ER Editor: The useful introduction to this RT piece comes from G. Edward Griffin:
A group of 22 experts across the globe examined the Corman-Drosten paper, which described a protocol for applying the PCR technique to detecting Covid-19 and they found there was no science behind it. Problems with the Corman-Drosten paper include the fact that the PCR test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments, PCR is non-specific, it is enormously variable, it has no positive or negative controls, and it has no standard operating procedure. Eurosurveillance published the Corman-Drosten paper on January, 23, 2020, just 24 hours after it was submitted, which means it is unlikely it underwent peer review. Experts from Europe, USA, and Japan, including senior molecular geneticists, biochemists, immunologists, and microbiologists, issued a demand to Eurosurveillance to retract the Corman-Drosten paper.
Anyone diagnosed with Covid-19 using the PCR test should not be required to isolate. All present and previous Covid deaths, cases, and ‘infection rates’ should be subject to a massive retroactive inquiry. Lockdowns, shutdowns, and travel restrictions should be reviewed and relaxed. Recently, a court in Portugal ruled against a governmental health authority that had illegally confined four people to a hotel this summer. (ER: here is our report on this – Portuguese Court Rules PCR Tests As Unreliable & Unlawful To Quarantine People.)
At least three of the authors of the Corman-Drosten paper are on the payroll of the first companies to perform PCR testing! Two of the authors of the paper are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance, the journal that published the paper. -GEG
Here is the independent link to the peer reviewed study that lambasts the Corman-Drosten paper:
A global team of experts has found 10 FATAL FLAWS in the main test for Covid and is demanding it’s urgently axed. As they should
PETER ANDREWS for RT
Last week, I reported on a landmark ruling from Portugal, where a court had ruled against a governmental health authority that had illegally confined four people to a hotel this summer. They had done so because one of the people had tested positive for Covid in a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test – but the court had found the test fundamentally flawed and basically inadmissible.
The Corman-Drosten paper was published on January, 23, 2020, just a day after being submitted, which would make any peer review process that took place possibly the shortest in history.
What is important about it is that the protocol it describes is used in around 70 percent of Covid kits worldwide. It’s cheap, fast – and absolutely useless.
The 10 deadly sins
Among the fatal flaws that totally invalidate the PCR testing protocol are that the test:
- is non-specific, due to erroneous primer design
- is enormously variable
- cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments
- has no positive or negative controls
- has no standard operating procedure
- does not seem to have been properly peer reviewed
Oh dear. One wonders whether anything at all was correct in the paper. But wait – it gets worse. As has been noted previously, no threshold for positivity was ever identified. This is why labs have been running 40 cycles, almost guaranteeing a large number of false positives – up to 97 percent, according to some studies.
The cherry on top, though, is that among the authors of the original paper themselves, at least four have severe conflicts of interest. Two of them are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance, the sinisterly named journal that published the paper. And at least three of them are on the payroll of the first companies to perform PCR testing!
Heroes we deserve
The 22 members of the consortium that has challenged this shoddy science deserve huge credit. The scientists, from Europe, the USA, and Japan, comprise senior molecular geneticists, biochemists, immunologists, and microbiologists, with many decades of experience between them.
They have issued a demand to Eurosurveillance to retract the Corman-Drosten paper, writing: “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.’’ Talk about putting the pressure on.
It is difficult to overstate the implications of this revelation. Every single thing about the Covid orthodoxy relies on ‘case numbers’, which are largely the results of the now widespread PCR tests. If their results are essentially meaningless, then everything we are being told – and ordered to do by increasingly dictatorial governments – is likely to be incorrect. For instance, one of the authors of the review is Dr Mike Yeadon, who asserts that, in the UK, there is no ‘second wave’ and that the pandemic has been over since June. Having seen the PCR tests so unambiguously debunked, it is hard to see any evidence to the contrary.
The house of cards collapses
Why was this paper rushed to publication in January despite clearly not meeting proper standards? Why did none of the checks and balances that are meant to prevent bad science dictating public policy kick into action? And why did it take so long for anyone in the scientific community to challenge its faulty methodology? These questions lead to dark ruminations, which I will save for another day.
Even more pressing is the question of what is going to be done about this now. The people responsible for writing and publishing the paper have to be held accountable. But also, all PCR testing based on the Corman-Drosten protocol should be stopped with immediate effect. All those who are so-called current ‘Covid cases’, diagnosed based on that protocol, should be told they no longer have to isolate. All present and previous Covid deaths, cases, and ‘infection rates’ should be subject to a massive retroactive inquiry. And lockdowns, shutdowns, and other restrictions should be urgently reviewed and relaxed.
Because this latest blow to PCR testing raises the probability that we are not enduring a killer virus pandemic, but a false positive pseudo-epidemic. And one on which we are destroying our economies, wrecking people’s livelihoods and causing more deaths than Covid-19 will ever claim.
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.