The M+G+R Foundation

PCR inventor did not design it to detect infectious diseases


How the "fact-checkers" are trying to convince you against it

A document by Ricardo de Valencia

Originally Published on September 21st, 2021


The purpose of this document is to illustrate how mainstream disinformative "fact-checkers" can convince you of a lie by telling you some true facts. At the same time, we will attempt to clarify the position of Dr. Mullis, the inventor of the PCR process, on the misuse of it for diagnostic purposes.


The PCR technique or process - not the PCR test for diseases (1) - was invented by Dr. Kary B. Mullis, who received the Nobel Prize for his invention. He died in August 2019, before Covid-19 began to spread in December 2019, but he lived through a time in which PCR was promoted to "diagnose" some diseases (AIDS, in particular; also Pertussis, whose PCR test created a false epidemic in 2004-2006 (2)). He was very clear on his opposition to the use of PCR to diagnose AIDS (3).

For clarity:

- The PCR technique or process refers to the laboratory process designed by Dr. Mullis to "amplify" (i.e. create millions or billions of copies) of portions of genetic material (DNA o RNA), in order to better study the genetic material. (1)

- The concept of PCR tests for diseases refers to the use of the PCR process to design, for a given infectious disease, a PCR test that targets for a highly specific signature of DNA or RNA of the suspected infectious agent (e.g. a certain virus). This is based on the assumption that the detection of the infectious agent, in whatever amount it is found, equals, or "likely" proves, the disease. (4)


Did Dr. Mullis designed the PCR process to detect infectious diseases?

Some "fact-checkers" (5) have approached the issue as it were just about discarding some quotes allegedly said by Dr. Mullis. But discarding some quotes does not disprove the known position of Dr. Mullis (6) on the misinterpretation of the PCR technique for diagnostic purposes.

If you are asking whether Dr. Mullis said explicitly "My PCR test was not made to detect any type of infectious disease", the answer is no, he did not say that words. To begin with, he did not invented a test, he invented a technique (1), that others (not him) have converted into a test (more exactly, into a different and specific test for each alleged infectious agent of a disease).

The position of Dr. Mullis is very clear. He said:

“I think misuse PCR is not quite – I don’t think you can misuse PCR. The results, the interpretation of it, if they could find this virus in you at all, and with PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody. It starts making you believe in the sort of Buddhist notion that everything is contained in everything else. Right, I mean, because if you can amplify one single molecule up to something which you can really measure, which PCR can do, then there’s just very few molecules that you don’t have at least one single one of them in your body, okay. So that could be thought of as a misuse of it, just to claim that it’s meaningful.” (3)

It is obvious, from this quote, that Dr. Mullis is separating the proper use of PCR - to detect a signature of DNA or RNA in a sample - from the wrong interpretation - the interpretation that the presence of a single molecule (or a small or uncertain quantity of them) is a disease.

He is clearly ridiculing the notion that a PCR test can be used as the diagnostic of a disease.

Is it really necessary to have him say it more explicitly? After he had been so critical of the use of PCR to "diagnose" AIDS (3)? That would be the same as arguing that, because Jesus did not say the exact words "I think that wars are not a good idea", He was not in favor of Peace.

Said quote from Dr. Mullis - conveniently omitted by the "fact-checkers" (5) - should be enough to prove the point.

But there is more...

Anyone can read Dr. Mullis' own account (7) of how he came to the invention of the PCR process and which were his concerns that motivated his invention. In his own words, he was worried by:

"The problem of rapidly determining whether or not the DNA of a growing fetus contained an unfortunate mutation, giving the parents an opportunity to elect an abortion." | "Pregnant mothers should not have to wait ... for making a life or death decision."

In an account in which he clearly put his emotions, he did not say that he expected that PCR would be used to detect infectious diseases. If he were aiming to such an important achievement, he obviously would have said so, just as he explicitly spoke of his (regrettable) hope to use PCR as an aid to abortion (8).

So, did the inventor of the PCR process ever said it was not designed to detect infectious diseases? Again, the answer may be no, if you were expecting the exact words. But, clearly, as proved by the omission of such an important aim on his own biographical account, the inventor of the PCR process did not designed it to detect infectious diseases.


Now you can read - if you wish - the related articles of the "fact-checkers" (5) and see how they can, by telling true facts (such as "Dr. Mullis did not say so and so"), and diverting attention out of the most relevant evidence and reasoning, convince anyone to believe a lie.


(1) The Nobel Prize for Kary B. Mullis, not a single mention of the word "test" or "diagnosis":

Kary B. Mullis
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1993
Prize motivation: "for his invention of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method."

An organism's genome is stored inside DNA molecules, but analyzing this genetic information requires quite a large amount of DNA. In 1985, Kary Mullis invented the process known as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), in which a small amount of DNA can be copied in large quantities over a short period of time. By applying heat, the DNA molecule's two strands are separated and the DNA building blocks that have been added are bonded to each strand. With the help of the enzyme DNA polymerase, new DNA chains are formed and the process can then be repeated. PCR has been of major importance in both medical research and forensic science.

(2) The false epidemic of Pertussis in 2004-2006, created by the abuse of PCR tests

(3) Source, Apr-2020, UncoverDC, Celia Farber; Also: Copy

(4) The abuse of PCR test for diagnostics or as a screening device:
(a) "RT-PCR is not recommended for primary diagnostics of infection. This is why the RT-PCR Test used in clinical routine for detection of COVID-19 is not indicated for COVID-19 diagnosis on a regulatory basis." (Source, Nov-2020 - Panel of experts reviewing the Corman-Dresden WHO-protocol) (In the case of Covid-19, RT-PCR is the same as saying PCR)
(b) The PCR test "should never be used as a screening device, since virus-parts are inhaled all day long and trapped in the mucous of nose and lungs, exactly there were the samples are taken from." (Source, Nov-2020 - Dr. Borger, in a panel of experts reviewing the Corman-Dresden WHO-protocol)

(5) Disinformative "fact-checkers":
(a), Oct-2020; Archived
(b) Associated Press, Jul-2020; Archived
(6) The known position of Dr. Mullis:
(a) "[Mullis] always said you couldn’t use [PCR] to diagnose a disease but in this particular clip, he goes directly after Fauci and tells what a liar he is" (Source, Dec-2020, D.Knight,
(b) "Kary [Mullis] did not invent a test. He invented a very powerful manufacturing technique that is being abused. What are the best applications for PCR? Not medical diagnostics. He knew that and he always said that." - David Crowe, Canadian researcher (Source, Apr-2020, UncoverDC, Celia Farber; Also: Copy)

(7) Dr. Mullis biographical account on the invention of PCR (Accessed Sep-2021); Archived

(8) Obviously, that is an abomination - the selective mass-murder of children -, but the point here is that he envisioned that thing as a noble goal.

En Español:  El inventor del PCR no lo diseñó para detectar enfermedades infecciosas

Published on September 21st, 2021

© Copyright 2021 - 2022 by The M+G+R Foundation. All rights reserved. However, you may freely reproduce and distribute this document as long as: (1) Appropriate credit is given as to its source; (2) No changes are made in the text without prior written consent; and (3) No charge is made for it.

Related Documents

The real reason for the misuse of PCR tests

The false epidemic of Pertussis in 2004-2006, created by the abuse of PCR tests

The Coronavirus Global Scam that is being staged by the World Masters - Index of Documents

The M+G+R Foundation

Disclaimer  |  About Us  |  Frequently Asked Questions  |  Contact  |  If this is your first visit:  Introduction  |  If you are a regular visitor:  Home Page  |  Español  |  Portugues  |  Back Up Home Page  |  To search for information:  Search Page  |  Index of Documents

Future Use

Please Note: If the above dated image does not appear on this document, it means that you are not viewing the original document from our servers. Should you have reason to doubt the authenticity of the document, we recommend that you access our server again and click on the "Refresh" or "Reload" button of your Browser to view the original document.