COVID PCR test Useless Says Report by 22 Highly Qualified Specialists
New study exposes no fewer than 10 grave flaws with the COVID19 PCR test. Scientists demand the immediate retraction of the original 2019 Eurosurveillance paper which has been widely used to justify PCR testing as a diagnostic tool for the virus.
The full paper may be accessed at www.researchgate.net/publication
Extracts of the study are shown below:
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. More details can be found at https://cormandrostenreview.com/
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 assesses 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.
Review Report – Corman-Drosten et al., Eurosurveillance 2020
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.
The first and major issue is that the novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (in the publication named 2019-nCoV and in February 2020 named SARS-CoV-2 by an international consortium of virus experts) is based on in silico (theoretical) sequences, supplied by a laboratory in China [1], because at the time neither control material of infectious (“live”) or inactivated SARS-CoV-2 nor isolated genomic RNA of the virus was available to the authors. To date no validation has been performed by the authorship based on isolated SARS-CoV-2 viruses or full length RNA thereof.
According to Corman et al.: “We aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings without having virus material available.” [1]
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 (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.
Review Report – Corman-Drosten et al., Eurosurveillance 2020
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 (Hereafter named SARS-CoV-1) as both are beta-coronaviruses.
The PCR test was therefore designed using the genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-1 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.”
In short, a design relying merely on close genetic relatives does not fulfill the aim for a “robust diagnostic test” as cross reactivity and therefore false-positive results will inevitably occur.
Validation was only done in regards to in silico (theoretical) sequences and within the laboratory-setting, and not as required for in-vitro diagnostics with isolated genomic viral
RNA. This very fact hasn’t changed even after 10 months of introduction of the test into routine diagnostics. In light of our re-examination of the test protocol to identify SARS-CoV-2 described in the Corman-Drosten paper we have identified concerning errors and inherent fallacies which render the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test useless.
The decision as to which test protocols are published and made widely available lies squarely in the hands of Eurosurveillance. A decision to recognise the errors apparent in the Corman-Drosten paper has the benefit to greatly minimise human cost and suffering going forward.
Is it not in the best interest of Eurosurveillance to retract this paper? Our conclusion is clear. In the face of all the tremendous PCR-protocol design flaws and errors described here, we conclude: There is not much of a choice left in the framework of scientific integrity and responsibility.
See more here: researchgate.net
Header image: PharmEasy
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Tom0mason
| #
My assumptions that the PCR tests were/are rubbish are now validated — I continued to question what COVID samples were they made and verified against.
The PCR tests are only made from THEORETIC RNA computer code supplies by the Chinese, and never verified or validated again the COVID virus (has any lab got strictly isolated physical samples of this virus?).
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
No test/analytical method can be developed or used without the availability of a reference standard, in this case, the virus. As the virus reference standard is not available, a test for it, including PCR, cannot be developed or valid. This is not an opinion but a scientific fact. Therefore, all test results based on the PCR must be considered scientifically invalid and be withdrawn.
https://bioanalyticx.com/the-pcr-test-and-its-missing-critical-component/
https://bioanalyticx.com/video-virus-covid-pandemic-vaccine-and-testing-fiction-not-reality-or-science/
Reply
Richard
| #
And it will be ignored and everyone assured the PCR test is valid .
Reply
Tom O
| #
To be honest, I have to admit that I think anyone that says the PCR tests were ineffective and useless cannot be an expert. What it says is they are looking at these tests as instruments of medical use, and they were never designed or intended to be that. They were always intended to be a means by which you can terrorize the mentally incompetent, and that is definable as virtually all the un and under educated people that rely on the MSM to be their window on the world. they have been incredibly effective at what their intended use was, and the proof of that is the large percentage of humanity that have willingly taken the kill shots, and are screaming to have the remaining people that could think for themselves to be forcibly jabbed. No, they were extremely effective in their use, and were among the most useful tools ever developed in the long history of weapons for war. They will have caused more lives to be destroyed than all the kinetic wars of mankind put together.
Reply
Tom
| #
Kaboom…without a solid testing vehicle the entire fake pandemic goes up in flames, as well it should. Where is the proof as in a readout, printout or some other type of output that differentiates one virus from another or that even any specific virus exists using the PCR test? Why aren’t samples of these data (printouts) made public?
Over 20 years ago, TV shows with forensics often would show law enforcement using PCR tests to capture a DNA profile so that it could be matched with other DNA profiles. There has to be some type of graph that would show the differences in a person’s DNA from that of another. So where is this output for PCR testing of covid and all its 2,000 variants?
Reply
NecktopPC
| #
Just like their ‘experimental COVID-19 vaccines’ – scientifically known, not to be a vaccine, but rather; gene therapy, or gene altering technology, the RT-PCR TEST has never been approved for diagnosing infectious diseases – and the Nobel prize winner, and inventor of the PCR technology, said that (should not be used), himself.
CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)
Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel
For Emergency Use Only
https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
Reply