1/ On 23 jan @c_drosten et al published their paper describing the de facto industry standard protocol for detection of #SARSCoV2 by PCR

Now an intl. team of top experts asks for RETRACTION. The protocol is fatally flawed: it can NOT DETECT the virus.

#retractionpaper #PCRGATE

2/ Implications ARE HUGE.

The Corman-Drosten PCR protocol is used in an estimated 70% of all PCR test kits world wide. Because it has now been invalidated much of ALL the #SARSCoV2 diagnostic testing, research (including vaccine research) is either invalid or in need of review.

3/ The protocol was published even before any real virus isolate became available. It was based on in silico (theoretical) sequences of the viral genome. To date no validation has been performed by the authorship based on isolated SARS-CoV-2 viruses or full length RNA thereof.

4/ The original paper 'Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR' can be found here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6988269/

5/ The retraction paper ('external peer review') 'Review Report Corman-Drosten et al. Eurosurveillance 2020' can be found here: http://cormandrostenreview.com/report/ 

#cormandrostenreport

6/ The team ( @BorgerPieter @MichaelYeadon3 @Bobby_Network @Kevin_McKernan @Thomas_Binder and others) found 10 fatal flaws.

Below a list.

7/ Extremely high concentration of primes (1), making the test non-specific.

8/ Six unspecified wobbly positions (2), introduce an enormous variability in the real world laboratory implementations.

9/ The test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments (3).

10/ Incompatible annealing temperatures (4).

11/ A severe error is the omission of a Ct value at which a sample is considered positive and negative (5).

12/ The PCR products have not been validated at the molecular level (6).

13/ 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 (7).

14/ The test design in the Corman-Drosten paper is so vague and flawed that one can go in dozens of different directions; nothing is standardized and there is no SOP (standard operating procedure) (8).

15/ The Corman-Drosten paper was not peer-reviewed (9).

16/ Many severe conflicts of interest (10).

17/ We would like to thank @BorgerPieter @Bobby_Network @Kevin_McKernan @MichaelYeadon3 @Thomas_Binder @hommel_b @KPCResearch @ClareCraigPath @angelovalidiya @MarjoleinDvK and all other authors for this heroic act of science.

It is up to us to make it count! FREEDOM!

18/ We are also awaiting a reaction from the main authors of the flawed protocol @c_drosten @MarionKoopmans @vmcorman

Can we have a public reaction please?