The Corman-Drosten Paper
Probably the most important paper surrounding the COVID-19 nonsense is the one entitled:
“Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR” (Eurosurveillance 25(8) 2020)”
This is the published RT-qPCR protocol for detection and diagnostics of 2019-nCoV (now known as SARS-CoV-2). It is the protocol laboratories around the world are using to detect the so called coronavirus.
I only want to make a quick point here.
According to the Corman-Drosten paper (emphasis mine):
“We aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings WITHOUT HAVING VIRUS MATERIAL AVAILABLE.”
Any fair-minded and rational individual would immediately understand the stated aims are not achievable without having any actual virus material available (e.g. for determining the infectious viral load).
According to the “CORMAN-DROSTEN REVIEW REPORT” CURATED BY AN INTERNATIONAL CONSORTIUM OF SCIENTISTS IN LIFE SCIENCES (ICSLS):
“The first and major issue is that the novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (in the publication named 2019-nCoV and in February 2020 named SARS-CoV-2 by an international consortium of virus experts) is based on in silico (theoretical) sequences, supplied by a laboratory in China [1], because at the time neither control material of infectious (“live”) or inactivated SARS-CoV-2 nor isolated genomic RNA of the virus was available to the authors. To date no validation has been performed by the authorship based on isolated SARS-CoV-2 viruses or full length RNA thereof .”
In other words, the people responsible for coming up with the protocol for the PCR tests used to detect coronavirus and all of the lockdown, social distancing, mask and anal swab madness, is based on NO SCIENCE WHATSOEVER. These guys used a computer modeled-virus called SARS-Cov to model SARS-Cov-2.
The Corman-Drosten paper makes this clear when it said:
“the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation, designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens. Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.”
The Review Report reminds us that the PCR test when administered is essentially useless when the number of amplification cycles is > 30.
“In case of virus detection, >35 cycles only detects signals which do not correlate with infectious virus as determined by isolation in cell culture; if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%”
I implore you to read the full Corman-Drosten Paper and the Review Report on the same to understand many of the flaws of the publication.
The Corman-Drosten Review Report:
Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR:
https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045