Read on Twitter
So the first line screening of the WHO PCR protocol is for the E gene: https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1334958746284519424
They are meant to then test for a confirmatory RdRp gene, but do some labs mark as "positive" just a positive to the E-gene?
In this Italian lab they marked as a positive one gene test out of 3. The tested person was then deemed "positive" even with 2 out of 3 negative gene tests:
This was an instruction given from above on the 2nd April 2020. Presumably before then all 3 genes needed to be positive to determine a positive case. Why did this change? Who made this decision? We can only assume it was the WHO: https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1331537261465317378?s=19
The CT values for tests in Italy as elsewhere are too high: https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1331539469191835650?s=19
So the Drosten protocol actually had 3-genes in the test, like the Italian tests, but it was the WHO that said only 2 are required: https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1334960041737277445?s=19
Yet it seems clear that 3 gene tests are required, why did the WHO reduce this to 2? https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1334961083984076802?s=19
Did the WHO, on 2nd April 2020 then reduced the number of gene tests required to 1, so that anybody with a common coronavirus would test positive? https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1331537261465317378?s=19
It appears the WHO issued a directive saying that where Covid-19 is widely spread a single gene test is enough on 19th March 2020.
Also see this earlier thread: https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1331533068184788994?s=19
So we said that the E-gene test, as the first line of screening, if positive, may have detected other SARS, possibly other coronaviruses: https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1334985834420899840?s=19
But did you know that the second line of screening, the RdRP-P2 assay is cross reactive with at least SARSCoV? https://twitter.com/Kevin_McKernan/status/1334357381216669697?s=19
"the reported RdRp-P2 assay, which is used in >30 European laboratories..cross-reacted with SARS-CoV in cell culture..The COVID-19-RdRp/Hel assay did not cross-react with other human-pathogenic coronaviruses" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32132196/
This is a Hong Kong-Chinese study. They even warned us specifically in April 23rd 2020 European labs were using a non specific assay.. https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1335485845164449793?s=19
You can see here that ITALIAN LABS are still using the RdRp-P2 assay, the one NOT SPECIFIC TO SARSCOV2 meaning it will mark as positive other coronaviruses, certainly SARSCOV but maybe others too! https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1334988861638926338?s=19
This may be the other way round, it may be Drosten rather than the WHO who reduced the number of required assays down to 2 https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1334991641598455811?s=19
#Event201 pandemic simulation exercise's central purpose may have been to centralize & control RT-PCR test protocols: https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1240874884340822016?s=19
E-gene test assay gives positives also to water.. https://twitter.com/Kevin_McKernan/status/1335694851770298370?s=19
The RT-PCR Charité test protocols by Corman Drosten were the first in the West & became widely used. They were published in a research paper in @Eurosurveillanc The single dot at the bottom here shows the speed of peer review compared to all other papers https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.48.2012031
It seems the WHO adopted the Corman-Drosten protocols BEFORE they were even published https://twitter.com/martytwit/status/1336061860274077696?s=19
Which would indicate a degree of collusion between the WHO & Corman-Drosten, if not an outright corruption of the scientific process. #PCRGATE
