Most readers will be familiar with the notorious inaccuracy of the PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) test for COVID-19. Depending on how many cycles are used, the PCR test can detect Corona in Dr. Pepper, or Cheez Whiz, or even in tap water.

The antigen test for COVID-19 is somewhat different. It is intended to detect antibodies that have been produced by the immune system in response to the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus.

The following article from Germany describes the inaccuracy of the antigen test, and how it is essentially as unreliable as the PCR test. It helps explains why the seasonal flu disappeared in early 2020, since the Corona tests are likely to be positive when the influenza virus is present, or even when certain bacteria are in the bloodstream.

Our governments, in their infinite wisdom, want COVID-19 to be detected in millions of patients. It seems that both the PCR and the antigen tests have been instrumental in producing the desired results.

Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this article from Report24:

Fraud against the citizen: Antigen test also responds to flu and bacteria

Hardly any other topic is as hotly controversial as the question of where the flu, which usually occurs every year, has actually gone. The fact that the corona pandemic is identical to the flu pandemic is vehemently opposed by mainstream censorship institutes disguised as “fact-checkers”. After it became known that some PCR tests were not able to differentiate between coronavirus and influenza, evidence is now on the table that this also applies to at least one widespread antigen self-test. A gigantic fraud?

The subject is so hot that we are presenting the sources used for it a little more clearly than usual. Because we will be fought for this news again until our existence is threatened. Nonetheless, it is true, documented and verifiable for every citizen on the basis of our documents. We ask you to study this information carefully and disseminate it.

Current antigen tests for Germany

While researching antigen tests that are currently being delivered from China via Linz-Hörsching Airport to Germany, we came across a document from the European Commission. There are listed which viruses are recognized by these antigen self-tests used mainly in schools:

• Adenovirus
• Adenovirus 3
• Alpha Coronavirus 229E (HCoV-229E)
• Alpha Coronavirus Nl63 (HCoV-Nl63)
• Beta Coronavirus HKU1 (HCoV-HKU1)
• Beta Coronavirus OC43 (HCoV-OC43)
• Influenza A H1N1
• Influenza A H3N2
• Influenza A H5N1
• Influenza B Victoria
• Influenza B Yamagata
• MERS-CoV
• Mumps Virus (MuV)
• Mycobacterium tuberculosis
• Mycoplasma Pneumoniae
• Parainfluenza Virus Type
• Parainfluenza Virus Type 2
• Respiratory Syncytial V (RSV)
• Rhinovirus
• SARS-CoV

Source: Properties of the COVID-19 Antigen Detection Kit from New Gene (Hangzhou) Bioengineering Co., Ltd, China, official website of the EU Commission / European Union Manufacturers’[ website.

This is unlikely to be the only approved test in use that, in addition to SARS-CoV-2, also responds to influenza and other pathogens (Example 1, Example2, Example3).

Influenza positives are therefore included in “Corona infection numbers”

The question arises as to what sense such a product makes if it is quite obvious that the entire range of known flu viruses can be detected with it. Because the result of the tests, according to the advertisement, is always “C-positive”, i.e. a positive test for coronaviruses. The fact that this is exclusively a Corona test is falsely suggested by a corresponding imprint on all of these products. As is well known, it is also noted and incorporated into the daily published infection figures. If a citizen who tested positive by antigen test does a PCR test to be sure, he is known to be included twice in the statistics — and every further PCR test, whether positive or negative, as well.

It is really difficult not to think of fraud on a gigantic scale here — which official body will answer questions about it? Which mainstream medium has the courage to ask as well?

Only very few mutation lines are recognized in SARS-CoV-2

What informative value do such antigen self-tests have if they detect not only SARS-CoV-2 but dozens of other pathogens, but with SARS-CoV-2 they are also limited to very few mutation lines?

In fact, the manufacturer states that in the case of SARS-CoV-2, only the following lines are recognized out of the hundreds of strains in circulation. This does not rule out that subsequent and related strains are also recognized, but the manufacturer does not define this because it cannot or does not want to give any guarantee:

• B.1.1.7 (United Kingdom)
• B.1.351 (South Africa)
• B.1.427 (USA)
• B.1.429 (USA)
• B.1.617.1 (India)
• B.1.617.2 (India)
• B.1.617.3 (India)

The Omicron variant in circulation today bears the number B1.1.529 and is not mentioned in the manufacturer’s declaration of the antigen tests. We are not talking about an historical event, but about a product that was delivered to Austria this week to be used in Germany.

Why does the test detect bacteria that cause diseases similar to Covid?

Now it may be a technical necessity that such a test cannot differentiate between viruses that are similar in principle. But we really pricked up our ears when it came to the definition that bacteria such as tuberculosis and Mycoplasma pneumoniae are also recognized.

Tuberculosis is a bacterial infectious disease that is widespread around the world. The disease is caused by different types of mycobacteria (Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex) and most commonly affects the lungs in humans as pulmonary tuberculosis. Symptoms are: loss of appetite, weight loss, fatigue, chest pain, severe cough, bloody sputum, pale skin, light fever, night sweats. The therapy lasts six months.

Mycoplasma pneumoniae is a bacterium and the most important causative agent of the so-called “atypical pneumonia”. Tracheobronchitis, laryngitis, meningitis, otitis media and other diseases can be caused by Mycoplasma pneumoniae. In addition, when humans are infected, it is associated with disorders of the haematopoietic (blood-forming) system, the central nervous system, the liver and pancreas, and cardiovascular syndromes.

It is extremely noticeable that these two dangerous bacteria cause symptoms that are very similar to those claimed as a result of SARS-CoV-2 or “Long Covid”.

Undeclared, toxic ingredients

This product is also a test that contains two highly questionable / highly toxic ingredients that are not declared on the package insert for the end user:

Gold nanoparticles (which in Germany fall into the hazard class of slightly radioactive substances) that are deposited in the body but can no longer be broken down (there is a detailed report on this: German professor: Nanomaterials very dangerous in corona quick tests)

A highly toxic buffer solution that removes human sample material from the test stick and transfers it to a liquid.

This contains octyl/nonylphenol ethoxylates. They carry the predicate: “Particularly worrying: serious effects on the environment are considered likely; subject to approval.” In addition to various other harmful effects, the substance causes irreparable eye damage on direct contact (We worked out the problem in detail months ago: Unsuitable, toxic: Government buys 25 million “free tests” from a dubious one-man company).

The gold nanoparticles in the above-mentioned product are acknowledged by the manufacturer on the product page. The octyl/nonylphenol ethoxylates are not declared anywhere — this fact alone should lead to an immediate ban on trade and imports.

Disputed whether PCR tests can differentiate

The argument that antigen-tested people can or even have to do a PCR test to be on the safe side is correct. But the PCR test is also designed in such a way that not only one virus is detected. It is not a conspiracy theory, but the official statement by US state institutions that the original PCR test kit from 2020 could not distinguish between viruses. This old kit may no longer be used from 2022; allegedly there are newer versions that are able to differentiate. Detailed article on this: CDC stops emergency approval for PCR test from 2020 with reference to flu season.

There are also counter-statements arguing that this test was voluntarily withdrawn because new tests are now being used that can differentiate between SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/B at the same time. The test methodology proposed or prescribed worldwide is described by the WHO here.

It is interesting that the first test specification dates from January 17, 2020, when the pandemic had not even been declared (official start, announced by the WHO: January 30, 2020). The detailed specification, which is still valid today, can be found here and has not been updated since March 19, 2020.

What a PCR test cannot actually do is differentiate whether a patient is infected and the viruses can reproduce in him, or whether there were inactive parts of viruses in the sample, which were then sent to the laboratory. A good explanation of this problem may be found at the Swedish Ministry of Health, which therefore does not recommend a Covid-19 diagnosis without assessing the overall condition of the patients. A PCR detection therefore does not provide any reliable information about the infectiousness of a person.

There are statements by experts that the gene sequences detected by the PCR are by no means only found in SARS-CoV-2, but may be found in many Asian respiratory viruses. The short sequences would be found frequently; even in fragments, which of course are not viruses that can replicate.

ICD definition of Covid-19 is a circle that refers to itself

The official ICD-10 definition of COVID-19 is circular and does not describe a really new disease, not even a disease in any case! The following paragraph was kindly discovered and passed on by “Collection of Noteworthy” on Telegram:

ICD-10 U07.1! “If COVID-19 is detected by a laboratory test, regardless of the severity of the clinical findings or symptoms.”

So: ‘A patient has the disease “COVID-19” if the “COVID-19” PCR test is positive. And the “COVID-19” PCR test is defined as the test that detects “COVID-19”.

ICD-10 U07.2! “If COVID-19 is clinically and epidemiologically confirmed and the virus has not been detected by laboratory test”

So: ‘if any cold symptoms are present.’

So there is no way to validate this PCR test by identifying the disease in any other way. The symptoms are generally referred to as respiratory diseases, without being differentiated from the large number of long-standing respiratory diseases.

“Loss of taste” is also a common side effect of colds and is not a “new symptom”.

It has been a problem for a long time that patients who are in hospital because of other illnesses, including hospital germs, often also catch pneumonia there. These can now easily be declared as COVID-19 with the ICD-10 criteria, if only for billing reasons.

Fact-checkers combat the statement that PCR tests cannot differentiate between SARS-CoV-2 and influenza

Among other things, these “fact checks” have so far combated the information that PCR tests cannot differentiate between SARS-CoV-2 viruses and influenza viruses: Corrective from January 12th, 2021

In addition, a request from January 2021 to “Ask the State” is publicly available, which was rejected by a scientifically unqualified short answer.

The PCR test method can of course differentiate between conventional flu viruses and SARS-CoV-2 viruses. The decisive factor here is what the sampling is tested for in the laboratory. Thus, when evaluating the corresponding sampling in the laboratory, it can be ensured that a positive PCR result is only triggered by SARS-CoV-2 and not by conventional flu viruses.

Coronaviruses and influenza viruses can hardly be distinguished under the microscope

Regardless of the test methods, we would like to point out that many influenza viruses cannot be distinguished from SARS-CoV-2 under the microscope. In any case, there are only a few images that claim to show active SARS-CoV-2 viruses — most of the images are computer models.

On the other hand, there are increasingly credible assurances that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has never been isolated (the fact checker Sarah Thust, who studied journalism and psychology, disagrees) and that it cannot be bought anywhere for medical research purposes.

The counter-evidence from the “fact checker” could not be poorer; the PCR test is given as a means of verification. The identical question to fragdenstaat.de has not been answered since April 18, 2021.

However, we are careful to present the alleged lack of isolation as a fact. We lack the technical competence and the overview of what is actually going on in all laboratories around the world.

What we can show in our cover picture without any problems is the fact that the viruses cannot be distinguished visually (the colors have been added for “artistic” reasons and have no real meaning). Additional source: Molecular Anatomy of Influenza Virus Detailed