Interessenskonflikte bei den Autoren der Drosten-Studie
Die regelwidrige Sofort-Publikation der Corman-Drosten-PCR-Studie allein hätte im Wissenschaftsbetrieb und in der Politik die Alarmglocken weit hörbar laut läuten lassen müssen, die fehlende Überprüfung, der “Peer-Review” des Droste-Papers noch viel schriller.
(siehe dazu : corona 233: Überprüfung der Drosten-PCR-Testmethode verweigert / Zwangsimpfungen sind freiwillig! – barth-engelbart.de (barth-engelbart.de) und unten den SUMMARY CATALOGUE OF ERRORS FOUND IN THE CORMAN-DROSTEN-PAPER!)
Zusätzlich sollen bei mindestens vier der Autoren Interessenskonflikte bestehen, die nicht – wie vorgeschrieben – in der Originalfassung der Studie erwähnt wurden. Zwei davon – darunter Herr Drosten – gehören zum Herausgebergremium von Eurosurveillance, dem Journal, in dem die Studie regelwidrig vorschnell veröffentlicht wurde.
- Ein weiterer Autor – Olfert Landt – ist Geschäftsführer der TIB Molbiol, jener Firma, die als erste die PCR-Kits so hergestellt hat, wie sie in der Corman-Drosten-Studie beschrieben werden. Der vierte Autor – Marco Kaiser – ist wissenschaftlicher Berater bei TIB Molbiol und darüber hinaus Senior Researcher (leitender Wissenschaftler) bei GenExpress Gesellschaft für Proteindesign, einer Firma, die Corona-PCR-Tests mit entwickelt hat.
Quelle:
Corona: PCR-Test alles andere als zuverlässig (zentrum-der-gesundheit.de)
SUMMARY CATALOGUE OF ERRORS FOUND IN THE PAPER
The Corman-Drosten paper contains the following specific errors:
1. There exists no specified reason to use these extremely high concentrations of primers in this protocol. The described concentrations lead to increased nonspecific bindings and PCR product amplifications, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
2. Six unspecified wobbly positions will introduce an enormous variability in the real world laboratory implementations of this test; the confusing nonspecific description in the Corman-Drosten paper is not suitable as a Standard Operational Protocol making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
3. The test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments. Therefore, the test cannot be used as a diagnostic for intact (infectious) viruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus and make inferences about the presence of an infection.
4. A difference of 10° C with respect to the annealing temperature Tm for primer pair1 (RdRp_SARSr_F and RdRp_SARSr_R) also makes the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
5. A severe error is the omission of a Ct value at which a sample is considered positive and negative. This Ct value is also not found in follow-up submissions making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
6. The PCR products have not been validated at the molecular level. This fact makes the protocol useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
7. The PCR test contains neither a unique positive control to evaluate its specificity for SARS-CoV-2 nor a negative control to exclude the presence of other coronaviruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
8. The test design in the Corman-Drosten paper is so vague and flawed that one can go in dozens of different directions; nothing is standardized and there is no SOP. This highly questions the scientific validity of the test and makes it unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
9. Most likely, the Corman-Drosten paper was not peer-reviewed making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
10. We find severe conflicts of interest for at least four authors, in addition to the fact that two of the authors of the Corman-Drosten paper (Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken) are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance. A conflict of interest was added on July 29 2020 (Olfert Landt is CEO of TIB-Molbiol; Marco Kaiser is senior researcher at GenExpress and serves as scientific advisor for TIB-Molbiol), that was not declared in the original version (and still is missing in the PubMed version); TIB-Molbiol is the company which was “the first” to produce PCR kits (Light Mix) based on the protocol published in the Corman-Drosten manuscript, and according to their own words, they distributed these PCR-test kits before the publication was even submitted [20]; further, Victor Corman & Christian Drosten failed to mention their second affiliation: the commercial test laboratory “Labor Berlin”. Both are responsible for the virus diagnostics there [21] and the company operates in the realm of real time PCR-testing.
In light of our re-examination of the test protocol to identify SARS-CoV-2 described in the Corman-Drosten paper we have identified concerning errors and inherent fallacies which render the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test useless.
CONCLUSION
The decision as to which test protocols are published and made widely available lies squarely in the hands of Eurosurveillance. A decision to recognise the errors apparent in the Corman-Drosten paper has the benefit to greatly minimise human cost and suffering going forward.
Is it not in the best interest of Eurosurveillance to retract this paper? Our conclusion is clear. In the face of all the tremendous PCR-protocol design flaws and errors described here, we conclude: There is not much of a choice left in the framework of scientific integrity and responsibility.