Manitoba Government Chief Microbiologist: 56% of positive “cases” are not infectious, but products of misleading RT-PCR tests

In this May 11, 2021 article, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) reports on the developments of a lawsuit filed by churches and individuals in Manitoba who are challenging the government’s lockdown policy. According to the complainants, the restrictions were a “violation of the Charter freedoms to associate, worship, and assemble peacefully”.

The JCCF also presents some of the statements from its expert witnesses.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and Dr. Thomas Warren have both provided evidence that the PCR test is unreliable in determining whether a person is infectious and with an actual COVID-19 disease.

A witness for the Manitoba government, chief microbiologist, and laboratory specialist Dr. Jared Bullard also confirmed the significant limitations of the RT-PCR test. Dr. Bullard admitted that RT-PCR results cannot verify infectiousness and that the test was never intended to diagnose a respiratory illness.

Dr. Bullard goes on to explain that while a person with COVID-19 is infectious for one to two weeks, harmless viral SARS-CoV-2 fragments can remain in the nose and be detected by RT-PCR tests even 100 days after exposure. He added that the most accurate way to determine whether someone is actually infectious is to grow a cell culture in the lab. If the virus fails to grow in the cell culture, then the patient is likely not infectious. According to Dr. Bullard, 56% of the positive RT-PCR tests would not grow in the lab. Moreover, according to Dr. Bullard’s report, samples using a cycle threshold (Ct) of over 25 did not produce viable lab cultures.

Editor’s Note: This same case has been reported by CTV News with the title: “Cadham Lab director testifies on dependability of PCR tests in constitutional challenge of pandemic restrictions”. As an exercise, we enjoin you to read that article and see how the media has framed Dr. Bullard’s responses. Based on what you know about RT-PCR tests, how accurate was the article’s title?

We’ve known for a long time that using RT-PCR cannot be used as a diagnostic tool, and even though the JCCF article shows that this was pointed out in court by Dr. Bullard, the CTV News article opted to be vague on this point. Instead, they said, “In Manitoba, PCR tests are performed on samples given by individuals who are symptomatic or who have been directed to be tested due to potential exposure to the virus. Bullard testified a positive sample with a Ct over 25 means there is a higher probability the person is not infectious…it’s important to look at the full clinical and epidemiological context of each positive sample because a high Ct value could also represent the beginning stage of an infection”. The CTV reporter apparently does not understand the science because these statements contradict themselves. Take a close look.

CTV News attempted to invalidate the importance of cycle thresholds because it COULD mean that the infection is still in its beginning stages. Why can’t the CTV reporter think that it COULD also mean that the person is not sick at all, particularly when he or she does not present symptoms? The science is showing that beyond a Ct of 35, a person is likely not infected [see also New York Times: More experts questioning RT-PCR testing].

We wanted to add this article here on this website for a number of reasons. First, we wanted to show you how media is spinning information so that it supports their chosen narrative.

Second, is that we wanted to show our readers in the religious sector that your colleagues in other countries are rising up against the lockdowns. If there is an institution that can effectively over-rule these oppressive state policies, it is the churches. This is because, in most countries, the right to religious expression is constitutionally protected. It is even more true for the Philippines.

No disaster can stop a church from conducting service when they want to. Why are you so silent now? Why are you allowing our government to trample upon your right to dispense the much-needed spiritual guidance that people need during this time of crisis? How can you not feel the much larger suffering caused by the government’s unscientific lockdown policies?

The law is now on the side of the churches. The science supports the lifting of lockdowns. We hope this is enough for our religious leaders to finally speak up.