Spread the word far and wide.

External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results.

Pieter Borger(1), Bobby Rajesh Malhotra(2) , Michael Yeadon(3) , Clare Craig(4), Kevin McKernan(5) , Klaus Steger(6) , Paul McSheehy(7) , Lidiya Angelova(8), Fabio Franchi(9), Thomas Binder(10), Henrik Ullrich(11) , Makoto Ohashi(12), Stefano Scoglio(13), Marjolein Doesburg-van Kleffens(14), Dorothea Gilbert(15), Rainer Klement(16), Ruth Schruefer(17), Berber W. Pieksma(18), Jan Bonte(19), Bruno H. Dalle Carbonare(20), Kevin P. Corbett(21), Ulrike Kämmerer(22)

 

ABSTRACT

In the publication entitled “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR” (Eurosurveillance 25(8) 2020) the authors present a diagnostic workflow and RT-qPCR protocol for detection and diagnostics of 2019-nCoV (now known as SARS-CoV-2), which they claim to be validated, as well as being a robust diagnostic methodology for use in public-health laboratory settings. 

In light of all the consequences resulting from this very publication for societies worldwide, a group of independent researchers performed a point-by-point review of the aforesaid publication in which 1) all components of the presented test design were cross checked, 2) the RT-qPCR protocol-recommendations were assessed w.r.t. good laboratory practice, and 3) parameters examined against relevant scientific literature covering the field. 

The published RT-qPCR protocol for detection and diagnostics of 2019-nCoV and the manuscript suffer from numerous technical and scientific errors, including insufficient primer design, a problematic and insufficient RT-qPCR protocol, and the absence of an accurate test validation. Neither the presented test nor the manuscript itself fulfils the requirements for an acceptable scientific publication. Further, serious conflicts of interest of the authors are not mentioned. Finally, the very short timescale between submission and acceptance of the publication (24 hours) signifies that a systematic peer review process was either not performed here, or of problematic poor quality.  We provide compelling evidence of several scientific inadequacies, errors and flaws.

Considering the scientific and methodological blemishes presented here, we are confident that the editorial board of Eurosurveillance has no other choice but to retract the publication.

Full Article for Further reading: https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/

Meanwhile, the two individuals responsible for claims about PCR tests and their ability to determine CV19, which the WHO enforced, one appears to be  under investigation for faking their expertise and the other stands to gain financially from the tests.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/coronavirus-scandal-breaking-merkel-germany/5731891

An appeals court in Lisbon, Portugal ruled on Nov. 11th that the PCR test of Dr. Christian Drosten and the WHO was not valid to detect coronavirus infection and that it was no basis to order nationwide or partial lockdowns.

https://www.theportugalnews.com/news/2020-11-21/court-decides-that-quarantine-in-state-of-alert-is-illegal/56830

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4916

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30453-7/fulltext

In 2003, the same lab in Germany under Drosten, came up with the SARS test in just 11 days after WHO announced an alert.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7095456/

 

 

0 Comments

Post your comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>