The PCR tests: Fearne defends his failures

Blog post by Marica Micallef

In this article, I will analyze that part of the interview held by The Times journalists with Health Minister Dr. Chris Fearne about the topic of the PCR tests, also known as the swab tests.[1]

When Dr. Fearne was asked whether the PCR test worked in the instances of “The language students who led to clusters of cases”, since, according to what we are told, they came in with a negative PCR test, Dr. Fearne replied:

This was a particular cohort. The PCR test tells you that you are negative on that day and that you’ll possibly remain negative for the next two or three days because it takes a while for the viral load to build enough for you to become symptomatic and to pass the virus on.”

So, can Dr. Fearne answer my question as to how come, my father, was tested positive on the 9th of October 2020, TWICE NEGATIVE on 14th October 2020 when he was already in ITU on the ventilator, POSITIVE on the 18th of October, and NEGATIVE THE DAY AFTER, on the 19th of October?[2] With Dr. Fearne’s explanation, my father would have remained negative from the 14th of October on, instead of testing positive four days later and negative the day after! So, was the viral load that Dr. Fearne is referring to, inexistent in my dad? Or was it a load that increases and decreases from one day to another?

This is a topic I have already tackled in previous blogs which questions the validity of this test which was the basis on which this pandemic was based. With my dad’s story and medical files as proof, the validity of the PCR test becomes null and void. My dad’s medical files remain the golden proof and evidence leading to the questioning of the validity of the PCR Test.

Secondly, on 7th July of 2021, the CDC (Centre for Disease and Control Prevention) website, has published an article entitled “07/21/2021: Lab Alert: Changes to CDC RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Testing”, whereby it clearly states

After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives.

One might see nothing wrong in such a statement because this implies that CDC, as it is stating here, is asking for another alternative to replace the PCR Test. The question here is, has the CDC come up with a better testing test? If the answer to the following question is in the affirmative, then does this mean that the Covid PCR test was not accurate? Then, by default, should all measurements based on PCR Testing come to an end, including the pandemic, since the PCR Test was the culprit that gave rise to the “positive” cases? In addition, what will now be used instead of the PCR Test? Will another method be imposed? Will “counting cases” no longer serve the narrative?

What is also important and striking in this CDC article is the statement

CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses.”

Is the CDC here implying that the PCR Test was not differentiating between the flu and Covid-19? So, am I right to say that Covid-19 was just the flu, but rebranded? Is this why the flu magically vanished in 2020?[3]

Why is the CDC admitting this now? What’s behind all this? And can our local Health Authorities, including Dr. Fearne, inform the public whether the PCR Test, which Dr. Fearne confirmed the validity of in the interview, will be replaced locally in the near future?




One thought on “The PCR tests: Fearne defends his failures

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *