The High-Stakes Review of the COVID PCR Test

3 min read

Share

This is a BIG deal, but naturally… no MSM coverage and negligible public awareness. 👇🏼

On the 21st Jan 2020, a foundational paper that would underpin the rest of the Pandemic response was submitted to the Eurosurveillance Journal (hosted by ECDC – Europe’s equivalent to WHO). On the 23rd Jan 2020, it was published.

🤨 This process of submission to fully published usually takes months, with ample time for sufficient multi-party peer review. In this instance it happened in ~24h.

🔬 This marquee paper described how to design and produce the RT PCR test that would then be used globally for the detection and reporting of SARS CoV2 infections. Not an infection or disease test – a test for 2-3 fragments of RNA associated to the virus.

🤔 Well, not only is the publishing timeframe concerning (i.e. lack of peer-review), so is the conflict of interests in this paper – two of the authors were members of the editorial board for Eurosurveillance.

Logistics aside, we need to understand how this test was designed… 

❌ They did not have a virus isolate to work from. Understandably, the clock was ticking.

😬 Instead, China shared the genetic sequencing via a code bank without a virus isolate (i.e. no viral morphology), resulting in the study using old frozen SARS viral isolates and using computer code with many inferences.

🤷🏻‍♂️ We then need to consider the integrity and authenticity of the virus isolate China used for their genome sequencing. How confident at the time were they that the sample used was a genuine COVID-19 infection caused by a novel virus?

CORMA-DROSTEN REVIEW REPORT

THE SCIENTIFIC CHALLENGE

For these reasons and several more “major scientific flaws”, a team of Life Sciences experts lead by Dr. Pieter Borger (MSc, PhD) got together to write a full technical Peer-Review of this paper, accompanied with a Retraction Request Letter to Eurosurveillance on 27th Nov 2020.

You can read for full report, the retraction letter, and the accompanying technical addendum below **warning, it’s very technical** 👇🏼

Some of their concerns include:

  1. Primer concentration issues
  2. Unspecified positions not suitable as an adequate SOP
  3. The test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments. 
  4. Annealing temperature differences
  5. Omission of a Ct value at which a sample is considered positive and negative. No follow-up clarifications.
  6. The PCR products have not been validated at the molecular level.  
  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.
  8. The test design is vague, flawed and open to dozens of interpretations.
  9. Nothing is standardised and there is no SOP – not suitable as a diagnostic tool without precise guidelines.
  10. Author conflicts of interests with PCR testing and manufacturing.

‼️ If this domino falls… then EVERYTHING will be brought into question. After all, we only have the reporting, policies, vaccines etc because of the RT PCR test.

RADIO SILENCE & LONG DELAYS

BUT…. guess what? The original paper that spelled HUGE consequences globally got published in 24 hours. The Peer-Review and Retraction Request has been met with… relative silence.

As you can see below in blue, Eurosurveillance have acknowledged the challenge paper, and have said they are investigating.

😔 You’d think such an important issue would be dealt with the same urgency as the original paper. A few days to a week or so. Nope.

🤯 They have suggested to conclude their investigation by the END OF JAN 2021! That’s 2 months after submission… when the stakes are so very high.

I could be wrong, but their response looks completely POLITICAL. 

🙅🏻‍♂️ ECDC, WHO and global govts are so “all in” and in the middle of tough authoritarian restrictions and the worlds largest experimental vaccine push, that there is no way a “scandal” would be allowed to break… yet.

🤔 The end of Jan seems like a strategic date. Lines up with the winter fear mongering, the seasonal ONS peak we expect to see in Total Mortality (across Europe), and the crazy push to immunise and therefore declare #VaccineVictory.

What will come from their review is yet to be seen.

Maybe it will come out robustly dismissing all said claims of the challenge paper.

🤷🏻‍♂️ OR… some concessions on the test design will be made. Perhaps someone will fall on their sword for the ‘greater good’ of the shared ideology, allowing for the test accuracy to improve in Feb-March onwards.

Allowing for seasonality, a better test, and leveraging of Lateral Flow testing to bring the cases, hospitalisations and deaths down that are attributed to COVID-19. #victory!

Watch this space

🤷🏻‍♂️ WHO knows…

Either way, this is one to watch in the next week or so… but you will need to find it. It WON’T FIND YOU through MSM/Govt.

#FactsNotFear

______

SOURCE:

The Corman-Drosten Review Report has it’s own website, where all the documentation and correspondence resides.

🔴 THE CORMAN-DROSTEN REVIEW REPORT

 

The Original Facebook Post

Enjoyed the read?

Comment below, and check out our longer-form Articles, our shorter Micro Blog sections, grab Healthy Meal Ideas from AdapNation Food Diary, and Free Gym Workout Plans at #HyperWorkouts.

 

Leave a comment