Jump to content

Drosten-PCR-Test-Study: Withdrawal application filed due to scientific errors and massive conflicts of interest


Kovidiot
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/         

SUMMARY CATALOGUE OF ERRORS FOUND IN THE PAPER

The Corman-Drosten paper contains the following specific errors:

1. There exists no specified reason to use these extremely high concentrations of primers in this protocol. The described concentrations lead to increased nonspecific bindings and PCR product amplifications, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

2. Six unspecified wobbly positions will introduce an enormous variability in the real world laboratory implementations of this test; the confusing nonspecific description in the Corman-Drosten paper is not suitable as a Standard Operational Protocol making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

3. The test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments. Therefore, the test cannot be used as a diagnostic for intact (infectious) viruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus and make inferences about the presence of an infection.

4. A difference of 10° C with respect to the annealing temperature Tm for primer pair1 (RdRp_SARSr_F and RdRp_SARSr_R) also makes the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

5. A severe error is the omission of a Ct value at which a sample is considered positive and negative. This Ct value is also not found in follow-up submissions making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

6. The PCR products have not been validated at the molecular level. This fact makes the protocol useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

7. The PCR test contains neither a unique positive control to evaluate its specificity for SARS-CoV-2 nor a negative control to exclude the presence of other coronaviruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

8. The test design in the Corman-Drosten paper is so vague and flawed that one can go in dozens of different directions; nothing is standardized and there is no SOP. This highly questions the scientific validity of the test and makes it unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

9. Most likely, the Corman-Drosten paper was not peer-reviewed making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

10. We find severe conflicts of interest for at least four authors, in addition to the fact that two of the authors of the Corman-Drosten paper (Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken) are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance. A conflict of interest was added on July 29 2020 (Olfert Landt is CEO of TIB-Molbiol; Marco Kaiser is senior researcher at GenExpress and serves as scientific advisor for TIB-Molbiol), that was not declared in the original version (and still is missing in the PubMed version); TIB-Molbiol is the company which was “the first” to produce PCR kits (Light Mix) based on the protocol published in the Corman-Drosten manuscript, and according to their own words, they distributed these PCR-test kits before the publication was even submitted [20]; further, Victor Corman & Christian Drosten failed to mention their second affiliation: the commercial test laboratory “Labor Berlin”. Both are responsible for the virus diagnostics there [21] and the company operates in the realm of real time PCR-testing.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gone Fishing...


A global team of experts has found 10 FATAL FLAWS in the main test for Covid and is demanding it’s urgently axed.

The 10 deadly sins

Among the fatal flaws that totally invalidate the PCR testing protocol are that the test:

  • is non-specific, due to erroneous primer design

  • is enormously variable

  • cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments

  • has no positive or negative controls

  • has no standard operating procedure

  • does not seem to have been properly peer reviewed

Oh dear. One wonders whether anything at all was correct in the paper. But wait – it gets worse. As has been noted previously, no threshold for positivity was ever identified. This is why labs have been running 40 cycles, almost guaranteeing a large number of false positives – up to 97 percent, according to some studies.

The cherry on top, though, is that among the authors of the original paper themselves, at least four have severe conflicts of interest. Two of them are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance, the sinisterly named journal that published the paper. And at least three of them are on the payroll of the first companies to perform PCR testing! 

 

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/508383-fatal-flaws-covid-test/ 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2020 at 12:11 PM, Kovidiot said:

https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/         

SUMMARY CATALOGUE OF ERRORS FOUND IN THE PAPER

The Corman-Drosten paper contains the following specific errors:

1. There exists no specified reason to use these extremely high concentrations of primers in this protocol. The described concentrations lead to increased nonspecific bindings and PCR product amplifications, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

2. Six unspecified wobbly positions will introduce an enormous variability in the real world laboratory implementations of this test; the confusing nonspecific description in the Corman-Drosten paper is not suitable as a Standard Operational Protocol making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

3. The test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments. Therefore, the test cannot be used as a diagnostic for intact (infectious) viruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus and make inferences about the presence of an infection.

4. A difference of 10° C with respect to the annealing temperature Tm for primer pair1 (RdRp_SARSr_F and RdRp_SARSr_R) also makes the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

5. A severe error is the omission of a Ct value at which a sample is considered positive and negative. This Ct value is also not found in follow-up submissions making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

6. The PCR products have not been validated at the molecular level. This fact makes the protocol useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

7. The PCR test contains neither a unique positive control to evaluate its specificity for SARS-CoV-2 nor a negative control to exclude the presence of other coronaviruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

8. The test design in the Corman-Drosten paper is so vague and flawed that one can go in dozens of different directions; nothing is standardized and there is no SOP. This highly questions the scientific validity of the test and makes it unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

9. Most likely, the Corman-Drosten paper was not peer-reviewed making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

10. We find severe conflicts of interest for at least four authors, in addition to the fact that two of the authors of the Corman-Drosten paper (Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken) are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance. A conflict of interest was added on July 29 2020 (Olfert Landt is CEO of TIB-Molbiol; Marco Kaiser is senior researcher at GenExpress and serves as scientific advisor for TIB-Molbiol), that was not declared in the original version (and still is missing in the PubMed version); TIB-Molbiol is the company which was “the first” to produce PCR kits (Light Mix) based on the protocol published in the Corman-Drosten manuscript, and according to their own words, they distributed these PCR-test kits before the publication was even submitted [20]; further, Victor Corman & Christian Drosten failed to mention their second affiliation: the commercial test laboratory “Labor Berlin”. Both are responsible for the virus diagnostics there [21] and the company operates in the realm of real time PCR-testing.

 

5 hours ago, jesuitsdidit said:

So the whole SCAMDEMIC is based on a fraudulent and faulty test.

Brilliant!!

 

 

5 hours ago, Basket Case said:


A global team of experts has found 10 FATAL FLAWS in the main test for Covid and is demanding it’s urgently axed.

The 10 deadly sins

Among the fatal flaws that totally invalidate the PCR testing protocol are that the test:

  • is non-specific, due to erroneous primer design

  • is enormously variable

  • cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments

  • has no positive or negative controls

  • has no standard operating procedure

  • does not seem to have been properly peer reviewed

Oh dear. One wonders whether anything at all was correct in the paper. But wait – it gets worse. As has been noted previously, no threshold for positivity was ever identified. This is why labs have been running 40 cycles, almost guaranteeing a large number of false positives – up to 97 percent, according to some studies.

The cherry on top, though, is that among the authors of the original paper themselves, at least four have severe conflicts of interest. Two of them are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance, the sinisterly named journal that published the paper. And at least three of them are on the payroll of the first companies to perform PCR testing! 

 

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/508383-fatal-flaws-covid-test/ 
 

 

 

 

They don't have to test people.

 

They could just make up the numbers.

 

Have you ever realised that the number of positives increase at about 500 a day? It's because they are just making it up.

 

Just make it up, it works much better than creating a complex test procedure.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gone Fishing...
On 12/4/2020 at 2:47 PM, 78ast78dgyad said:

 

 

 

 

 

They don't have to test people.

 

They could just make up the numbers.

 

Have you ever realised that the number of positives increase at about 500 a day? It's because they are just making it up.

 

Just make it up, it works much better than creating a complex test procedure.

 

 


They're going through the motions by using a test they know doesn't work.....and yes, they are making the numbers up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The mathematical laws as to what happens when you start screening mass populations are not in the right direction in terms of the harms that will be done. The key thing is specificity, and the documents do not mention specificity or false positives, which is how you get harm. If you start using tests in 60 million people, even if they are 99% specific you will end up giving false positive results to hundreds of thousands of people." https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3585

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read the list of errors it appears to me that almost everyone of them has been left out or inaccurately quoted to ensure positive results - specifically with the amplification. What a joke - and to think this disaster (socially and economically - not to mention medically) has destroyed the world so easily. 

Its terrifying to watch it play out in plain sight with all the sheeple continuing to graze as though everything is about to become ‘normal’ post Gates jab?! 

Edited by Chris K
Typo
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

This video is quite lengthy but is an excellent interview with two of the signatories of the Corman-Drosten review report which called for the retraction of the Corman-Drosten paper. Kevin McKernan has a background in genomics and PCR testing and Bobby Malhotra works in bio-informatics. They both report having been slandered for their part in challenging the paper including accusations of anti-semitism.

 

Even according to mainstream science, the Corman-Drosten PCR testing protocol is fatally flawed. The interview hones in predominantly on the following points.

  • The peer review of the Corman-Drosten paper took place in a day whereas the average length of the process is 172 days. Eurosurveillance continue to hide who actually did the peer review. Two of the authors of the protocol paper are on the WHO advisory board and conflicts of interest were not declared. This was the only protocol to have been accepted at the beginning of the pandemic - a Chinese team from the Zu laboratory also submitted a protocol which was not accepted.
  • The protocol was designed without any virus material being available and the sequencing came from a computer database.
  • PCR testing for the virus also picks up other Asian coronaviruses (cold viruses) - this is admitted in the Corman-Drosten paper itself in respect of the primer design which is not specific to SARS-CoV-2 - the authors knew it would pick up other viruses.
  • There is no transparency over cycle threshold values being used - even doctors do not have access to this information. A paper 'Jaafar' found with PCR tests using 33 cycles that 97% of those who tested positive were not infectious (i.e. there was no growth of any virus in cell culture). Another paper 'Liotti' found that there is a 7 day window of infectivity of a diseased person but that PCR tests people positive on average over a 44 day window meaning that there is a 5 to 1 ratio of people not being infectious compared to those who are out of those testing positive. Testing companies are financially incentivised to have higher Ct values and sensitivity. And, because of the lack of transparency over Ct values, the results can be manipulated for political reasons.
  • College kids are learning how to avoid testing positive in order to evade quarantine - they flush their noses prior to testing.
  • Testing is not happening with informed consent but rather "misinformed coercion" and questions need to be asked over the testing of asymptomatic people as well as privacy over biometric data.
  • The authors of the Corman-Drosten paper and the WHO know that there are problems with the protocol but still continue to endorse it perhaps in pursuit of financial interests rather than truth.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They knew the 'test' wasn't one since Mullis had made it clear since the beginning, but they enforced it anyway and waited until the first vaccinations to publicly admit that the test doesn't work, so that they can now claim the VACCINE does...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

The developer of this technique, Kary Mullis, a brilliant biochemist, won the Nobel Prize in chemistry for inventing this PCR method, but he has emphatically stated that this was never to be used to diagnose infectious disease because it is impossible to do so with this test.

 

“If they could find this virus in you, at all, the PCR, if you do it well, can find almost anything in anybody. It starts making you believe in the Buddhist notion that everything is contained and everything else. If you can amplify one single molecule up to something you can really measure, which PCR can do, then there’s just very few molecules that you don’t have at least one of in your body.”[…]

 

In other words, a PCR Test cannot under any circumstances, diagnose viruses of any kind, and certainly cannot diagnose SARS CoV-2 (Covid-19) in anyone. This knowledge alone should be enough if accepted by a large percentage of society, to stop this vast deadly conspiracy being perpetrated against the American public and the world. According again to Kary Mullis:

 

“Guys like Fauci get up there and start talking; He doesn’t know anything really about anything.” “The man thinks that he can take a blood sample and stick it in an electron microscope, and if it’s got a virus in there you will know it. He doesn’t understand electron microscopy, and medicine, and he should not be in the position like he’s in.”

 

“Those guys have an agenda!” They make up their own rules as they go, they change them when they want to,[…]

 

The evidence is clear. The virus pandemic is a scam. Total deaths are unchanged. The virus testing is completely fraudulent, this according to the person that invented the PCR methodology, and all the economic, mental, and health destruction is not only unnecessary, but is criminal.

 

Kary Mullis supposedly died of pneumonia in October of 2019, just before the Johns Hopkins and Bill Gates Event 201. His death received little fanfare, and certainly was convenient given that his own invention of the PCR test as he thoroughly explained, could not diagnose any virus, yet this is the test being used to lock down this country and destroy all freedom. If he were alive today, could any of this even be possible?

 

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/12/gary-d-barnett/fake-pandemic-fake-casedemic-then-fake-pandemic-and-the-fraud-continues/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 2/7/2021 at 2:28 PM, Mitochondrial Eve said:

This video is quite lengthy but is an excellent interview with two of the signatories of the Corman-Drosten review report which called for the retraction of the Corman-Drosten paper. Kevin McKernan has a background in genomics and PCR testing and Bobby Malhotra works in bio-informatics. They both report having been slandered for their part in challenging the paper including accusations of anti-semitism.

 

Even according to mainstream science, the Corman-Drosten PCR testing protocol is fatally flawed. The interview hones in predominantly on the following points.

  • The peer review of the Corman-Drosten paper took place in a day whereas the average length of the process is 172 days. Eurosurveillance continue to hide who actually did the peer review. Two of the authors of the protocol paper are on the WHO advisory board and conflicts of interest were not declared. This was the only protocol to have been accepted at the beginning of the pandemic - a Chinese team from the Zu laboratory also submitted a protocol which was not accepted.
  • The protocol was designed without any virus material being available and the sequencing came from a computer database.
  • PCR testing for the virus also picks up other Asian coronaviruses (cold viruses) - this is admitted in the Corman-Drosten paper itself in respect of the primer design which is not specific to SARS-CoV-2 - the authors knew it would pick up other viruses.
  • There is no transparency over cycle threshold values being used - even doctors do not have access to this information. A paper 'Jaafar' found with PCR tests using 33 cycles that 97% of those who tested positive were not infectious (i.e. there was no growth of any virus in cell culture). Another paper 'Liotti' found that there is a 7 day window of infectivity of a diseased person but that PCR tests people positive on average over a 44 day window meaning that there is a 5 to 1 ratio of people not being infectious compared to those who are out of those testing positive. Testing companies are financially incentivised to have higher Ct values and sensitivity. And, because of the lack of transparency over Ct values, the results can be manipulated for political reasons.
  • College kids are learning how to avoid testing positive in order to evade quarantine - they flush their noses prior to testing.
  • Testing is not happening with informed consent but rather "misinformed coercion" and questions need to be asked over the testing of asymptomatic people as well as privacy over biometric data.
  • The authors of the Corman-Drosten paper and the WHO know that there are problems with the protocol but still continue to endorse it perhaps in pursuit of financial interests rather than truth.

 

 

 

This link below (vid is dated 12th Feb 2021) is perhaps later than above link BUT talking about similar topic areas (have not fully watched both yet so that is why my message here is a little vague).

There is a part 2 link BUT I am no where near viewing that yet.

 

I am sure David Icke is aware of this set of links BUT mod please pass on to him if you consider them to be useful - the whole plandemic is being controlled by this pcr test!

Planet Waves TV interview with Kevin McKernan and Bobby Rajesh Malhotra | Part 1 - YouTube

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...