Another article here too is the Corman-Drosten Review Report, a very important article.
Corman-Drosten Review Report – External peer review of the RT-PCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results.
cormandrostenreview.com / 27 Nov 2020
CURATED BY AN INTERNATIONAL CONSORTIUM OF SCIENTISTS IN LIFE SCIENCES (ICSLS) [NOV 2020 – JAN 2021]
Review report Corman-Drosten et al.
Eurosurveillance 2020
This extensive review report has been officially submitted to Eurosurveillance editorial board on 27th November 2020 via their submission-portal, enclosed to this review report is a retraction request letter, signed by all the main & co-authors. First and last listed names are the first and second main authors. All names in between are co-authors.
External peer review of the RTPCR (A: That’s the Real Time PCR…) test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results.
(Alan: It’s got all the different people involved in it signed here.)
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.
(Alan: Then it goes into the meat of it all.)
CONCISE REVIEW REPORT
This paper will show numerous serious flaws in the Corman-Drosten paper, the significance of which has led to worldwide misdiagnosis of infections attributed to SARS-CoV-2 and associated with the disease COVID-19. We are confronted with stringent lockdowns which have destroyed many people’s lives and livelihoods, limited access to education and these imposed restrictions by governments around the world are a direct attack on people’s basic rights and their personal freedoms, resulting in collateral damage for entire economies on a global scale.
There are ten fatal problems with the Corman-Drosten paper which we will outline and explain in greater detail in the following sections.
(Alan: Then they go into them too.)
The focus here should be placed upon the two stated aims: a) development and b) deployment of a diagnostic test for use in public health laboratory settings. These aims are not achievable without having any actual virus material available
(Alan: I’ll repeat that for the hard of thinking…)
These aims are not achievable without having any actual virus material available (e.g. for determining the infectious viral load). In any case, only a protocol with maximal accuracy can be the mandatory and primary goal in any scenario-outcome of this magnitude. Critical viral load determination is mandatory information, and it is in Christian Drosten’s group responsibility to perform these experiments and provide the crucial data.
(Alan: A viral load, you see, is what they do, how they work out infections. It’s not a matter of just getting infection. A person can pass through an infected ward of any kind of infection, but most bacteria or viruses need a particular LOAD, meaning number of the actual infectious bacterium or virus to actually overcome the body system and be able to take over the body basically and infect the body. If it’s not high enough they say it’s a good chance it won’t take off on you, your body can beat it off pretty well immediately, you know.)
(Alan: That also ties into biowarfare, the stuff I read years ago when I was on the radio about biowarfare and how they bred special mosquitoes, as an example, as one of the best things for spreading disease. They created the big, they called it a bomber mosquito, the nickname in Canada at Belleville Ontario lab where they bred, I don’t know if they still breed them there or not, I think they still do. They would send these big mosquitoes off to the biowarfare departments in the US and elsewhere, and Canada too naturally, and they could load them up, these mosquitoes, with heavier doses of viral or bacterial loads, so’s they could spread the disease, and actually it would take, as I say, there was enough of the actual load in them to take in when it landed on a person and bit them.)
(Alan: So anyway, that’s where that comes from, the viral load, right. And we don’t have any information of an actual virus, the actual virus, like a real virus here to determine what the actual load is for causing infection. You understand? So, you could have particles of infection of different kinds of viruses that will show up as positive for Covid even, and it doesn’t mean you’re infected, or even with that particular virus. It says…)
Nevertheless, these in silico sequences were used to develop a RT-PCR test methodology to identify the aforesaid virus. This model was based on the assumption that the novel virus is very similar to SARS-CoV from 2003 as both are beta-coronaviruses.
The PCR test was therefore designed using the genomic sequence of SARS-CoV (A: The first one, right.) as a control material for the Sarbeco component; we know this from our personal email-communication with [2] one of the co-authors of the Corman-Drosten paper. This method to model SARS-CoV-2 was described in the Corman-Drosten paper as follows:
“the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation, designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens. Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.”
The Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) is an important biomolecular technology to rapidly detect rare RNA fragments, which are known in advance. In the first step, RNA molecules present in the sample are reverse transcribed to yield cDNA. The cDNA is then amplified in the polymerase chain reaction using a specific primer pair and a thermostable DNA polymerase enzyme. The technology is highly sensitive and its detection limit is theoretically 1 molecule of cDNA. The specificity of the PCR is highly influenced by biomolecular design errors.
What is important when designing an RT-PCR Test and the quantitative RT-qPCR test described in the Corman-Drosten publication?
1. The primers and probes:
a) the concentration of primers and probes must be of optimal range (100-200 nM)
b) must be specific to the target-gene you want to amplify
c) must have an optimal percentage of GC content relative to the total nitrogenous bases (minimum 40%, maximum 60%)
d) for virus diagnostics at least 3 primer pairs must detect 3 viral genes (preferably as far apart as possible in the viral genome)
2. The temperature at which all reactions take place:
…and it goes on and on. They go into the minor concerns with the Corman Drosten paper, then the major concerns with the Corman Drosten paper. It’s quite interesting to read it through. This is just the start of it, it’s quite a long article by the way. Again, it’s another keeper for those who want to keep history. At least before they go into the next system of programming and computers and types of computers that will do away with all the old stuff and it goes down the memory hole. Unless you put it on paper or something. Which is what they do, that’s why they keep coming out with new versions of basic computers.
[Alan Watt, Cutting through the Matrix, January 2021]
https://cuttingthroughthematrix.com/transcripts/Alan_Watt_CTTM_1814_Blurb_By_Lockdown_Planet_Sustainable_Becomes_Obtainable_Jan312021.htm
If it wasn’t for the fake and faulty PCR test
Another article here too is the Corman-Drosten Review Report, a very important article.
Corman-Drosten Review Report – External peer review of the RT-PCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results.
cormandrostenreview.com / 27 Nov 2020
CURATED BY AN INTERNATIONAL CONSORTIUM OF SCIENTISTS IN LIFE SCIENCES (ICSLS) [NOV 2020 – JAN 2021]
Review report Corman-Drosten et al.
Eurosurveillance 2020
This extensive review report has been officially submitted to Eurosurveillance editorial board on 27th November 2020 via their submission-portal, enclosed to this review report is a retraction request letter, signed by all the main & co-authors. First and last listed names are the first and second main authors. All names in between are co-authors.
External peer review of the RTPCR (A: That’s the Real Time PCR…) test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results.
(Alan: It’s got all the different people involved in it signed here.)
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.
(Alan: Then it goes into the meat of it all.)
CONCISE REVIEW REPORT
This paper will show numerous serious flaws in the Corman-Drosten paper, the significance of which has led to worldwide misdiagnosis of infections attributed to SARS-CoV-2 and associated with the disease COVID-19. We are confronted with stringent lockdowns which have destroyed many people’s lives and livelihoods, limited access to education and these imposed restrictions by governments around the world are a direct attack on people’s basic rights and their personal freedoms, resulting in collateral damage for entire economies on a global scale.
There are ten fatal problems with the Corman-Drosten paper which we will outline and explain in greater detail in the following sections.
(Alan: Then they go into them too.)
The focus here should be placed upon the two stated aims: a) development and b) deployment of a diagnostic test for use in public health laboratory settings. These aims are not achievable without having any actual virus material available
(Alan: I’ll repeat that for the hard of thinking…)
These aims are not achievable without having any actual virus material available (e.g. for determining the infectious viral load). In any case, only a protocol with maximal accuracy can be the mandatory and primary goal in any scenario-outcome of this magnitude. Critical viral load determination is mandatory information, and it is in Christian Drosten’s group responsibility to perform these experiments and provide the crucial data.
(Alan: A viral load, you see, is what they do, how they work out infections. It’s not a matter of just getting infection. A person can pass through an infected ward of any kind of infection, but most bacteria or viruses need a particular LOAD, meaning number of the actual infectious bacterium or virus to actually overcome the body system and be able to take over the body basically and infect the body. If it’s not high enough they say it’s a good chance it won’t take off on you, your body can beat it off pretty well immediately, you know.)
(Alan: That also ties into biowarfare, the stuff I read years ago when I was on the radio about biowarfare and how they bred special mosquitoes, as an example, as one of the best things for spreading disease. They created the big, they called it a bomber mosquito, the nickname in Canada at Belleville Ontario lab where they bred, I don’t know if they still breed them there or not, I think they still do. They would send these big mosquitoes off to the biowarfare departments in the US and elsewhere, and Canada too naturally, and they could load them up, these mosquitoes, with heavier doses of viral or bacterial loads, so’s they could spread the disease, and actually it would take, as I say, there was enough of the actual load in them to take in when it landed on a person and bit them.)
(Alan: So anyway, that’s where that comes from, the viral load, right. And we don’t have any information of an actual virus, the actual virus, like a real virus here to determine what the actual load is for causing infection. You understand? So, you could have particles of infection of different kinds of viruses that will show up as positive for Covid even, and it doesn’t mean you’re infected, or even with that particular virus. It says…)
Nevertheless, these in silico sequences were used to develop a RT-PCR test methodology to identify the aforesaid virus. This model was based on the assumption that the novel virus is very similar to SARS-CoV from 2003 as both are beta-coronaviruses.
The PCR test was therefore designed using the genomic sequence of SARS-CoV (A: The first one, right.) as a control material for the Sarbeco component; we know this from our personal email-communication with [2] one of the co-authors of the Corman-Drosten paper. This method to model SARS-CoV-2 was described in the Corman-Drosten paper as follows:
“the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation, designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens. Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.”
The Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) is an important biomolecular technology to rapidly detect rare RNA fragments, which are known in advance. In the first step, RNA molecules present in the sample are reverse transcribed to yield cDNA. The cDNA is then amplified in the polymerase chain reaction using a specific primer pair and a thermostable DNA polymerase enzyme. The technology is highly sensitive and its detection limit is theoretically 1 molecule of cDNA. The specificity of the PCR is highly influenced by biomolecular design errors.
What is important when designing an RT-PCR Test and the quantitative RT-qPCR test described in the Corman-Drosten publication?
1. The primers and probes:
a) the concentration of primers and probes must be of optimal range (100-200 nM)
b) must be specific to the target-gene you want to amplify
c) must have an optimal percentage of GC content relative to the total nitrogenous bases (minimum 40%, maximum 60%)
d) for virus diagnostics at least 3 primer pairs must detect 3 viral genes (preferably as far apart as possible in the viral genome)
2. The temperature at which all reactions take place:
…and it goes on and on. They go into the minor concerns with the Corman Drosten paper, then the major concerns with the Corman Drosten paper. It’s quite interesting to read it through. This is just the start of it, it’s quite a long article by the way. Again, it’s another keeper for those who want to keep history. At least before they go into the next system of programming and computers and types of computers that will do away with all the old stuff and it goes down the memory hole. Unless you put it on paper or something. Which is what they do, that’s why they keep coming out with new versions of basic computers.
[Alan Watt, Cutting through the Matrix, January 2021]
https://cuttingthroughthematrix.com/transcripts/Alan_Watt_CTTM_1814_Blurb_By_Lockdown_Planet_Sustainable_Becomes_Obtainable_Jan312021.htm