Read on Twitter
0/ A retraction request was submitted to Eurosurveillance on Nov. 27th 2020 by an “international consortium of scientists” outlining 10 “fatal problems” with the initial report that was used by the WHO to justify worldwide PCR “testing” for covid-19
https://cormandrostenreview.com/
https://cormandrostenreview.com/
1/ The authors of the original report did not have an actual sample or sequence of the covid-19 virus! Instead, they based their “findings” on a theoretical sequence of the virus supplied by a lab in China to come up with their PCR methodology! 
2/ “... 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.”
i.e. they didn’t provide any examples of the suggested PCR method working!!
i.e. they didn’t provide any examples of the suggested PCR method working!!
3/ The 
in the report were from Europe, not China, and the target gene to identify SARS-Cov1/2 was very broad (it detects a variety of SARS viruses).
i.e. “This is another major design flaw which classifies the test as unsuitable for diagnosis.”
in the report were from Europe, not China, and the target gene to identify SARS-Cov1/2 was very broad (it detects a variety of SARS viruses).i.e. “This is another major design flaw which classifies the test as unsuitable for diagnosis.”
4/ Many have talked about the cycles pertaining to the PCR test. The retraction request went into great detail of the flaws in the original report regarding the cycles:
5/ Even worse, the retraction request cites scientific studies that found PCR > 35 cycles only finds *dead* viruses!! 
The WHO recommends 45:
“45 is scientifically and diagnostically absolutely meaningless.”
The WHO recommends 45:
“45 is scientifically and diagnostically absolutely meaningless.”
6/ 
The method outlined in the original report does not validate the virus at the molecular level:
The method outlined in the original report does not validate the virus at the molecular level:
7/ In fact, the retraction request mentions a historical false “outbreak of a respiratory illness” back in 2004-2006 due to faulty PCR application 
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17717512/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17717512/
8/ 
The original report did not provide an SOP (Standard Operating Procedure): “The laboratories are thus free to conduct the test as they consider appropriate, resulting in an enormous amount of variation.”
The original report did not provide an SOP (Standard Operating Procedure): “The laboratories are thus free to conduct the test as they consider appropriate, resulting in an enormous amount of variation.”
9/ The original report was NOT peer reviewed!! 
“...(24) hours are simply not enough to carry out a thorough peer review... Any molecular biologist familiar with RT-PCR design would have easily observed the grave errors present in the Corman-Drosten paper...”
“...(24) hours are simply not enough to carry out a thorough peer review... Any molecular biologist familiar with RT-PCR design would have easily observed the grave errors present in the Corman-Drosten paper...”
10/ There was a massive conflict of interest with this initial report 
11/ 
There’s a lot more the full retraction request report goes into. Like how the original paper said they had 4 false positives out of 310 tests, a percentage rate that would deem at least 2.3 million “positive” tests in America as potential false positives:
There’s a lot more the full retraction request report goes into. Like how the original paper said they had 4 false positives out of 310 tests, a percentage rate that would deem at least 2.3 million “positive” tests in America as potential false positives:
12/ But the next time someone tries to tell you to “listen to science”...kindly remind them:
A) There is NOT a consensus amongst scientists about the severity of Covid-19, nor the data to suggest lock downs work...
A) There is NOT a consensus amongst scientists about the severity of Covid-19, nor the data to suggest lock downs work...
13/
B) The very paper the WHO used to justify earnest testing for Covid-19 worldwide was wrought with problems scientifically, and editorially...
B) The very paper the WHO used to justify earnest testing for Covid-19 worldwide was wrought with problems scientifically, and editorially...
14/
C) That the scientists who challenged and exposed this awful report are a consortium of scientists from all over the world, including Italy, Germany, USA, UK, Austria, Japan, Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland.
C) That the scientists who challenged and exposed this awful report are a consortium of scientists from all over the world, including Italy, Germany, USA, UK, Austria, Japan, Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland.
15/
D) And that those scientists suggest lock downs are “increasingly bizarre and illogical restrictions” that have/will continue to cause more inhumane treatment of the populace (especially elderly), reprehensible economic damage, & “loss of democracy and human rights”...
D) And that those scientists suggest lock downs are “increasingly bizarre and illogical restrictions” that have/will continue to cause more inhumane treatment of the populace (especially elderly), reprehensible economic damage, & “loss of democracy and human rights”...
Conclusion: While there is a virus out there that can cause flu like symptoms and perhaps assist in the death of the less healthy and elderly, by no means should we be forced to comply to the draconian measures instigated by our political leaders. 
I am not a scientist. Just a dude on the Internet. But if you found any value in the thread, please share it with others, especially anyone who tries to tell you to “listen to the science.”
@adamcurry @TimJDillon @ImperatorTruth @truthstreamnews @TheSolariReport @KayaJones
@adamcurry @TimJDillon @ImperatorTruth @truthstreamnews @TheSolariReport @KayaJones
