( Last updated: 28.01.2021)
@Kevin_McKernan, @Bobby_Network, DailyClout "Profiles in Courage", take me on tour of PCR test lab; same test used for COVID tests. WHO now disavowing them. Whistleblowers explain: test results are "garbage", must be discarded. MUST WATCH. EXPLOSIVE. https://t.co/gqqnavD6og
— Dr Naomi Wolf (@naomirwolf) January 24, 2021
1/ Great thanks to @Bobby_Network and @Kevin_McKernan, two of the 22 scientists who signed the Corman Drosten Retraction Report.I spent this afternoon in PCR lab tour, intvw, being walked thru exactly how all the COVID testing done to date has resulted in "garbage" and exactly
— Dr Naomi Wolf (@naomirwolf) January 21, 2021
As if there wasn't enough solid evidence in the initial Corman-Drosten Review Report from more than twenty top scientists here is the final nail in the coffin to put Drosten's work at the bottom of the rubbish bin for fraudulent science. File your PCR claim with @CoronaAusschuss https://t.co/907dEnzIvJ pic.twitter.com/LC7HDEjYtO
— Howard Steen (@HowardSteen4) January 11, 2021
We have written another 60 page dissection of the Drosten PCR protocol.
— Kevin McKernan 🙂 (@Kevin_McKernan) January 11, 2021
This should end all of the criticism of the initial retraction request not having enough “wet-lab” proof.
20 peer reviewed papers showing catastrophic problems.@Eurosurveillanc https://t.co/AUZ469o6gz pic.twitter.com/zmcqEUHX55
The scientists asking for a retraction of the Drosten PCR protocol paper have been criticised for not providing experimental proof of the issues raised. Here is the experimental proof.https://t.co/wKISF02yrT https://t.co/nplKmUhtPp
— Dr Clare Craig (@ClareCraigPath) January 12, 2021
Our Addendum for the Corman Drosten Review Report is ready: We present 20 scientific publications providing wet-lab evidence, which settle any remaining debate that the manuscript should be retracted on technical ground alone. https://t.co/wgGLYzNXWX
— Bobby Rajesh Malhotra ツ (@Bobby_Network) January 11, 2021
PDF: https://t.co/W737eVp5NR pic.twitter.com/BTqTcaQt8g
Addendum: Peer reviewed literature & preprints covering wet-lab expts, in silico analysis of the Corman Drosten protocol-design, meta-data analysis on https://t.co/kdnZxaPPp3 & further discussion – CORMAN-DROSTEN REVIEW REPORT
— Yardley Yeadon (@MichaelYeadon3) January 11, 2021
The heart of the matter. https://t.co/5WN9t84I4X
6 weeks after submitting our external peer review of the Corman-Drosten paper that was submitted when 6 persons had died WITH SARS-CoV-2 and published after "peer review" of <24h, we submitted an addendum and are still waiting.https://t.co/NVfSjgWus7
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) January 12, 2021
PDF: https://t.co/RvbEW820sn https://t.co/jf2WfzwQ45
BOOOOM !!
— Ale Battini (@ale_battini) January 11, 2021
The Big Bobby.
And with this we put a final tombstone on the abysmal scam of these CoV2 RT-qPCRs.
Disgraceful calibrations, ignoble protocols, failed gene targets, thresholds CT "adjusted" to inflate cases, false positives, and with NO real viral Gold Standard. https://t.co/969ACpyuuG
Sethuraman et al.
— Kevin McKernan 🙂 (@Kevin_McKernan) December 13, 2020
Its like every paper you read on C19 qPCR has a Charite' primer disclaimer…
Add it to the long list seen here:https://t.co/6uBejhK3DV
Hello @Eurosurveillanc https://t.co/UbYWkPaXw4 pic.twitter.com/zFp7zyVtBJ
Important review of the ‘Corman-Drosten-paper’, that we base a lot of the inappropriate anti-Covid measures on.
— Dr Stefanie Williams (@DrStefanieW) December 27, 2020
“We provide compelling evidence of several scientific inadequacies, errors and flaws.” https://t.co/gZskfsi6vn
Hier die Quelle zur Kritik am Corman-Drosten-Test:https://t.co/DUgRVLPH42
— Stefan Homburg (@SHomburg) December 1, 2020
Das Retweet von @c_drosten hierzu ähnelt seinen Followern: Keine inhaltliche Kritik am Papier, sondern Suche nach Kontaktschuld der Autoren. Völlig unwissenschaftlich. pic.twitter.com/hFZWSnaRj6
@eurosurveillance published an Editorial note, see: https://t.co/yLFfm6ZPHK
— Wouter Aukema (@waukema) December 7, 2020
Perhaps this analysis is of benefit to their evaluation proces.
Some pictures tell a 1,000 words.
1,595 articles, in this case: pic.twitter.com/u4EVfj0r8i
Diffamiert? Ein wissenschaftliches Team findet 10 Fehler in einem Paper von einem gewissen Prof @c_drosten? Der Prof muss jetzt eine wissenschaftliche Widerlegung schreiben warum das Team falsch liegt. So funktioniert die Wissenschaft, damit sie schön und rein bleibt. https://t.co/V7i5UZ0YRK
— Pieter Borger (@BorgerPieter) December 4, 2020
This PCR 101…
— Kevin McKernan 🙂 (@Kevin_McKernan) December 1, 2020
It’s free software online. Takes 5 minutes.
When you fumble this bad, it’s best you pull out some bioinformatics squid ink and deflect from the poor design by talking about your sexy sequencing work that was omitted from the manuscript. https://t.co/3YtcrwdWfx
What we know: In Europe the Corman Drosten protocol was one of the most widely used. Timestamp of this study= End Jan 2020, by Chantal Reuksen (@Eurosurveillanc editorial board) & @MarionKoopmans: https://t.co/3LLc8tJsly
— Bobby Rajesh Malhotra ツ (@Bobby_Network) December 20, 2020
Source: https://t.co/j3TzNWzqN9
I'll come back to you. pic.twitter.com/I3IxEpRcE0
There is very clearly an issue with the PCR testing which has been used as the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis and subsequently what Governments and the media call “cases”. The fact that we’ve now developed vaccines using an unreliable diagnostic test is terrifying. https://t.co/uXTtldCAj8
— Jonathan Witt (@Jonathan_Witt) December 9, 2020
I've read about this elsewhere (https://t.co/DxZQtREADj) – but sharing this article in case someone's missed the major issue with PCR testing that's come to light recently.https://t.co/eB4aW9YD7I
— 🙂Sanjeev Sabhlok, Pope @Church of Reason& Liberty (@sabhlok) December 14, 2020
>2.
— Laszlo (@laszlohealth) December 24, 2020
Nach meiner Auffassung ist dieses Papier einer ehrlichen, kritisch-abwägenden, am Dienst und am Wohle des Menschen orientierten Wissenschaft nicht würdig.
⁰⁰Schreibt PROF. DR. THOMAS AIGNER von der UNI TÜBINGEN!
Original-Schreiben:https://t.co/0f25yZg5NY
>3. pic.twitter.com/VSbJXklmZO
What are you doing tweeting when you should be working on your response to this? https://t.co/KlRGylFGpV
— Nick Hudson (@NickHudsonCT) December 6, 2020
@c_drosten,have you read about the cease-and-desist order VS @ChariteBerlin & you by @CoronaAusschuss?
— Bobby Rajesh Malhotra ツ (@Bobby_Network) December 16, 2020
No? Still too busy lurking Samuel Eckert disinfo blogs & rehashing useless PR-hashtags by @TheBinderLab?
You should until Dec 22 2020.#PLURV (LOL)https://t.co/t89CKseddd pic.twitter.com/mhPn3c8ZkK
Cc @PBIDI @dayatia https://t.co/F4xtPd8vFG
— RinduKeadilan (@awbtuban) December 23, 2020
https://t.co/XB4TSnetcs enhttps://t.co/5VZPpLx3U4
— Realist der voormalige Nederlanden (@realist1976) December 23, 2020
The #PCRtest is the keystone to the lockdowns. Our MD health depts are either stupid or complicit. It’s about the #PCR cycle threshold @GovLarryHogan @JanGardnerExec I’m tired of doing research for you. #PCRGATE @DanCoxEsq #CrimesAgainstHumanity https://t.co/QL2gDFWys9 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 https://t.co/Q1KapGZa6I
— President Elect – Veryinteresting 📅💡🇺🇸 (@Lawakenings) December 20, 2020
https://t.co/6wBTD6Unog
— Jan B. Hommel – alias @the_stinging (@hommel_b) December 21, 2020
Het gelijk van @BorgerPieter, @Bobby_Network, @MichaelYeadon3, @Kevin_McKernan en vele anderen druppelt niet, maar zeikt nu door het plafond.
En @MarionKoopmans zoekt bij bol naar een nieuwe bezem… Waarschijnlijk wordt het een Nimbus 2000.#PCRtest
Not only is the PCR test able to detect non-infective RNA, the test itself is now being called into question. The original PCR test paper was "peer reviewed" in 24 hours, and is now under re-review. https://t.co/6nM0SEXn55 https://t.co/1RpukVFObAhttps://t.co/p2U0gQKfEM pic.twitter.com/pSvFSFT9SF
— Karl Kanthak (@KanthakKarl) December 20, 2020
WHO admitted 14/12/20 its Corman-Drosten #COVID19 PCR test protocol prone to high false positives https://t.co/OuxXPPNq44
— Grand Solar Minimum (@iceagereentry) December 18, 2020
Lawsuits in progress: WHO's🇺🇳⛓️🤲⛓️🇺🇳next?
Peer-review of WHO Corman-Drosten protocol used to fraudulently hype up infected numbers https://t.co/skwrnBreDb pic.twitter.com/JX6V8s4KTf
This is worth reading at least some of it. I have no sympathy for the professor: it’ll probably be an uncomfortable time for him & it’s about time. His paper & PCR method is responsible for much suffering. https://t.co/vCX3PMZVdq
— Yardley Yeadon (@MichaelYeadon3) December 19, 2020
It’s confirmed: The pandemic is a hoax. 22 highly renowned scientists conclude that the PCR test produces 97% false positives. So out of all of the Covid patients we’ve ever seen, 97% never had Covid. STOP PCR TESTING NOW. #covid #COVID19 #stoppcrtestingnow pic.twitter.com/m7ky8eIeDn
— Karl Watchtay7 (@kvwatchtay7) December 18, 2020
Btw. your friend dreams about @pharmamafia methods to regulate "some problems". Is this the common procedure and mafia slang you prefer in down-under? Do @mackayIM and @dnatured (#MackayMafia) have general anger management problems? pic.twitter.com/bS8qGU78G2
— Bobby Rajesh Malhotra ツ (@Bobby_Network) December 19, 2020
“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." https://t.co/R7pe7nDOPS
— Matthew Loop (@matthewloop) December 10, 2020
this is quite shocking. https://t.co/ufaeRgujUf pic.twitter.com/fcI0M0LdC5
— @jb55@bitcoinhackers.org (@jb55) December 9, 2020
You mean this (is that laughable?) https://t.co/y1mz9XOeR9
— Bobby Rajesh Malhotra ツ (@Bobby_Network) November 29, 2020
and this? :
Could you call up your friends at CDC, they are still looking for the "real deal". https://t.co/mwhyiCxG8i pic.twitter.com/BpFy4mKHM7
I’d like to think your network with @MartinKulldorff and @NickHudsonCT may have had an influence here regarding public CQ values in Florida.
— Kevin McKernan 🙂 (@Kevin_McKernan) December 5, 2020
Pushing on other jurisdictions with this: https://t.co/t6H0beFnwB pic.twitter.com/kDTzErZsaN
The #retractionpaper is probably going to be discussed in Dutch parliament. @Haga files a motion regarding PCR-testing.@BorgerPieter @Kevin_McKernan @Bobby_Network @MichaelYeadon3 @KPCResearch @Thomas_Binder@angelovalidiya @CeliaFarber https://t.co/qAEFhY5Of1
— #THEGREATRESIST (@patricksavalle) December 12, 2020
Deze is weer reuze interessant…https://t.co/XTWNJpEUqE
— Jan B. Hommel – alias @the_stinging (@hommel_b) December 8, 2020
Het gelijk van Pieter Borger, door andere auteurs bevestigd.#PCRtest @BorgerPieter @Bobby_Network @Kevin_McKernan pic.twitter.com/OVOv89Tz55
do u know what a 'case' is? A case is a + PCR test, regardless of illness. At this stage, meaningless (clinically insignificant in absence of symptoms). Besides, that PCR (been saying since Jan) has serious Qs.#Casedemic https://t.co/f81O5lBJa5
— Peter Dunne (@PeteGDunne) December 7, 2020
🚩International Consortium of Scientists call for retraction of ECDC's Jan2020 PCR study: "External peer review of RTPCR test to detect SARSCoV2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at molecular/methodological level: consequences for false positive results"
— Kulvinder Kaur MD (@dockaurG) December 2, 2020
▶️https://t.co/PeHwLjTejL
Required reading on the #covidtest: "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. https://t.co/6sFGG7YQsH pic.twitter.com/HKHl9ENpB0
— Jefferey Jaxen (@JeffereyJaxen) December 6, 2020
Reports of such primer contamination arent just theoretical, they are reported in the peer reviewed literature (Etievant et al). Note, the study CT values are in question as the CD paper didn't disclose this important detail.https://t.co/hmkt4M0TGM pic.twitter.com/gHptvhPUuo
— Kevin McKernan 🙂 (@Kevin_McKernan) December 6, 2020
So here’s where scientists warn about the flaws in current COVID testing. But why was this published in ‘Eurosurveillance 2020’ to start with? It’s, um, epidemiology…isn’t it? Or isn’t it? ‘Eurosurveillance 2020 – CORMAN-DROSTEN REVIEW REPORT’ https://t.co/FhvJjgyxOq
— Dr Naomi Wolf (@naomirwolf) December 6, 2020
Der PCR-Test ist unbrauchbar zur Corona-Diagnose: Zu diesem Ergebnis kommt ein Gutachten von 22 renommierten Wissenschaftlern, die Drosten und seinen Kollegen unglaubliche Fehler vorwerfen. Und Interessenkonflikte. Die Medien schweigen. Hier die Details: https://t.co/Z3A3FdLKzl
— Boris Reitschuster (@reitschuster) December 1, 2020
Review report Corman-Drosten et al. Eurosurveillance 2020 – CORMAN-DROSTEN REVIEW REPORT what do @IndependentSage and @sageuk think of this report? https://t.co/vfY7yneHMa
— Allyson Pollock (@AllysonPollock) November 29, 2020
Es ist noch gar nicht lang her, da nahm man Interessenkonflikte ernst. Und Evidenzbasierung stand hoch im Kurs. Heute siegen Geschäftemacherei und Panik.
— Stefan Homburg (@SHomburg) December 1, 2020
Credit to @laszlohealth pic.twitter.com/suxFvUdGUJ
Here's a reminder that the entire edifice of PCR testing is tumbling down. Do spend some time browsing this site. The molecular biology aspects are challenging, but you'll get the drift. 1/8 @Pandata19 https://t.co/KlRGylFGpV
— Nick Hudson (@NickHudsonCT) December 5, 2020
I am an editor of a scientific Q1 journal (for non-scientists: Q1 = good!). I have never ever experienced a peer review that quickly. It usually requires 3-6 months. Two experts peer-reviewing a paper within 24 hours, and not seeing the obvious flaws, is dubious.
— Dr. Simon ツ (@goddeketal) December 3, 2020
Muenchhoff Studie gelesen? Nein? Da sind Sie als Co-Autor gelistet + auf @Eurosurveillanc publiziert. Darin widerlegen Sie sich selber. Das @WHO Protokoll enthält noch Ihre Fehleinschätzungen, aber die ziehen Sie jetzt zurück oder? https://t.co/9BQVKDIVoDhttps://t.co/Qi1GR2tBiP pic.twitter.com/m9ZQbeVUjE
— Bobby Rajesh Malhotra ツ (@Bobby_Network) December 5, 2020
2 Dutzend internationale Top-Wissenschaftler weisen Drosten & Co. schwere wissenschaftliche Fehler und Mängel bei Publikation zum PCR-Test nach. In seiner Position ist das das Äquivalent zu einer aberkannten Doktorarbeit. Pls. RT.https://t.co/tuLJj71Ze0
— Dr. Markus Krall (@Markus_Krall) December 1, 2020
Analyzed all 1,595 publications at @EuroSurveillance, since 2015
— Wouter Aukema (@waukema) December 1, 2020
No research paper got reviewed & accepted in <20 days.
(average 2019: 172 days, 2020: 97)
1 got accepted <24 hrs after submission.https://t.co/SXq95aIUCQ
Please help me understand?@MarionKoopmans @BorgerPieter
ACTUAL SCIENCE BREAKS OUT ! Real scientist organize and fight back.
— Denis Rancourt (@denisrancourt) November 30, 2020
Open/public peer review demolishes the PCR test as garbage science propaganda: 10 main fatal flaws.https://t.co/Q4vjZAWOHr pic.twitter.com/9WAqdB32TW
BOMBSHELL expert report by @BorgerPieter et al demanding retraction of fraud PCR test used globally for COVID.
— Michael P Senger (@MichaelPSenger) November 30, 2020
Fatal flaws include: "The sequences on which their PCR method is based are in silico (theoretical) sequences, supplied by a laboratory in China"https://t.co/Er4UCs4olh pic.twitter.com/p5iH9DMayH
BREAKING NEWS: 'Made in Germany' PCR test from Prof. C. Drosten is found to contain 10 major flaws rendering the test useless! Scandal exposed in peer review from a group of international scientists including@MichaelYeadon3 @Kevin_McKernan + 18othershttps://t.co/XCHHIrWzcl pic.twitter.com/RVEJIZSmxj
— Howard Steen (@HowardSteen4) November 30, 2020
Each MP has been sent a briefing paper,authored by Clare Craig FRCPath,Jonathan Engler MBChB LLb and Dr Mike Yeadon PhD
— Simon Dolan #KBF (@simondolan) November 30, 2020
"PCR-based COVID testing has failed and is not a proper basis to lockdown the nation"
They each have the info and a vote.They could end Lockdowns this week
BREAKING: PCR Test van de baan!
— BLCKBX (@blckbxnews) November 29, 2020
VIDEO: https://t.co/1nXnKP4zJO@MarionKoopmans zegt “de pcr test toont geen besmetting aan” en de retraction paper is reeds ingediend bij @Eurosurveillanc @MinPres @hugodejonge @WybrenvanHaga @rivm @NOS @HuubSchellekens @patricksavalle @op1npo pic.twitter.com/4lOFzKRScM
1/ On 23 jan @c_drosten et al published their paper describing the de facto industry standard protocol for detection of #SARSCoV2 by PCR
— #THEGREATRESIST (@patricksavalle) November 29, 2020
Now an intl. team of top experts asks for RETRACTION. The protocol is fatally flawed: it can NOT DETECT the virus.#retractionpaper #PCRGATE pic.twitter.com/1BG9Qw4Bgk
1) Drosten PCR test study: Withdrawal requested due to scientific error and massive conflict of interest
— Alison Blunt (@AlisonBlunt) November 30, 2020
November 30, 2020
Original German article https://t.co/vfCTcsc8Pq
wissenschaftliche-fehler-und-massiver-interessenkonflikte/
"22 renowned, international scientists have…"
External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results.https://t.co/mbNY8bdw1p pic.twitter.com/OQBD4grMth
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) November 29, 2020
You know that #PCR tests are the base on which are made all #COVID19 decisions. The problem is that the study used to make these tests has many mistakes and wasn't even reviewed. Also PCR test cannot be used as only factor.https://t.co/rs8TTQZCpL#Science #scicomm #COVIDー19
— Dr Angelova (@angelovalidiya) November 30, 2020
External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results.https://t.co/nG7pDtH5Em
— Dr Kevin Corbett MSc PhD (@KPCResearch) November 29, 2020
Bij de groep van Pieter Borger is ook Kevin McKernan betrokken @Kevin_McKernan
— Jan B. Hommel – alias @the_stinging (@hommel_b) December 5, 2020
Ik vrees dat de man geen cornflakes door de yoghurt doet, maar PCR-chipjes. 's Middags geen hagelslag op brood, maar PCR-korreltjes. 's Avonds eet hij PCR-poeder op de tiramisu in plaats van cacoa.
This is based on people complaining that our retraction request is not peer reviewed.
— Kevin McKernan 🙂 (@Kevin_McKernan) December 4, 2020
Oh the Irony.
Show me a peer review where the reviewers comments are peer reviewed.
We are critiquing an article that had 24hr peer review. https://t.co/t6H0beFnwB pic.twitter.com/EsX5oqYPzb
EP25: Interview w/@Kevin_McKernan about #PCR testing, Sheriffs say NO to Cuomo, #CivilDisobedience in Erie, #NFL Week 11, #Bitcoin ATH! https://t.co/RcEZNUtErH #COVID19 #SCAPP #NYS
— shawn hannon (@hannon44) November 23, 2020
And now guess who was author of the "asymptomatic fairy tale", March 2020, @NEJM.
— Bobby Rajesh Malhotra ツ (@Bobby_Network) December 21, 2020
Spoiler: @c_drosten. https://t.co/L6bmcsr7mu https://t.co/clEA2unDX3 pic.twitter.com/s1BojQVR1o