A Dark Look At The Dragnet Of Diagnosis

PCR for Precision or Profit?

We are now at a crucial moment in medical history when we must do what? Question everything!

Especially so for the widespread reliance on the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) a molecular tool celebrated for its sensitivity but condemned by its very inventor as unfit for diagnostic use.

What is PCR Used For?

PCR is routinely used to detect genetic material (DNA or RNA) and is applied across a vast range of diseases, including:

1. SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19)

2. HIV/AIDS

3. Tuberculosis (incl. latent TB)

4. Hepatitis B & C

5. HPV (Cervical Cancer Screening)

6. CMV, EBV, and other Herpesviruses

7. MRSA and other bacterial strains

8. Fungal pathogens like Aspergillus, Candida albicans

9. Parasitic infections including Toxoplasma, Plasmodium (malaria)

10. Oncology diagnostics (e.g., BCR-ABL for leukemia, EGFR mutations in lung cancer)

11. Genetic disorders and inherited mutations

12. Forensic and paternity testing

13. Foodborne pathogen detection

14. Bioterrorism agent identification

15. Environmental and veterinary diagnostics

Kary Mullis, PhD and The Inventor Who Disowned It

Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate and inventor of the PCR, explicitly warned against using PCR as a diagnostic tool. In a recorded interview, he stated: “With PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody… it doesn’t tell you that you’re sick.” [1] And yet, this highly sensitive technology has been weaponised. A few extra cycles, or as they say, revolutions, and suddenly, you have disease. A few less, and you’re “healthy.”

The diagnosis becomes a function of protocol, not pathology.

Parasites, Fungi, or Cancer? It’s All in the Amplification

This is where the dragnet approach becomes truly dangerous. Many infectious agents and even non-pathogenic colonisers (like Candida, Aspergillus flavus, or dormant TB) share genetic or proteomic fragments with other pathogens, or even tumour markers.

PCR does not differentiate between: – Live or dead organisms – Colonisation or infection – Latency or active replication – Commensal presence or pathology.

In short, PCR does not equal disease.

Follow the Money

Who profits from this over-amplification? – Oncology centres, where a vague PCR-detected “mutation” becomes the ticket to chemotherapy. – Pharmaceutical companies, with PCR used to justify antivirals, antifungals, and long-term biologics. – Diagnostic companies raking in billions by pushing test-based screening and treatment protocols. – Hospitals and research institutions relying on diagnosis quotas for funding and trial eligibility. We must ask: Are we diagnosing for cure or diagnosing for cash?

False Positives, Mislabelled Disease & Lost Trust

The consequences of indiscriminate PCR-based diagnosis include: – Overdiagnosis of latent infections as active disease. – Misdiagnosis of fungal or parasitic conditions as cancer (and vice versa). – Unnecessary chemotherapy or immunosuppressants that may hasten decline. – Suppression of histology and clinical correlation, as PCR results dominate clinical decision-making. We have entered a realm of sorcery, not science.

It’s Time to Relearn Medicine

A test that amplifies genetic material 30–40 times should not replace clinical judgment or consent-based medicine. Every diagnosis should now be challenged, and every test interrogated.

References

1. 1. Mullis, K. (1997). Interview, LA Weekly.

2. 2. Borger, P. et al. (2020). ‘External peer review of the RT-PCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2.’ Corman-Drosten Review Report.

3. 3. McNally, A. et al. (2021). ‘False positives in high-cycle PCR testing.’ Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 34(4).

4. 4. WHO. (2020). ‘Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2.’ Interim guidance.

5. 5. Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2005). ‘Why most published research findings are false.’ PLoS Med.

6. 6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). ‘Limitations of laboratory tests in diagnosing fungal infections.’ CDC.gov.

7. 7. World Health Organization. ‘Latent tuberculosis infection: Updated and consolidated guidelines.’ WHO, 2018.

8. 8. Bustin, S.A. et al. (2009). ‘The MIQE guidelines: Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments.’ Clinical Chemistry 55(4): 611–622.

Article posted with permission from Kate Shemirani

The post A Dark Look At The Dragnet Of Diagnosis appeared first on The Washington Standard.