The Corman-Drosten Review Report is an external peer review of the RT-PCR test to detect for SARS-CoV-2 that reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level. The report was compiled by 22 scientists who have demanded that the Corman-Drosten paper be retracted.
Dr Michael Yeardon, the ex-Pfizer Vice President and one of the authors of the report, explains that the “first and major issue is that the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is based on in silico (theoretical) sequences, supplied by a laboratory in China”. Dr Yeardon continues by clarifying that the “functionality of the published RT-PCR Test was not demonstrated with the use of a positive control (isolated SARS-CoV-2 RNA) which is an essential scientific gold standard”.
“The fact that these PCR products have not been validated at molecular level is another striking error of the protocol, making any test based upon it useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”
Dr Yeardon highlights that it is a “significant mistake that the Corman-Drosten paper does not mention the maximum Ct (cycle threshold) value at which a sample can be unambiguously considered as a positive or a negative test-result. This important cycle threshold limit is also not specified in any follow-up submissions to date.” The report states that if “someone is tested positive by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.”
Furthermore, Dr Yeardon explains that the “Ct (cycle threshold) value to indicate when a sample should be considered positive or negative is not specified. It is also not specified when a sample is considered infected with SARS-CoV viruses… The test cannot discern between virus and virus fragments, so the Ct value indicating positivity is crucially important.”
As Dr Yeardon clearly explains, “these are severe design errors, since the test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments. The test cannot be used as a diagnostic for SARS-viruses.”
Dr Kevin Corbett, an independent research consultant and health scientist with over 30 years’ experience, is another one of 22 scientists demanding that the Cormen-Drosten paper be retracted. He explains that “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. 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.”
“In the fish market, it’s like giving you a few bones and saying ‘that’s your fish’. It could be any fish… 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, it’s ABBBCCDDD and you’re missing some, what you think is EEE, so you put it in… This is basically a computer virus.”
Dr Corbett continues by explaining that “there are 10 fatal errors in this Drosten 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 centre of it. It’s all about code, genetics, nothing to do with reality… 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… 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 (COVID-19) to begin with… The PCR test is full of holes, the whole thing.”
The authors of the Corman-Drosten Review Report also found “severe conflicts of interest for at least four authors, in addition to the fact that two of the authors of the Corman-Drosten paper (Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken) are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance”.
“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 authors conclude by stating that “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.”
“It is 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.”