I have written several articles on PCR for my blog, but it seems many readers may not have understood them fully. So, here is another attempt to explain.
PCR stands for Polymerase Chain Reaction. Breaking it down, polymerase is a combination of two parts: polymer and -ase. Polymers are chemical compounds that can come from natural or synthetic sources. Examples of natural polymers include cellulose, starch, glycogen, proteins, enzymes, and nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA, while synthetic polymers include polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, PVC, Teflon, and nylon. All of these substances are well-characterized, certified, and widely available, mostly from chemical suppliers.
The suffix “-ase” indicates an enzyme, a protein that acts as a catalyst in biochemical reactions. For instance, hydrogen and oxygen will not combine to form water on their own; a spark or catalyst is required to initiate the reaction. Similarly, in biological systems, enzymes trigger countless reactions essential for life.
The word “chain” originates from polymer chemistry, where small chemical units are joined together via a chain reaction to form long strings of molecules. “Reaction” reflects this process. Thus, Polymerase Chain Reaction literally describes an enzyme-driven process that copies chains of DNA or RNA.
Dr. Kary Mullis, a Nobel Laureate, applied this concept to the chemistry of DNA and RNA. He developed PCR to make copies of DNA or RNA from established sources—human, animal, or plant—so that their structures and sequences could be studied and established. This process begins with DNA or RNA that is carefully extracted and purified from its source, and only then is the sequence determined. This is legitimate science, firmly grounded in chemistry principles.
Note that I have only discussed PCR itself—not the so-called “PCR test.” They are two very different things. Here is where confusion—and fraud—enters. Many people speak of a “PCR test,” which is different, but PCR is a reaction, not a test. Its purpose is to replicate DNA or RNA for determining the structures and sequences of the source DNA/RNA, not the reverse, i.e., RNA/DNA to the source.
Further explaining the difference between PCR and PCR test with an analogy, consider fermentation: fermentation produces alcohol, but it is not an alcohol test. A separate test would be required to measure alcohol content, something similar to a breath analyzer, unrelated to the fermentation processes. Similarly, PCR amplifies genetic material but cannot identify a virus or diagnose an infection. A separate test would be required for measuring the proper RNA reaction and its production. A PCR test cannot do that.
As a side note, the replication of DNA or RNA in a PCR test occurs through a chemical reaction driven by repeated heating and cooling cycles—often referred to simply as “cycles.” These heat-cold cycles do not, by themselves, ensure proper replication of DNA or RNA. Only a separate, properly designed test (which, as noted above, does not exist) could determine the actual production of DNA or RNA or so-called viral load.. The assumption that more replication cycles indicate more viral material is just that—an assumption, not a fact.
What medical and virology experts do is entirely different. They select arbitrary RNA fragments, add enzymes, mix them with swab milieu (so-called “culturing”), and measure light emitted from the reaction. From this, they claim that a specific RNA has been found and is linked to a virus. This is arbitrary, imaginary, and scientifically invalid. Despite the technical jargon, it has no relation to actual science (chemistry). Yet, by authority, massive funding, and tightly controlled networks prevent scrutiny. From a scientific perspective, it is clear that what they describe is a mixture of ignorance, error, and falsehood. There is no virus, not even real RNA.
It means the PCR “test” and its outcomes mean nothing—positive or negative—and have no valid link to any virus. It is a money-driven spectacle designed to create the illusion of scientific authority and research.
Both medical and virology experts lack proper scientific education to understand the issue but exploit fraudulent scientific claims for profit, creating widespread confusion, fear, and harm. Much of the medical research in this area (like gain-of-function research, bioweaponary) is similarly false and fraudulent. The only solution is to critically reassess the authority of these so-called scientists, who make decisions in the name of science while lacking real scientific understanding and credentials.
A similar issue with falsehoods exists with antibody tests. Antibodies are proteins, and their presence and appearance are assumed to indicate the body’s response to a foreign agent. Higher antibody levels are interpreted as evidence that the body has dealt with—or is dealing with—a virus (foreign body). But this is purely an assumption. For an antibody test to be meaningful, antibodies must be evaluated against an actual virus – first. Since no virus sample exists, no proper antibody test can exist. Therefore, these tests are false and fraudulent, providing no real value in detecting or monitoring viruses or illnesses.
In short, PCR and antibody tests, as applied to viruses, are not scientific. They are tools of illusion, designed to create fear, authority, and profit, while misleading the public about the reality of viral existence or detection.
At this stage, my only hope is to raise awareness and hold accountable medical experts—physicians—who falsely claim scientific education and credentials. I hope RFK Jr. will take note and act. If this fraud goes unchallenged, nations risk heading straight for disaster, creating populations of what are effectively “opium addicts.”