↓ Skip to main content
ELIZA on Steroids
ELIZA on Steroids — Critical AI Analysis
  1. Blog/

The Pandemic of the Non-Infectious – Why the Ct Value Was the Biggest Lie

Opinion piece
·1214 words·6 mins
Critical Analysis Corona PCR Drosten RKI Ct-Value Jaafar Corman-Drosten Enquete RKI-Protocols
Table of Contents

The Enquete Commission is running, the German Federal Court of Justice is overturning vaccine injury rulings, the Telegraph is reporting on vaccine injuries – but one question nobody asks: How many of the “Corona-positives” were actually infectious?

The answer has been in peer-reviewed studies since 2020: At Ct value 35 = 0% culturable [1]. The RKI itself set the threshold at Ct >30 [2]. But many labs ran PCR tests up to Ct=40 and higher [3].

This means: A large proportion of “positives” were not infectious – but still in quarantine, in intensive care, in lockdown statistics.

Even more explosive: Harvard epidemiologists said the same thing in 2020 [4][5]. The Charité assay produced positive results on pure water [6]. And the RKI protocols prove: Politics overruled science – internally documented [7][8][9].

Why do both sides (mainstream AND critics) conceal this core lie?

Drosten PCR Without Patient Isolate – The Birth of the Test
#

On January 23, 2020, Christian Drosten published the PCR protocol in Eurosurveillance – 24 hours after submission [10]. Peer review normally takes weeks to months. Here: one day.

The timeline:

  • January 21, 2020: Submitted
  • January 22, 2020: Accepted
  • January 23, 2020: Online

Conflict of interest: Drosten and co-author Chantal Reusken were themselves members of the Eurosurveillance Editorial Board [11]. Structural conflict of interest.

Basis of the test: Not a German patient isolate, but a GenBank sequence from China [10]. The virus had not yet been detected in Germany at that time.

Corman-Drosten Review (Borger et al., November 2020): An international consortium of scientists identified 10 major methodological flaws [6]:

  • Primer design too unspecific (also detects other coronaviruses)
  • No negative controls
  • No standardized Ct value threshold
  • Killer finding: The Charité assay produces positive results on pure water controls at Ct 36–38 [6]

With a test run up to Ct=40 and higher, this means: Every run near the cutoff threshold is forensically worthless.

Retraction demand – ignored to this day. Eurosurveillance asked for “further expert opinions” (Retraction Watch, December 2020) [11] – but the paper still stands.

Ct Value Manipulation – The Core Lie
#

What is the Ct value?

  • PCR amplifies genetic material in cycles
  • The higher the Ct value, the less starting material was present
  • Ct >30 = viral RNA in tiny amounts, often no longer infectious

The Science Was Clear
#

Jaafar et al. 2020 (Clinical Infectious Diseases, peer-reviewed) [1]:

  • At Ct=25: ~70% of samples culturable (infectious)
  • At Ct=30: only 20% culturable
  • At Ct≈35: 0% culturable (no infectious virus detectable)

RKI position (discharge criteria, March 2020) [2]:

  • “At Ct values >30, loss of culturability can be assumed”
  • The RKI knew: From Ct >30 = no longer infectious

But: Many labs ran PCR tests up to Ct=40 and higher [3]. The WHO warned (January 2021): “At low prevalence, the false-positive risk increases, interpret high Ct values carefully in context” [12] – but no specific Ct threshold.

Mainstream Scientists Said the Same
#

It was no secret. Harvard epidemiologist Michael Mina publicly called for antigen tests instead of PCR mass testing in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in 2020, because PCR detects “viral debris” weeks after recovery as “positive” [5].

Tom & Mina (Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2020) [4]:

“At high Ct values, only ‘viral debris’ is detected, not infectious virus. PCR is too sensitive for public health purposes.”

Harvard, NEJM, same journal as Jaafar. When a Harvard epidemiologist writes the same thing in NEJM in 2020 as Jaafar, “Ct >30 = not infectious” is not a conspiracy argument, but consensus-overlooked-in-mainstream.

Consequence:

  • A large proportion of “positives” (Ct >30) were not infectious
  • But: Quarantine, contact tracing, lockdown statistics were based on all positives (including Ct=40)

Drosten 2014 vs. 2020 – Methodological Inconsistency
#

2014 (MERS outbreak, Saudi Arabia): Drosten warned in Wirtschaftswoche [13][14]:

“In Jeddah, PCR mass testing was done – suddenly construction workers and chambermaids were positive who had hardly any symptoms. The WHO case definition (bilateral pneumonia) was bypassed – incidence shot up.”

Drosten saw 2014 PCR mass testing as incidence artifact risk.

2020 (SARS-CoV-2): Drosten developed the PCR test that was used worldwide for mass testing – without Ct value standardization.

Methodological inconsistency: The same person who warned against PCR mass testing in 2014 developed the test in 2020 that enabled exactly that.

Caveat: Correctiv and dpa fact-checkers argue MERS ≠ SARS-CoV-2 (different tropism, different lethality) [15]. But: The methodological criticism (PCR mass testing without symptom context) applies regardless of virus.

RKI Protocols Leak: Politics Overruled Science
#

In March 2024, journalist Paul Schreyer (Multipolar) sued to release RKI crisis team protocols – with over 1,000 redactions [7]. In July 2024, Aya Velazquez published the unredacted protocols [8].

RKI confirmed authenticity, only objected to the transfer [9]. FragDenStaat reported a data breach [16].

Three Quotable Findings from the Leak
#

1. Incidence threshold internally deemed “nonsensical” / “professionally rejected”

Spring 2020: The RKI internally rejected incidence thresholds as a scientific control variable – they became a political control variable anyway [7][8].

2. Spahn/Braun demanded scientific justifications from RKI for politically predetermined thresholds

The order was reversed: Politics decided first, RKI was supposed to deliver retroactively [7][8].

3. February 25, 2022: Lauterbach rejected risk downgrade

RKI wanted to reduce the risk assessment from “very high” to “high”. BMG (Lauterbach) rejected [7][8].

Lauterbach claimed publicly in March 2024: “There were no political directives.”

The protocol refutes this verbatim.

Conclusion: The Question Nobody Asks
#

A significant number of reported positives did not contribute to the pandemic. This was known internally:

  • RKI knew: Ct >30 = not infectious
  • Harvard epidemiologists publicly called for: Antigen tests instead of PCR
  • Charité assay was positive on water
  • RKI protocols prove: Incidence was political directive, not science

The investigation must start with the question: Who politically decided to ignore this knowledge?

As long as “pandemic” is accepted as a premise, the investigation remains cosmetic.

Sources
#

[1] Jaafar et al., “Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction–Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures”, Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2020. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/72/11/e921/5912603

[2] RKI, “Discharge criteria from isolation”, March 2020. https://edoc.rki.de/bitstream/handle/176904/6867/20_0316_Entlasskriterien_A3_V11.pdf

[3] RKI, “Notes on testing patients for SARS-CoV-2”. https://www.rki.de/DE/Themen/Infektionskrankheiten/Infektionskrankheiten-A-Z/C/COVID-19/Diagnostik-Hinweise.html

[4] Tom & Mina, “To Interpret the SARS-CoV-2 Test, Consider the Cycle Threshold Value”, Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2020. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7314112/

[5] Mina, “Rethinking Covid-19 Test Sensitivity — A Strategy for Containment”, NEJM, 2020. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32997903/

[6] Borger et al., “External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws”, November 2020. https://zenodo.org/records/4433503

[7] Multipolar, “RKI protocols released by court order”, March 20, 2024. https://multipolar-magazin.de/artikel/rki-protokolle-2

[8] Wikipedia, “Protocols of the RKI Crisis Team”. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protokolle_des_RKI-Krisenstabs

[9] RKI, “Statement on the protocols of the COVID-19 crisis team”. https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/C/COVID-19-Pandemie/Stellungnahme_Protokolle.html

[10] Corman et al., “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR”, Eurosurveillance, January 23, 2020. https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045

[11] Retraction Watch, “Public health journal seeking further expert advice on January paper about COVID-19 PCR testing”, December 7, 2020. https://retractionwatch.com/2020/12/07/public-health-journal-seeking-further-expert-advice-on-january-paper-about-covid-19-pcr-testing-by-high-profile-virologist/

[12] WHO, “Information Notice for IVD Users 2020/05”, January 20, 2021. https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05

[13] Drosten, “The body is constantly attacked by viruses”, Wirtschaftswoche, May 16, 2014. https://www.wiwo.de/technologie/forschung/virologe-drosten-im-gespraech-2014-der-koerper-wirdstaendig-von-viren-angegriffen/9903228.html

[14] Drosten, “The WHO can only make recommendations”, Wirtschaftswoche, May 16, 2014. https://www.wiwo.de/technologie/forschung/virologe-drosten-im-gespraech-2014-die-who-kann-nur-empfehlungen-aussprechen/9903228-2.html

[15] Correctiv, “No, Christian Drosten did not say in 2014 that he considers PCR tests unsuitable”, November 23, 2020. https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2020/11/23/nein-christian-drosten-hat-2014-nicht-gesagt-dass-er-pcr-tests-fuer-untauglich-halte/

[16] FragDenStaat, “Reporting a data breach: RKI leak from July 23, 2024”. https://fragdenstaat.de/en/request/meldung-einer-datenpanne-rki-leak-vom-23-07-2024/

Related

RKI Protocols Unredacted: How Science Was Politically Overridden

··1138 words·6 mins
RKI Corona Multipolar Accountability Media Criticism Pandemic Policy Science
A journalist sues. A court decides. 2,500 pages confirm what three years of “conspiracy theory” suppressed: the RKI acted on political orders — not scientific evidence. # The Man Who Didn’t Give Up # Paul Schreyer is a journalist and co-editor of Multipolar Magazine. Not an activist, not a Telegram influencer — a journalist who used Germany’s Freedom of Information Act (IFG) for its intended purpose: making state action transparent.

Dr. Christian Drosten: Critical Analysis of Contradictions and Institutional Entanglements

··671 words·4 mins
Pandemic Science Politics Christian Drosten PCR Test Criticism Contradictions Science Corona RKI Critical Analysis
Introduction # Christian Drosten, often referred to as “Germany’s Corona explainer,” became a central figure during the pandemic. However, a closer examination of his scientific methods and political reversals raises fundamental questions about the role of scientists in pandemic politics. His career reveals a system of rapidly developed tests, contradictory statements, and questionable institutional arrangements that deserve critical review.

Vaccine Trust Crisis: When Data No Longer Counts

··736 words·4 mins
Politics Vaccination PEI RKI Trust Pharmacovigilance Schmeling BioNTech
The vaccination rate among over-60s for the flu shot is, according to the RKI, at its lowest level in 17 years [1]. The COVID-19 vaccination rate in this age group has fallen by more than a third compared to the previous season [2]. At the same time, data from Denmark show that different BioNTech batches showed different adverse-event rates — a study that the PEI dismissed as “not meaningful” without presenting its own data [3].

The Cologne Protocols, Part 1: They Knew — And Did It Anyway

··791 words·4 mins
Health Corona Protocols Cologne Crisis Team RKI Accountability Civil Rights
The City of Cologne’s COVID crisis team met from March 4, 2020 to January 20, 2023 in 203 sessions. Over 12,000 pages of protocols document how Germany’s fourth-largest city implemented pandemic policy. These documents are now public — obtained by Cologne citizen René Röderstein through a freedom of information request that took two years.