Search results for: drosten

The highly transmissible Omicron variant has become prevalent in the population and the CDC updates and shortens recommended isolation and quarantine periods for asymptomatic general population from 10 days to 5 days, and wear a mask. Two days later CDC quietly revised this guidance to even less restrictive: Exit quarantine after 5-day isolation not only when you are “asymptomatic,” but also when your “symptoms are resolving (without fever for 24 hours)”. [1, 2] Through the pandemic 40% of “positive cases” of COVID-19 have been asymptomatic, meaning they never develop symptoms, but are diagnosed as positive and "infectious" via a flawed PCR test.  Though a study of 10 million people demonstrated that transmission does not occur to any significance from an asymptomatic person.

Just one hour after US Presidential Inauguration of Joe Biden, the WHO released a "Medical Product Alert" for PCR tests to "clarify”  the previous Jan 13, 2021 notification, reiterating that false positive cases will occur if the PCR cycle threshold (Ct) is set too high.  In short they now advise labs/physicians to be mindful of the need for clinical symptoms and to not use high amplification cycles (Ct 40 to 45), but to dial it back (Ct 30) and  “manual adjustment” may be necessary.  [1, 2] On December 14, 2020 the WHO already warned about PCR cycle thresholds were too high, just as the vaccine roll out began! No longer is PCR the "gold standard" for diagnosis, they refer to it now as “an aid for diagnosis”, meaning used in conjunction with other factors before declaring a diagnosis! Exactly what the alleged “skeptics” have been warning since November 2020  as the test is done on healthy, sympton-less people and a positive result renders that person statistically ill and is misleadingly considered "asymptomatic". [1, 2] Compare this to the WHO’s criteria for accepting a case of MERS in 2014, a positive antibody test was needed – proof of infection. Throughout 2020..> READ MORE

On November 27, 2020, twenty-two international consortium scientists submitted a request to retract the Drosten paper from the journal Eurosurveillance due to fatal flaws and conflicts of interest.  Upon reviewing the paper the came to a damning verdict: the study contains nine serious scientific errors and three minor inaccuracies.  Such as: The primer design is inadequate The binding temperature used is too high, allowing for non-specific binding Th enumber of cycles in paper is 45; greater than 30 is known to be problematic no positive or negative controls were performed There is a risk of false positive results due to the imprecise test design Two of the authors (Prof. Drosten and Chantal Reusken) are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance! This external peer review analysis of the Drosten-led pivotal PCR paper, revealed that the PCR test protocol used worldwide as the "gold standard" for "diagnosing" COVID-19, is likely producing excessive false positives, which “has led to worldwide misdiagnosis of infections attributed to SARS-CoV-2 and associated with the disease COVID-19.”   The exaggerated PCR-driven case numbers led to a “casedemic”. [2, 4] Among the reviewers is geneticist Kevin McKernan, the main initiator of the Human Genome Project, who holds several..> READ MORE

On January 13, 2020 the “WHO publishes the protocol for RT-PCR assay designed by a WHO partner laboratory to diagnose the novel coronavirus”. [ updated V2] Target PCR gene primers and probes from 7 world labs, reinforcing up to 45 cycles of amplification. WHO “immediately began working with companies to produce high-quality PCR kits that were shipped to laboratories worldwide in early February 2020” [1] This PCR test protocol was developed by Dr Drosten under “sever time constraints” and was in turn adopted by WHO without any clinical testing to then became the foundation for “diagnosing” COVID-19, and 17 days later generated the “case data” that justified declaring a PHEIC. [2] PCR is a laboratory technique, also referred to as a Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT). The WHO protocol references Christian Dorsten et al, of which their paper was published 10 days later on 23 Jan, after less than 24 hours in peer review, in a journal that Drosten is an editorial member! By Nov 2020, this paper had been externally peer review finding 10 major scientific flaws, and major conflicts of interest. [3] WHO released Diagnostic Testing for SARS-CoV-2 – 17 Jan, 19 Mar, 11 Sept 2020.  It wasn’t until..> READ MORE