Reminder of Truth. Covering something I had before, but drawing further conclusions. Not the mere idea academically using a PCR process for a test (which has its own problems), but add in that the very PROCESS and sequence used to get PCR "tests" manufactured is in essence a big con.

The previous coverage was in TSOT032: "FDA Allowed Such Variance in PCR Tests that Practically They Were Not Even Close to the Same Tests"

So we're revisiting for further analysis the same article covered there - "SARS-CoV-2 Reference Panel Comparative Data" Now on an FDA archival site.

My episode includes some quotes, but I'm not placing them here. Rather the below logic string stands a bit separate, even though much of it is covered in some fashion in the epidose.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

- Initially, Feb 2020, FDA says hey, there's no specimen we can easily make available to you ... so do what you can with some kind of related materials (including synthetic materials). A "contrived" specimen.
That is, every test manufacturer gets to make up what it is that their test is even going to try to detect / going to multiply in order for it to potentially pass the threshold and be counted as a "positive".

- Three months later, in May 2020, they come up with a reference panel (so, think of this - the positives before then.. the basic FUEL of the "information" that fed the covid-19-as-major-infectious-disease, were based on best guesses, of many varied kinds.

Quick aside: If they waited until they were near a real, "accurate", and standard test, in MAY, before they reported "cases", how would our world be different? Literally, we'd have been three months into it, the facts of not really that many people having awful effects would have stood out more instead of "what the tests say".

- But the FDA, once it has a "reference panel" based on an actual specimen does not say to manufacturers "no more guessing - start manufacturing based on your test reacting to THIS standard".

NOPE. In fact, for the rest of the WHOLE time (through end of 2021) that PCR tests were used, the initial and widely varying "best guesses" on what a "covid-19" test should detect and multiply, stood.

- iFDA first says in May 2020 "hey... you've got better patient specimens now, so that's a good validation of your tests. Use a patient specimen and see how your test responds"
Ummm.. how in holy HELL could that be a good "validation" - are you not selecting many of those "actual covid cases" based on what the "best guess" PCR tests already in existence said were "positive"??? CIRCULAR.

- Around the same time, they introduce the "reference panel". But they only ask the manufacturers to report back whether their tests could return a positive against it, and just how much material it took before it did.

So what about false positives???

- Well, the reference panel did include an aspect that ostensibly could be used for "negative testing."
(ie. - it finds what it is supposed to, but does it also NOT find what it is NOT supposed to?).
- - - But guess what... the negative aspect is for MERS virus. An entirely different CLASS of respiratory flu. It BETTER not find a positive for something so far removed (oh, but actually a few DID).
- - - Wouldn't a better negative test be whether the "best guess" tests reacted instead to something closer to Covid-19, but that was NOT the "novel" version of it?
- - - Like, oh I don't know.. all the existing non-novel coronaviruses?
- - - You'd think... but that's not what they used.

- Even as they said "report your findings" they caution - hey, other clinical validation is recommended - after all this is only one strain.
- - - Sigh. But that is still all the "requirements" they put - hey - just let us know how shitty your test response is. Thanks!   

- So when level of detection thresholds varied OVER 3,000-FOLD across some 180 tests whose manufacturers reported! Is that revelation a problem??!!!
- - - NOPE. Just eventually, over a year later, and hundreds of millions of fable-tests used,  phase it out.
============================================

Here's the deal... It was NEVER based on a real standard. So if there were 59 standards, and then there were over 200 standards, then what was it catching, if levels of detection varied by over 3,000 fold?? If there were 59 widely varying standards, there was never "a" standard. There was never "a" test.

Does it not make sense that at least some of these manufacturers, without a reference Covid-19 standard, just pulled some commonalities they COULD rely on? And if they did... what were the commonalities they KNEW of?

Well.. the commonalities that already EXISTED. That is, the commonalities of CoronavirusES.
The non-novel ones.
The ones already a part of the general coronavirus family of flu viruses.

That is, it is quite possible, that due to 59 to 200 standards, that between all of them, they drew WILDLY from the general NON-novel characteristic universe, that basically ensured "positives" from all over the place.

Honestly, without more clarification, there is no reason to think at least some decent percentage of these "come up with SOMETHING" tests relied on common features of the coronavirus families.

And THAT, is a great mission for citizen investigators - these companies did have to describe in SOME fashion what it is they were trying to do under their EUAs for their tests. This article lists most or all of the manufacturers.

As to whether they were testing commonalities (non-novel), what goes along with that? Well, the fact that we found out that PCR tests as a rule DID test positive for other coronaviruses.
====================================
But wait.. what if this IS the jig???!!!
 
Think about it. If something is designated an "emergency," then to float how much it is an emergency. . . 
(if you're a lying criminal CDC or Big Pharma type (but I'm being redundant), then you want "results.")
But you don't have a specimen yet. 
But in order to have "results" you need "tests."  

What if EVERY time (or nearly so), they "fudge factor" tests, and then just happily accept that they have "many, many positives!!" 

Because if they waited for the tests to be developed on ACTUAL specimens, that have been verified and validated as isolated true virus specimens, it's weeks to months later. 

Then weeks to months later to tell the manufacturers to use it. 
Then weeks to months later for them to test. 
Then weeks to months later for them to distribute the tests. 
And then more time for significant tests to be used and the results reported. 

By that time... herd immunity. 
And in the meantime, no "test results" would have happened yet. 

And the perception house of cards not only falls, but was never built.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Do we need to know maybe extensive details of why PCR testing is garbage? 

Maybe... but we kind of already do - it's the cycle threshold problem. You can always continue to multiply some remnant that is present. But that doesn't mean the initial quantity was enough for someone to be contagious. 
Hell, we know that we went by "positives' not by symptoms. 
If anything tells you someone didn't have enough to be contagious, it is that they literally have mild or ZERO symptoms. 

Related - is there a question of WHAT it is they're actually multiplying? 
Yes, but we kind of know that answer too - they are NOT multiplying the whole virus. 
They are DEFINITELY only multiplying some small portion or some small remnant. 
So what is that remnant that they define as identifying the whole thing REALLY indicative of? 
IS it unique only to the thing allegedly being tested for? That's the rub.  

And applied to this scenario, DID these look for the unique part (i.e., the spike protein). Probably not - they didn't have to. They didn't HAVE to come up with a synthetic version for their test to react to. They didn't have isolate it. MAYBE some of the test manufacturers did, but if they didn't HAVE to, how many did? 
===========================================

Thanks to Penny Butler of PennyButler.com (an incredible example of citizenship truth-finding) for the inspiration to look back into this.