Thread by @abirballan, A brief history of the PCR fiasco of the Pandemic that can't [...]

A brief history of the PCR fiasco of the Pandemic that can't seem to end.

It all started on Jan 10th 2020, when WHO reported that there is an outbreak in China caused by a novel coronavirus. 1/n https://twitter.com/NickHudsonCT/status/1337665813646635008

https://twitter.com/NickHudsonCT/status/1337665813646635008

On Jan 17th 2020, The WHO recommended the use of the Corman-Drosten PCR test as a gold standard for detecting SARS-Cov-2 before the paper was even submitted for publishing. 2/n

On Jan 21 2020, the Corman-Drosten paper was submitted to the scientific journal Eurosurveillance describing the PCR test.
On Jan 22 2020, it was accepted for publication.
On Jan 23rd 2020, it was published. 3/n
https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045

Keep in mind that at the point when they started working on the PCR test, the genetic material of the virus was not yet sequenced. 4/n

“We aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings without having virus material available.” 5/n https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045

“The PCR test was therefore designed using the genomic sequence of SARS-CoV” “Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV” 6/n
https://www.globalresearch.ca/external-peer-review-rt-pcr-test-detect-sars-cov-2-reveals-10-major-scientific-flaws-molecular-methodological-level-consequences-false-positive-results/5730889?

Listen to @Kevin_McKernan @ 10:37 he estimates that hey started working on the PCR test at least 2 months prior to the publication of the paper, so towards the end of Nov 2020. Transcript below. 7/n https://bretigne.typepad.com/on_the_banks/2020/12/wtmwd-50-kevin-.html?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

WTMWD #50: Kevin McKernan on the review of the Corman-Drosten PCR methodology that he co-authored...

I speak with Kevin McKernan about the report he co-authored calling for the retraction of the paper upon which much of the world's Covid-19 PCR testing is based. Kevin also thanks you guys–my...

https://bretigne.typepad.com/on_the_banks/2020/12/wtmwd-50-kevin-.html?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

“you have to recognise the body of the work that they presented is not something you can do in a week that looks like maybe 2 months worth of work, which of course begs the question of who tipped them off to making this, early, prior to actually being a pandemic.” 8/n

The paper was not peer-reviewed. It was approved in one day. It takes on average 179 days to peer review an article. @Kevin_McKernan 9/n

Conflict of interest was not declared: a) Drosten and his co-author Dr Chantal Reusken happen to be members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance. 10/n

b) Olfert Landt, of Tib-Molbiol, the company that developed the PCR test being used, was also a co-author of the Drosten paper. “they distributed these PCR-test kits before the publication was even submitted”
They were already in business before the pandemic started. 11/n

Interestingly, Drosten also had been accused of holding a fraudulent doctorate degree. This is just to spice up the whole story. 12/n
https://www.globalresearch.ca/coronavirus-scandal-breaking-merkel-germany/5731891

In March 2020, the pandemic happened. The more we tested, the more cases we got, the more we assigned any death with a positive test to #COVID19. 13/n

The world went into lockdown based on a fear of rising cases, asymptomatic transmission, widespread susceptibility, lack of pre-existing immunity, & lack of acquired immunity after Covid, with complete disregard to the fact that 80% of cases had no symptoms or mild symptoms 14/n

and that mortality followed an age gradient. All these fears were not justified and contradicted our accumulated scientific knowledge. Basic immunological facts were put to question to disinform and confuse the innocent public. 15/n

Countries adopted an umbrella approach despite the fact that the profile of the vulnerable population was very clear since March 2020: older individuals with multiple comorbidities were at high risk of developing serious disease that could culminate in a negative outcome. 16/n

In June 2020, the casedemic happened. As the prevalence of C19 decreased & herd immunity approached, we started to tally up false (+) ‘cases’. The test was more likely to detect viral debris at this point than an infectious virus, especially with cycle thresholds above 30. 17/n

The WHO & Corman-Drosten protocol recommended a Ct of 45 cycles. Studies that conducted viral culture showed that with a PCR test Ct > 30, the tests were not detecting an infectious virus anymore. Yet governments turned a blind eye to these findings & never revised their Ct. 18/n

On the 27th of November 2020, 23 scientists finally reviewed the Corman- Drosten paper.
Three of these scientists are @PanData19 members.
@MichaelYeadon3 @ClareCraigPath @Kevin_McKernan
They site 10 errors in the paper: Here are a few… 19/n https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/

Review report Corman-Drosten et al. Eurosurveillance 2020

This extensive review report has been officially submitted to Eurosurveillance editorial board on 27th November 2020 via their submission-portal, enclosed to this review report is a retraction...

https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/

a) “The test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments” making it a poor diagnostic tool for infection. 20/n

“Laboratory results should always be interpreted in the context of the clinical presentation of the patient” Unfortunately, tests were treated as conclusive evidence of disease regardless of whether the patient presented with clinical symptoms or not. 21/n

b) the test doesn’t specify the “Ct value at which a sample is considered positive and negative” So everyone assumed that a (+) test regardless of the Ct cycle is a true (+) test.
22/n

c) “the E gene used in the PCR test, as described in the Corman-Drosten paper, is not specific to SARS-CoV-2.”. The E gene is found in other SARS viruses, which means we can’t rule out that the test is detecting genetic material that doesn’t belong to SARS-COV-2.
23/n

d) The test doesn’t have a Standard Operational Procedure which allows all laboratories “to set up the exact same test conditions”, in turn making “the comparison of data within and between countries” impossible. 24/n

e) The test recommended the use of 2 primers (genetic sequence) matches instead of 3 which renders the test less accurate. Finding 3 pieces of genetic material instead of 2 increases confidence that the right virus is being detected. 25/n

This has been Big Pharma and biotech fiasco enabled by scientists that lack integrity and are after fame and greed. On the back of this fiasco, power-craving politicians seized the moment and dug their claws into the lives of regular people like you and me. 26/n

Unfortunately, this will continue until you understand that this has been a big fiasco. It's time we end this pandemic and make sure that history doesn't repeat itself again. 27/27

@threadreaderapp unroll

@freddiesayers
@TonyRobbins
@joerogan
@p_m_robinson
@SamHarrisOrg
@allisonpearson
@liamhalligan
@ClarkeMicah
@JamesDelingpole
@iromg
@JuliaHB1
@PeterSchiff
@FatEmperor
@ThomasEWoods
@SeanCollins66
@BreesAnna
@NeilClark66
@Jeffreyatucker
@richardhorton1
@AlexBerenson

@TuckerCarlson
@IngrahanAngle
@jhaskinscabrera
@anthonyfurey
@BareReality
@emmaKennytv
@JamesMelville
@YardleyShooting
@BarbaraWayman
@BNicholsLiberty
@RitaPanahi
@rowandean
@pwafork
@GideonCRozner
@freddiesayers
@TonyRobbins
@danjgregory

The PCR fiasco continues...
The WHO has its fingerprints all over it. https://twitter.com/beth_b77/status/1339326526215622657

https://twitter.com/beth_b77/status/1339326526215622657

You can follow @abirballan.

Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: