Scientists Debunk Widely Used COVID Testing Study, Discrediting Orthodoxy of Freedom Encroaching Lockdowns

A team of international scientists have published a peer review paper that debunks the science behind a study that most COVID-19 testing is based on, a revelation that puts into question the legitimacy of the harsh lockdowns put into place by governments around the world.

The peer review, authored by 22 scientists in the fields of molecular genetics, biochemistry, immunology, and microbiology, documents numerous flaws in the Corman-Drosten study which lays out a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing protocol that, according to Irish science journalist, Peter Andrews, is being used in upwards to 70 percent of COVID kits worldwide.

“This paper will show numerous serious flaws in the Corman-Drosten paper, the significance of which has led to worldwide misdiagnosis of infections attributed to SARS-CoV-2 and associated with the disease COVID-19,” the review reads, adding that:

“We are confronted with stringent lockdowns which have destroyed many people’s lives and livelihoods, limited access to education and these imposed restrictions by governments around the world are a direct attack on people’s basic rights and their personal freedoms, resulting in collateral damage for entire economies on a global scale.”

The flaws in the study are deserving of it being retracted from its publication in Eurosurveillance, according to the scientists. Amongst the most serious flaws that invalidate the PCR test protocol are that the test:

• is non-specific, due to erroneous primer design
• is enormously variable
• cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments
• has no positive or negative controls
• has no standard operating procedure
• does not seem to have been properly peer reviewed

Pointed out on top of these flaws is the fact that two Corman-Dorsten authors are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance and three of them are on the payroll of the first companies to perform PCR testing, which makes for “serious conflicts of interest,” according to the 22 scientists.

Also, the Corman-Dorsten study was published in the Eurosurveillance publication on January, 23, 2020, just one day after being submitted. This very short timescale between submission and acceptance “signifies that a systematic peer review process was either not performed here, or of problematic poor quality,” according to the authors of the peer review.

“Considering the scientific and methodological blemishes presented here, we are confident that the editorial board of Eurosurveillance has no other choice but to retract the publication,” the review concludes.

But perhaps the biggest issue taken with the Corman-Dorsten study by the scientists is that it recommends running PCR tests at 45 cycles, a method that has been shown to produce a large number of false positives.

The review reads:

These types of virological diagnostic tests must be based on a SOP [Standard Operational Procedure], including a validated and fixed number of PCR cycles (Ct value) after which a sample is deemed positive or negative. The maximum reasonably reliable Ct value is 30 cycles. Above a Ct of 35 cycles, rapidly increasing numbers of false positives must be expected .

****

In case of virus detection, >35 cycles only detects signals which do not correlate with infectious virus as determined by isolation in cell culture [reviewed in 2]; 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%…

****

Of course, one could perform 45 PCR cycles, as recommended in the Corman-Drosten WHO-protocol (Figure 4), but then you also have to define a reasonable Ct-value (which should not exceed 30). But an analytical result with a Ct value of 45 is scientifically and diagnostically absolutely meaningless (a reasonable Ct-value should not exceed 30). All this should be communicated very clearly.

Read the entire peer review paper here…

The 97% false positive rate was documented in a study published by Oxford Academic in September.

This same study was also recently cited by a Portuguese judge in a case where a group of four vacationers were forced to quarantine due a positive PCR test amongst the group. The judge would rule that the PCR test “shows itself to be unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt that such positivity corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”

As journalist Peter Andrews notes:

It is difficult to overstate the implications of this revelation. Every single thing about the Covid orthodoxy relies on ‘case numbers’, which are largely the results of the now widespread PCR tests. If their results are essentially meaningless, then everything we are being told – and ordered to do by increasingly dictatorial governments – is likely to be incorrect. For instance, one of the authors of the review is Dr Mike Yeadon, who asserts that, in the UK, there is no ‘second wave’ and that the pandemic has been over since June. Having seen the PCR tests so unambiguously debunked, it is hard to see any evidence to the contrary. 

Why was this paper rushed to publication in January, despite clearly not meeting proper standards? Why did none of the checks and balances that are meant to prevent bad science dictating public policy kick into action? And why did it take so long for anyone in the scientific community to challenge its faulty methodology? These questions lead to dark ruminations, which I will save for another day.

The invalidation the PCR test as a means of accurately recording COVID-19 cases is a terribly striking revelation considering that the rise in Covid cases has been the justification for draconian measures by governments around the globe which have limited peoples freedom of movement, ability to do business, and has prevented engagement in a wide range of normal human activity.

Basing such authoritarian measures off of a test that results in a 97% false positive is utterly inappropriate and unarguably irresponsible.

In fact, even Dr. Anthony Fauci had to admit recently that PCR tests running at 35 cycles or higher are practically useless.

“…If you get [perform the test at] a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-confident [accurate] are minuscule…you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result] from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…”

As Peter Andrews mentions, what the 22 scientists have published leaves the question begging: are we in a killer virus pandemic, or a false positive pseudo-epidemic?

With the World Bank documenting that the economic downturn, caused by the world wide COVID-19 reaction, has the potential to push an additional 88 million to 115 million people into extreme poverty, that question seems incredibly important.

********

Want the TRUTH? Want REAL news? Get all the headlines straight to your inbox by subscribing to our FREE NEWSLETTER below:

Joseph Jankowski is the Editor-at-Large for Planet Free Will. His works have been published by major news publications such as ZeroHedge.com and Infowars.com.