External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results.
https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/ 

"The WHO-protocol (Figure 1), which directly derives from the Corman-Drosten paper, concludes that in order to confirm the presence of SARS-CoV-2, two control genes (the E-and the RdRp-genes) must be identified in the assay."

"The Corman-Drosten paper further identifies a third gene which, according to the WHO protocol, was not further validated and deemed unnecessary:"

"Of note, the N gene assay also performed well but was not subjected to intensive further validation because it was slightly less sensitive.”

"This was an unfortunate omission as it would be best to use all three gene PCRs as confirmatory assays, and this would have resulted in an almost sufficient virus RNA detection diagnostic tool protocol."

"Three confirmatory assay-steps would at least minimize-out errors & uncertainties at every fold-step in regards to “Wobbly”-spots. (Nonetheless, the protocol would still fall short of any “good laboratory practice”, when factoring in all the other design-errors)."

"As it stands, the N gene assay is regrettably neither proposed in the WHO-recommendation (Figure 1) as a mandatory and crucial third confirmatory step, nor is it emphasized in the Corman-Drosten paper as important optional reassurance “for a routine workflow” (Table 2)."

**"Consequently, in nearly all test procedures worldwide, merely 2 primer matches were used instead of all three. This oversight renders the entire test-protocol useless with regards to delivering accurate test-results of real significance in an ongoing pandemic."**

"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."

"The unconfirmed assumption described in the Corman-Drosten paper is that SARS-CoV-2 is the only virus from the SARS-like beta-coronavirus group that currently causes infections in humans."

"The sequences on which their PCR method is based are in silico sequences, supplied by a laboratory in China [23], because at the time of development of the PCR test no control material of infectious (“live”) or inactivated SARS-CoV-2 was available to the authors."

"The PCR test was therefore designed using the sequence of the known SARS-CoV [NOT SARSCoV2 itself] as a control material"

"First, a positive test for the RNA molecules described in the Corman-Drosten paper cannot be equated to “infection with a virus”. A positive RT-PCR test merely indicates the presence of viral RNA molecules."

"the Corman-Drosten test was not designed to detect the full-length virus, but only a fragment of the virus. We already concluded that this classifies the test as unsuitable as a diagnostic test for SARS-virus infections."

"Secondly and of major relevance, 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."

Third: "The E gene primers also detect a broad spectrum of other SARS viruses. The GENOME of the CORONAVIRUS is the LARGEST of all RNA viruses that infect humans and they ALL have a very SIMILAR molecular structure."

***"The PCR test in the Corman-Drosten paper therefore contains neither a unique positive control nor a negative control to exclude the presence of other coronaviruses."***

"The protocol as described is unfortunately very vague and erroneous in its design that one can go in dozens of different directions. There does not appear to be any standardization nor an SOP, so it is not clear how this test can be implemented."

"A severe error is the omission of a Ct value at which a sample is considered positive and negative. This Ct value is also not found in follow-up submissions making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus."

"We find severe conflicts of interest for at least 4 authors, in addition to the fact that 2 of the authors of the Corman-Drosten paper (Christian Drosten & Chantal Reusken) are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance [who published these recommended protocols]"

@threadreaderapp pls unroll the previous one was incomplete thank you

Now read this thread: https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1335153156305670145?s=19