Errors in paper which paved way for top covid test: Scientists

FPI / December 10, 2020

The creators of the RT-PCR test, the most commonly used coronavirus test, published instructions in January 2020 for how to test for the virus (scientific name SARS-CoV-2). The paper admitted the test was created “without having virus material available,” instead relying on the genetic sequence published on the Internet by Chinese scientists.

The paper, “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time PCR”, was published on Jan. 23, 2020 in Eurosurveillance (Europe's journal on infectious disease surveillance, epidemiology, prevention and control).

The paper by lead authors Christian Drosten and Victor Corman was published 24 hours after it was submitted, "clearly evading peer review," investigative journalist Celia Farber noted in a Dec. 3 analysis for Uncoverdc.com.

The Jan. 23 paper provided the “recipe,” or work flow for the Covid-19 diagnostic test which was quickly applied worldwide after it was accepted as the standard of testing by the World Health Organization (WHO).

"In the harrowing months that followed, amid lockdowns, economic collapse, school closures and widespread panic, few were aware of the immense problems with the paper, which tragically offered a testing method that would yield between 80 and 97 percent false positive results, due to a non existent gold standard which would be the virus itself," Farber wrote.

On Nov. 30, the paper was challenged by 22 international scientists who wrote a <a href="https://cormandrostenreview.com/">letter</a> demanding the paper’s retraction, along with an extensive critique citing 10 errors in the paper the scientists deemed “fatal.”

One of the 10 fatal errors is the fact that Eurosurveillance published the paper 24 hours after it was submitted.

“Twenty-four hours,” noted London-based Dr. Kevin Corbett, one of the scientists who authored the review. “That never happens. It takes months to get a review done. They turned this around in 24 hours. It was waved through, it was not peer-reviewed. There’s no standard operational procedure for this test. There’s major and minor concerns about this paper and we go through it all here. it should be retracted. If they retract it, it means the whole thing falls to bits. The whole edifice collapses. It’s a house of cards built on sand and we’ve just moved the sand.”

The scientists' review, titled “External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-Cov-2 Reveals 10 Major Flaws At The Molecular and Methodological Level: Consequences For False-Positive Results”, was led by Dr. Pieter Borger, an expert on the molecular biology of gene expression. Several other esteemed names are associated with the paper including Dr. Michael Yeadon, former VP of Pfizer and outspoken critic of much of the so-called science beneath the WHO’s global lockdown, masking, and school shut-down measures.

Borger, in an interview on his Twitter feed, said: “The virus wasn’t in Europe and the paper was already finished.” He said these facts “should have been on television long ago. I explained it on LinkedIn, but you get banned if you do.” Regarding PCR he said, “You are not detecting a virus.”

“Once I heard a good comparison,” Borger continued. “If you go to a junkyard and you find a wheel or a hubcap from a Mercedes, and a steering wheel of a Mercedes, can you infer that you are in a Mercedes garage at that moment? If you only see those two parts? No, you can’t. You don’t know anything about it… you only know you have a steering wheel, you can find those things everywhere. In every junkyard you can find them.” He describes the RT-PCR tests as having “no relevance for the diagnosis whatsoever.”

Corbett confirmed that the PCR test paper was written in the absence of a viral isolate, among many other problems.

“Every scientific rationale for the development of that test has been totally destroyed by this paper. It’s like Hiroshima/Nagasaki to the Covid test,” Corbett told Farber. “When Drosten developed the test, China hadn’t given them a viral isolate. They developed the test from a sequence in a gene bank. Do you see? China gave them a genetic sequence with no corresponding viral isolate. They had a code, but no body for the code. No viral morphology.”

Asked to define “viral morphology,” Corbett said:

“In the fish market it’s like giving you a few bones and saying that’s your fish. It could be any fish. Not even a skeleton. Here’s a few fragments of bones. That’s your fish. Listen, the Corman/Drosten paper, there’s nothing from a patient in it. It’s all from gene banks. And the bits of the virus sequence that weren’t there they made up. They synthetically created them to fill in the blanks. That’s what genetics is; it’s a code. So its ABBBCCDDD and you’re missing some what you think is EEE so you put it in. It’s all synthetic. You just manufacture the bits that are missing. This is the end result of the geneticization of virology. This is basically a computer virus.”

Corbett said: “There are 10 fatal errors in this Drosten test paper. Public Health England is a co-author on it. All the public health authorities across the EU have co-authored this paper. But here is the bottom line: There was no viral isolate to validate what they were doing. The PCR products of the amplification didn’t correspond to any viral isolate at that time. I call it ‘donut ring science.’ There is nothing at the center of it. It’s all about code, genetics, nothing to do with reality, or the actual person, the patient.”

Critics of the scientists' review of the PCR test paper contend that the virus has been isolated “all over the world.”

To those critics, Corbett responded: “Yes, there have since been papers saying they’ve produced viral isolates. But there are no controls for them. The CDC produced a paper in July, I think it was, where they said: ‘Here’s the viral isolate.’ Do you know what they did? They swabbed one person. One person, who’d been to China and had cold symptoms. One person. And they assumed he had it to begin with. So it’s all full of holes, the whole thing.”

Another scientist in the review, Germany-based Reiner Fuellmich said: “The reason why I decided to speak out is that I didn’t want these crazy people who are pulling the strings behind the scenes to rule the world. I had no idea when I came out with my first video that these people and their corporations were such a powerful block. We are up against some really powerful and devious and bad, evil people. But they’re not a united front. We on the good side so to speak, I am firmly convinced that we have the better people, who know much more not just intellectually. The thing is . . . we’re humans, and they’re not.”

Free Press International