https://substack.com/home/post/p-141959329

• Without PCR testing data mortality and morbidity would not be attributable to the novel virus and if this attribution is false there must therefore be other explanations for the ‘pandemic’.
• Whilst scandals about PCR testing are well known a materially important aspect of PCR testing has been given scant attention and that is cross reactivity (or crosstalk). This is where other viruses, such as common colds or flus etc., might trigger a false positive PCR result for SARS-CoV-2.
• We analysed the very few studies that used blind samples of colds or flu viruses to undertake ‘mystery shopper’ testing of laboratories using PCR.
• In these studies, we found strong evidence for cross reactivity between other competing viruses and the PCR tests sampled, rising to up to 25% for other circulating viral pathogens.
• We identified many systematic weaknesses in these studies, finding that numerous implicit tricks had been used to supress evidence of cross reactivity, thus misleading the public into believing PCR tests are reliable.
• The only circumstance in which a positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 might be considered reasonably diagnostic of infection is where there is an unfeasibly strong prior assumption that competing viruses, such as influenzas and competing coronaviruses, had virtually vanished. As well as acting as a strong and unsupported prior disposition this assumption is circular and is based on test results collected using the same faulty PCR technology.
• We conclude that, as the argument there was a genuine pandemic caused by the novel SARS-CoV-2 viral pathogen has largely relied on data from highly inaccurate and unreliable PCR testing, this line of argument is no longer tenable.