Last Updated 12.01.2021
From: EUROSURVEILLANCE <>
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 7:43 PM
To: ‘Peter Borger’ <>
Subject: Your submission and concerns raised for Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR by Corman et al
Dear Dr Borger,
This email is to acknowledge the receipt of your submission 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.
I took note of your concerns for the article Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR by Corman et al published in Eurosurveillance on 23 January 2020. Of note, this article has been reviewed by two independent reviewers. Irrespectively, we will further investigate the points you raised, jointly with our editorial board but excluding the two co-authors of the article, and consider guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Kind regards
I Steffens
Editor-in-chief Eurosurveillance
In an email exchange w/ another concerned scientist from the field,@Eurosurveillanc announced to investigate until the end of January 2021. The name of the scientist has been changed.
— Bobby Rajesh Malhotra ツ (@Bobby_Network) December 19, 2020
We are not part of the editorial board there, so no FastLane for us. https://t.co/Gc6X45ufxd https://t.co/trdqNWdGRp pic.twitter.com/anmriDikip
Normally, peer review takes about 4-6 weeks. Of course, there are exceptions: The Corman-Drosten paper describing the RT-PCR test was "peer-reviewed" within 24 hours (although Eurosurveillance was not able to show us a review report).
— Pieter Borger (@BorgerPieter) December 22, 2020
Meanwhile @Eurosurveillanc answered to another inquiry concerning the status of our Corman Drosten Review Report, it sounds a bit bitter to be honest, I hope we didn't disturb their scientific #safespace with our Addendum-Release additionally today. https://t.co/UQjcdjDbQG pic.twitter.com/TsqZXM3LDO
— Bobby Rajesh Malhotra ツ (@Bobby_Network) January 11, 2021
>> Please read Bobby's post <<#PeerReview of Drosten PCR paper @Eurosurveillanc: NOT a PRIORITY?
— Wouter Aukema (@waukema) December 19, 2020
It was given Extreme Priority back in Jan-2020, when they broke their own records in a Single Day: https://t.co/faM4ejWI5a pic.twitter.com/XfSN059o4B
One day for internal peer review. Months for RESPONSE to external peer review. When lives depend on it. https://t.co/KKsz821kG3
— Nick Hudson 🙂 (@NickHudsonCT) December 19, 2020
👉Warum dauert es so lange bis das "Eurosurveillance" diesen wichtigen Bericht sich annimmt und überprüft? Wer blockiert hier?
— openeysdown / Rolf Meier (Freedom over Fear) (@openeysdown) December 21, 2020
👉Dieses Dokument wird nicht Schubladisiert werden, garantiert nicht…. ‼️https://t.co/LMcvug7o1h pic.twitter.com/PTPsyHoROF
#PCRGATE #COVID19 https://t.co/xpamZstRrP
— Dr Angelova (@angelovalidiya) December 19, 2020
Eurosurveillance dragging their feet? They can be as fast a lightening when getting @c_drosten ‘s fake PCR test approved for publication perhaps because Drosten on editorial board. Now surprisingly needs weeks to assess criticisms of test. I say SUSPEND all use of fake test NOW. https://t.co/sIMB4ZipaD
— Howard Steen (@HowardSteen4) December 19, 2020
#LetsCallOut #Eurosurveillance @eurovurveillanc
— Judy op Reis (@judyopreis) December 19, 2020
Disheartening, deafening silence.
Let’s stand by key principles of science: falsifiability or refutability! https://t.co/qSHqntDLLu
First review was 24 hours.
— Kevin McKernan (@Kevin_McKernan) December 19, 2020
Retraction review is 2 month? https://t.co/hLPYfgoRez pic.twitter.com/0zfTD7TAWS
The journal @Eurosurveillance is dragging its heels. 22 scientists have written a detailed analysis of the PCR methods paper which is responsible for much damage in the world. But they seem unable to expedite this review. https://t.co/tQ6Fu6pmKJ
— Yardley Yeadon (@MichaelYeadon3) December 19, 2020
Why haven't you pulled the Drosten paper???? https://t.co/BVHVf1Qbqz
— Dave (@davuiw) December 19, 2020
They are self-destructing their reputation, Michael. Not me.
— Wouter Aukema (@waukema) December 19, 2020
Only by visualizing their review speed of this particular paper, in context to that of all their other papers, I could rule out that this could somehow be common practice.
So in 1 day the PCR test got approved and rolled out… But despite it being a proven faulty method its taken months to get reviewed and retracted. How much damage has been caused worldwide? Economically and psychologically…
— Miguel Balona 🙂 (@MiggyMackAttack) December 19, 2020
Ain't nothing to see here. All above board. https://t.co/MymwMtIcVq
While the "peer review" of the @vmcorman–@c_drosten paper submitted when 6 out of 1 393 000 000 Chinese had died WITH SARS-CoV-2 lasted <24h, nowadays when every minute of this ongoing BS kills many people the retraction review lasts 2 months. https://t.co/eugi9ItZuK pic.twitter.com/mS3IYmv0gl
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) December 19, 2020
Everyone continue to write to Eurosourveillance, day after day, with serious and official requests for an immediate response to the 'full retraction' of the Drosten paper, submitted by P. Borger et al.
— Ale Battini (@ale_battini) December 19, 2020
The CDC should as well. I emailed them weeks ago via their emergency path and have not heard back. @CDCDirector @CDCgov @DrNancyM_CDC @CDCemergency @CDC_eHealth @CDCGlobal https://t.co/Np7YPZJUvJ @Eurosurveillanc #CormanDrostenReview https://t.co/ON70TaOxki
— HouseOfRealNews 🐸#Gab @GetOnGab @HouseOfRealNews (@HouseOfRealNews) December 19, 2020
End of January??????
— Paul van Hoek 😃 (@Paul_van_Hoek) December 19, 2020
Did @Eurosurveillanc at least changed the status of the CD paper to something like ‘further review/ investigation’?
— Gideon R (@gideon_R) December 19, 2020
Unbelievable that peer-review was so short and 2nd review will take such a long time.
You @Eurosurveillanc may delay your answer but you can't avoid it. Corman Drosten et al. may be under protection by now but look in the future. The consequences of this messy test for so many people in the world are horrible and you did your part to it. Make it an end!
— bakhjul (@bakhjul) December 19, 2020
Cool, thanks. I am calling them on Monday.
— @CarolineAdriaanse (Gab: FirstCoffee) (@CarolineAdriaa1) December 19, 2020
Anyone else… https://t.co/CZCqXqDc8Z
Yet it takes them 7 weeks (!) to review the retraction paper. Who do they think they are kidding????
— roland brautigam (@BrautigamRoland) December 19, 2020
is eurosurvaillance is looking for a cheap way out? if only 2 p. are true, no peer review and the conflict of interests of publishers Drosten/Koopman/landt, it will already have a serious impact on credibility of eursosurveillance. but now even more faults then THE 10 mentioned?
— dave cami (@CamiDave) December 19, 2020
Dear @MarionKoopmans, I ask you as co-author & respected scientist: @eurosurveillanc is frustrating transparency, by delaying their decision.
— Wouter Aukema (@waukema) December 19, 2020
Please tell us what happened? You can stop the fear & doubts re. PCR Testing reliability and accuracy. https://t.co/wlcVMFFWSa
Give us a valid explanation as to how it's possible you accepted the #CormandDrostenpaper within days, but somehow need 20x as long to review the #retractionpaper.
— Is Dat Zo? (@IsDatZo6) December 20, 2020
Is @Eurosurveillanc biased?
Global health & your scientific credibility are at stake.
Get on with it….. 👇 pic.twitter.com/xRvQ0j2HAk
Les tests de détection du covid ont un sérieux problème et la communauté scientifique est à peu près bâillonnée: soit tu soutiens les politiques gouvernementales, soit tu te tais. Exemple: https://t.co/9uwirMJ3B8
— On Verra Ben (@o_v_b_) December 21, 2020
Really? Daily #Covid19 #PR?
— Is Dat Zo? (@IsDatZo6) December 20, 2020
Where do you find #time to #fuel the #scare every day, while you should finish #reviewing the #retractionpaper. You're making a #fool of yourselves @Eurosurveillanc.#OnHoliday? It's been nearly a #month? are you #serious?
Free, but #notfreeofBias? pic.twitter.com/qn5t4bjAy5
We the people of the Netherlands are awaiting @Eurosurveillanc to give us an update /response – Retraction of the Corman-Drosten paper. How much more time is needed for the peer review?https://t.co/bRV2nKljIm
— Marinka108 (@Marinka43983596) December 20, 2020
https://t.co/gHj9GmtbQf
— roland brautigam (@BrautigamRoland) December 19, 2020
10 January 2020 Chinese release gene sequencing, 17 January Drosten-Corman paper for RT-PCR test was released. Peer reviewed an published four days later. All ready in 12 days yet it takes you 7 weeks to respond to the critical Retraction paper! SHAME!
Eurosurveillance: the world is waiting for your response to the Corman-Drosten Review/report & scientific paper retraction request.
— Marty (@martytwit) December 15, 2020
The paper must be retracted – the matter is urgent.https://t.co/IqZbnrfMwr@Bobby_Network
@Eurosurveillanc, at least change the status of the paper to ‘Under investigation’ so that you can avoid future lawsuits coming your way. Cause there is no escape this is going to happen!
— Roberto dg (@Drrob67) December 22, 2020
We will fight with all means – we want a descision NOW!
— Aletheia (@AletheiaHappy) December 22, 2020
#Letscallout #Eurosurveillance @Eurosurveillanc What's keeping your retraction. The world is waiting. The world is suffering needlessly while you sit on the fence quivering in fear of telling the truth. Let the truth set your and the world free now! @RetractionWatch @pcrclaims https://t.co/0kFFwDRdSX
— Tricia McGuigan#IamYeadon (@TriciaMcGuigan2) December 22, 2020