Three German researchers have published a study claiming that, based on official data, only one in seven positive PCR tests during the Corona period actually corresponded to a real infection. The paper underwent peer review and was published in the specialist journal “Frontiers in Epidemiology”. According to the article, Germany’s Federal Ministry of Health and the Robert Koch Institute have not contradicted the study’s content.
Source: Hauke Verlag, Michael Hauke, December 02,2025
The paper by Prof. Harald Walach, Prof. Michael Günther and Prof. Robert Rockenfeller, the author argues, hits like a second meteor strike after the leaked RKI protocols. In their view, it leaves virtually no stone of the Corona narrative standing. Their conclusion: only 14 percent of positive PCR tests reflected a genuine Covid infection, while 86 percent were false positives. To grasp the significance, the article recalls that the PCR test was enshrined in law as the sole proof of infection and the basis for calculating the seven‑day incidence (sections 22a and 28a of the Infection Protection Act). All coercive measures and the suspension of fundamental rights, it claims, rested solely on positive PCR results. Now, the study purports to show scientifically that these figures were inflated sevenfold and that clinical indicators were unremarkable on every single day of the pandemic years.
According to this interpretation, the “pandemic” was only demonstrable because of the millions of PCR tests conducted; in effect, it was conjured into being by testing. That, the author insists, is the clear result of the study and the conclusion drawn by the three scientists. The scale may be surprising, but the situation itself is not, he writes, because the facts had allegedly been on the table from the start. On 14 October 2020, he published an editorial titled “The measures are based on a lie! – The PCR test must not be used for diagnostic purposes”, in which he denounced what he called the fraudulent use of PCR and cited package inserts warning that the tests were for research only and not suitable for diagnosis.
He also quoted Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR technology: “The PCR test does not tell you that you are sick!” and: “With PCR you can, if you do it well, find almost anything in anybody!” The author stresses that Mullis explicitly warned against misuse of his invention. Faced with what he describes as the mass abuse of PCR technology, his conclusion in October 2020 was: “No one here is acting negligently; they are acting deliberately and therefore intentionally.” He notes that this earlier article is also included in his first book, “How Quickly We Lost Our Freedom”, now in its fourth edition.
Yet, he writes, nobody wanted to hear talk of fraud. There were plenty of doctors and scientists who warned of problems, but they were suppressed and branded as conspiracy ideologues. Massive waves of propaganda and lies, he says, swept over the population. Even today, people still test themselves for Corona and believe that a positive result shows they are infected. That is wrong, the text insists: a PCR test cannot determine an infection – and a rapid test even less so. Nobel laureate and PCR inventor Kary Mullis, he emphasizes, repeatedly pointed this out.
The new study, in the author’s view, confirms precisely these criticisms and, for the first time, allegedly quantifies the scale of “PCR fraud” scientifically. The RKI, which originally collated the underlying data, now prefers not to comment, he claims. Mainstream media and politicians remain silent, he continues, because the findings would strip the entire Corona regime of its medical foundation and expose them all as having engaged for years in collective lying and abuse of office to the detriment of the public.
The study’s data come from measurement series on PCR and antibody tests compiled by the association “Accredited Laboratories in Medicine” (ALM), which the authors cross‑checked. The association represents around 180 laboratories, and roughly 90 percent of PCR results reportedly came from these facilities. According to ALM, they carried out “structured and standardized data collection in coordination with federal‑level authorities”. Those authorities included the RKI, the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians and the central association of statutory health insurers.
In an interview with the online outlet “Multipolar‑Magazin”, study co‑author Prof. Michael Günther explains that during the pandemic “the data were delivered to the RKI and compiled there”. He then delivers what the author calls the crucial sentence: “That means the RKI, the Health Ministry and the organizations involved must have seen the data.”
In the same interview, co‑author Prof. Robert Rockenfeller describes the limits of PCR: “It does not show, in particular, whether the body has formed antibodies – that is, whether the pathogen has entered and triggered an infection. If, on the basis of a positive PCR test, you say that someone is infected – as Christian Drosten was still doing in August 2025 before the investigative committee in Saxony – then that is a lie. He knows that himself, because in his own publications he has always written that a positive PCR result must be compared with an antibody test in order to establish an infection.”
The author accuses the media of still lying “by omission”. Nobody is surprised anymore, he claims; on the contrary, people would be astonished if the flagship news program “Tagesschau” suddenly reported truthfully. Public broadcasters ARD and ZDF and the mainstream press, he says, are predictably ignoring the study that brands the PCR test a fraud. Prof. Günther is quoted in “Multipolar” as saying of the independent scrutiny of the work: “In the peer‑review process, over one and a half years, we were able to convince the reviewers of the validity of the measurements and our results.”
He then turns to Christian Drosten’s predecessor as chief virologist at Berlin’s Charité hospital, Prof. Detlev Krüger, who now serves as an expert in an inquiry commission in the Brandenburg state parliament, appointed by the CDU of all parties. There, in stark contrast to the CDU’s own political record during the pandemic, Krüger has confirmed all doubts about the Corona measures, the author writes. In the Potsdam inquiry commission, Krüger reportedly stressed that “PCR positives” are not the same as sick patients and warned: “What I am presenting here is textbook knowledge. […] The data that were used to say what is called Covid‑19 were not clinical data on illness, but positive test data. Once again we see the confusion of Covid with PCR‑positive.” The author notes that a video of these remarks can be found on his Telegram channel.
Krüger had already warned back in 2020, he continues: “To this day, we have significantly more deaths in Germany from influenza or hospital‑acquired infections than from the coronavirus. That seems to be completely ignored in public discussion.” Yet, he says, even statements from the former director of the Charité’s Institute of Medical Virology were rigorously censored and suppressed by politics and the media during the pandemic years. In their place, “dubious figures” such as Christian Drosten took the helm. Public broadcaster ARD even dubbed him “the virologist Germans trust”.
Anyone who has looked even briefly into the background of the Corona crisis, the author asserts, knows that Drosten was the one person who absolutely should not have been trusted. In his view, Drosten shares this trait with the broadcaster that bestowed the title on him. Fake news piled on fake news, he writes – from ARD, from Drosten, from the media and from politicians. They lied about the virus’s origins, lied about the disease’s danger, lied in their demonization of children, lied about the effectiveness and safety of mRNA shots, lied about a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” – and lied about what PCR tests can actually show.
In Drosten’s case, the author argues, this last point is hardly surprising. First, the entire package of measures rested on Drosten’s assessments. Second, he himself helped design the SARS‑CoV‑2 RT‑PCR assay used as the standard Corona test. Pointing out this significant conflict of interest, he notes, was enough to get anyone dismissed as a conspiracy theorist. Even today, he continues, Drosten repeats all the “lies” of the Corona years, with public broadcasting still providing him a platform.
The author closes by returning to a line from his 14 October 2020 editorial: “The inventor knew it, the manufacturers know it, Drosten knows it, Spahn and Merkel know it: the PCR test must not be used to make a diagnosis! Anyone who nonetheless does so builds the pandemic numbers – and therefore the pandemic itself – on a lie.” He now adds a sharper conclusion: Corona, he claims, was not a pandemic but a dictatorship. And, he writes, Corona will only be over when all those responsible stand before a court. Drosten is just one of many, he concedes, but not the least important.
Kary Mullis, inventor of the PCR test:
Listen CAREFULLY to what he says about the PCR test:
https://x.com/AbazarMd/status/1377494164376539137