the fear message running high so that people will feel panicky and less able to think critically.
Your only problem is going to be that – due to the fact there is no actual new deadly pathogen but just regular sick people you are mislabelling – your case numbers, and especially your deaths, are going to be way too low for a real new deadly virus pandemic.
But you
can stop people pointing this out in several ways.
1. You can claim this is just the beginning and more deaths are imminent. Use this as an excuse to quarantine everyone and then claim the quarantine prevented the expected millions of dead.
2. You can tell people that ‘minimising’ the dangers is irresponsible and bully them into not talking about numbers.
3. You can talk bullshittery about r0 numbers hoping to blind people with pseudoscience
4. You can start testing well people (who of course will also likely have shreds of coronavirus DNA in them) and thus inflate your ‘case figures’ with ‘asymptomatic carriers’ (you will of course have to spin that to sound deadly even though any virologist knows the more symptomless cases you have the less deadly is your pathogen
Take these simple steps and you can have your own entirely manufactured pandemic up and running in weeks.
But why are you doing this people may ask.
Lots of reasons. Fear is useful. And a population frightened into demanding protection will accept anything you do to ‘protect’ them, up to and including nailing them into their own houses.
It can be a trial run for social control methods. To see how gullible populations are. To enforce more rigorous censorship. To inure people to shortage and uncertainty.
All these things and others are reasons.
But getting hung up on possible motive misses the point – that all the evidence points to this being the case.
Everything I am seeing points at a fake manufactured pandemic. The low numbers and attempts to inflate them with scary anecdotes and bad science, the crazy overreaction in world governments, as if the reaction itself is the point. The ridiculous numbers of famous people ‘testing positive’.
It could easily be done and it looks as if it is. In my view. But you must make up your own mind.
I think many in the virology and epidemiology line would agree, but no one is going to risk their career right now saying so in public. They might as well jump off of a brid
You can verify everything I have said about the PCR test.

Reported case fatality rates, like the official 3.4% rate from the World Health Organization, cause horror — and are meaningless. Patients who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 are disproportionately those with severe symptoms and bad outcomes.

The accuracy of the current COVID-19 tests is not precisely known.”
The accuracy of COVID-19 tests

” As a physician, I treat the results of lab tests like I treat movie recommendations from a friend – I am always skeptical. “

“My friend’s movie judgments are occasionally biased and off-kilter.  In the same way, medical diagnostic test results are not perfect. There is always the chance that they provide incorrect information.

Medical professionals, policymakers, and members of the general public may overestimate the accuracy of diagnostic tests.  The usefulness of any test depends on how likely the patient has the disease, the ability of the test to correctly identify the disease, and the capability of the test to correctly confirm the condition is not present. Unfortunately, test results will be negative for some people that actually have the disease, and some people without the disease will have positive tests.”

The accuracy of the current COVID-19 tests is not precisely known.  Reasonable estimates, based on test performance in China and the performance of the influenza tests, are that the tests will correctly identify around 60 percent of the patients with the disease and correctly identify 90 percent of the patients that are disease-free. “

” Assume that the physician thinks there is a 50 percent of the patient having COVID-19.  Given the above numbers, if the patient has the disease, the test will be positive 85 percent of the time.  Fifteen percent of the infected patients will incorrectly be diagnosed as not having the disease.  If the patient does not have the disease, only 70 percent of the patients will have a negative test.  It would take four consecutive negative tests to conclusively prove the patient did not have the disease. “

“There has been the worry of how effective the tests for the coronavirus has been as of late. There are numerous talks in several countries that suggest people are having over six negative results before finally being diagnosed as positive for the virus.

The question of the effectiveness of the tests because the officials in Hubei province, China, have started to COUNT people with symptoms rather than using the tests to confirm that they indeed have the coronavirus.”

“First, the prevailing diagnostic test for COVID-19 may be only 30 to 40 percent accurate.”


Please share this article with the White House:


  1. The same entities who are behind the whole COVID-19 spinout, are also in control of testing and research, they only need to satisfy public perception that science is supreme and since they also control media, this is an easy spin too,

  2. From the data above, there are two clear problems.
    The false negative rate is up to 6/7 cases. 6/7 = 85.7%.

    Another source says the false positive rate is up to 80.33%.

  3. Germany’s low coronavirus mortality rate intrigues experts
    Some query data methodology while others say high testing rates are giving more accurate picture

    Right. The more “non deathly ill” people you test, and with a test that gives a lot of false positives, you have a lower death rate. The virus is not spreading, they are simply detecting more false positives among the generally healthy population.

  4. Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health — widely regarded as the most experienced and respected expert serving on the president’s coronavirus task force — said post blank in a January 31 briefing,: “We don’t know the accuracy of this test.” Commenting on the availability of test kits for other viruses that are confirmed to be 100 percent accurate, Fauci lamented: “That’s not even near what we have right now” for the coronavirus.

  5. This is an interesting article. But how much exactly of this virus is needed to make an accurate diagnoses. What is in the news is not really what is reflected out on the streets apart from people that are being terrorized. It is more like a test of conformity all over again totally unethical.

    1. The test kits are said to have a process where they grow the virus and double it like 20-40 times. So, the tests kits do not measure how much viral load there was to begin with, because they exponentially grow it. This is part of the problem.

  6. Test results may be inconclusive for several reasons, according to the expert virologists and the CDC.

    There’s the possibility of simple technical errors, such as improper collection, handling or shipping. Or the test’s reagents (key chemical components of the kit) may be flawed, creating diagnostic inaccuracy.

    It’s possible that the patient who tested negative, then later positive, is carrying levels of the virus that are so low they’re below the threshold of detection.

    “Viral load goes up and down,” said Dr. Charles Chiu, director of UC San Francisco’s Viral Diagnostics and Discovery Center. “That’s the natural course of the disease. You can test a patient and they’ll be positive one day and negative the next day.”

    There’s another possibility: If the patient isn’t showing symptoms, they may not have coughed up enough of the virus from their lungs into their upper respiratory tract, where test samples are taken.

    It’s also possible the test can’t detect some strains of the virus, according to the CDC. RNA viruses like the COVID-19 pathogen have a lot of genetic variability. Although efforts were made to design test assays that target the parts of the viral genome that are shared by all strains, said the CDC, there might be a mismatch.
    “We don’t have a test that can definitely say someone is not infected,” said Dr. John Swartzberg, a specialist in infectious disease and clinical professor emeritus at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health.

    “We know by the time symptoms appear, we will find it,” he added. “And we also know in a small number we can find it before symptoms. We don’t know how long before.

    “We are asking more of the test than it can give us,” he said.

  7. Spot on, we know what’s happening here, besides the super huge hoax of shutting the economy down so they can crash the dollar and chip everyone to bring in NWO and control the hell out of everyone, you found a huge hole in the statistics, once again revealing fraud. Exceptional research and common sense. Hope all is well, we are here now. We knew it was coming and how grievous a time. To watch this play out is surreal, yet we were born for such a time as this. The blood of Jesus betwixt us and cover our sins. Keep us and our families. Gods will be done.

    1. I started thinking about this. Hmmm… How can they distinguish between one coronavirus and another, especially if these are responsible for the common cold? Turns out, they really can’t.

      1. You have always had the knack to see the obvious that hides in plain sight from the rest of us. Mass hypnosis of the population has occurred to blind us from seeing the trees through the forest. Quite the gift. I appreciated coming to this page and feeling so comforted knowing there are others who know what’s going on, makes you feel less crazy in a world full of zombies of the matrix.

  8. The government should hire you as an analyst. I am skimming the article, will take hours to read, curious how long it took you to compile and put together. And ahead of the curve in early March. I’m going to dive into it.

      1. It’s a case of “Catch me if you Can”…Leonardo DiCaprio…story line, he went around breaking all the rules but he was so good at it, the Government wanted him as an ally instead of a formidable foe. So, that may end up being presented to you by fate. Would be a big decision.

  9. What an eye opening article !!! Who will have the guts to reveal the “untold truth”?

  10. I finally found [mis]information about the subject of the test kits not working in a semi mainstream news source, the guardian. Here is the article:

    Here is their one single unsourced sentence on the subject:

    “Another example of fake information came from one influential YouTube vlogger who told his followers incorrectly that coronavirus tests did not work and advised drinking hot water and taking hot baths to kill the virus.”

    Of course, they don’t list any source saying that the test kits work. And they claim only one source is saying that the test kits don’t work.

    In stark contrast to their horrific non-journalistic standards, I have over 15 sources saying the test kits do not work, including the CDC, the FDA, Dr. Fouci, two epidemiologists (one from Stanford University), and MD, and the TEST MAKER THEMSELVES!

    Guardian, you are hereby debunked as not only fake news, but purposeful liars, slanderers, disinformation agents, and enemies of humanity.

    1. What is especially repugnant about the guardian is their statement to trust the UK government, here: “People are also being asked to share the official medical advice produced by the NHS and UK government, as well as posts promoting good causes.”

      It appears the guardian is too ignorant to know that their script is broken. Their article came out March 26th. The UK government said, “As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious diseases (HCID) in the UK.”

      And this remains their official statement as of March 30th.

  11. “osteogenesis”??
    The word that shows that this article is fake is OSTEOGENESIS
    The definition of Osteogenesis – a noun – = “formation of new bone”.
    Now read the relevant paragraph below and it is clear that this load of dross has no place on the web.
    “For a virus to sicken you you need a lot of it, a massive amount of it. But PCR does not test viral load and therefore can’t determine if a osteogenesis is present in sufficient quantities to sicken you.”
    The author is spreading fake information that is harmful to the reader, and the author knows NOTHING about medicine or science

    1. That word is probably just a typo. It happens. Because, I agree, in context, it’s nonsense. That does not mean his entire point is nonsense, nor is the entire article of 14 other sources. Try refuting several of that author’s main points, rather than refuting a point that has no point. And if you know so much, what word should be there, in place of osteogenesis?

Comments are closed.