CORMAN-DROSTEN REVIEW REPORT

CURATED BY AN INTERNATIONAL CONSORTIUM OF SCIENTISTS IN LIFE SCIENCES (ICSLS)

Retraction request letter to Eurosurveillance editorial board

This is the retraction-request letter sent to Eurosurveillance by the main & co-author’s, written by Dr. Peter Borger, enclosed to the extended Review Report submission via the Eurosurveillance online-submission portal. Submission date was 27th November 2020.

Nov 26th 2020,
To: Editorial Board Eurosurveillance
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
Gustav III:s Boulevard 40
16973 Solna
Sweden

Subject: External Review and request to retract the paper of Corman et al, published in Eurosurveillance January 23, 2020.

Dear editorial board Eurosurveillance,

We, an international consortium of life-science scientists, write this letter in response to the article “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR” published in Eurosurveillance (January 23rd, 2020) and co-authored by Victor M Corman , Olfert Landt , Marco Kaiser , Richard Molenkamp, Adam Meijer, Daniel KW Chu, Tobias Bleicker , Sebastian Brünink, Julia Schneider , Marie Luisa Schmidt , Daphne GJC Mulders , Bart L Haagmans , Bas van der Veer , Sharon van den Brink, Lisa Wijsman, Gabriel Goderski, Jean-Louis Romette, Joanna Ellis, Maria Zambon, Malik Peiris, Herman Goossens, Chantal Reusken, Marion PG Koopmans, and Christian Drosten.

This paper (hereafter referred to as “Corman-Drosten paper”), published by “Eurosurveillance” on 23 January 2020, describes an RT-PCR method to detect the novel Corona virus (also known as SARS-CoV2). After careful consideration, our international consortium of Life Science scientists found the Corman-Drosten paper is severely flawed with respect to its biomolecular and methodological design. A detailed scientific argumentation can be found in our review “External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results”, which we herewith submit for publication in Eurosurveillance.
Further, the submission date and acceptance date of this paper are January 21st and January 22nd, respectively. Considering the severe errors in design and methodology of the RT-PCR test published by “Eurosurveillance”, this raises the concern whether the paper was subjected to peer-review at all.

A previous request from our side (Dr. P. Borger; email 26/10/2020) to the editors of “Eurosurveillance” to provide the peer review report of the Corman-Drosten paper has not been complied with. We have enclosed your email reply (dated 18/11/2020) indicating that you do not wish to disclose important information to solve this conundrum.

We are confident that you will take our scientific objections seriously and recognize that there is no alternative but to accept our request to retract the Corman-Drosten paper.

Sincerely,
Dr. Pieter Borger (MSc, PhD), Molecular Genetics, W+W Research Associate, Lörrach, Germany

Prof. Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer, specialist in Virology / Immunology / Human Biology / Cell Biology, University Hospital Würzburg, Germany

Prof. Dr. Klaus Steger, Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Andrology, Molecular Andrology, Biomedical Research Center of the Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany

Prof. Dr. Makoto Ohashi, Professor emeritus, PhD in Microbiology and Immunology, Tokushima University, Japan

Prof. Dr. med. Henrik Ullrich, specialist Diagnostic Radiology, Chief Medical Doctor at the Center for Radiology of Collm Oschatz-Hospital, Germany

Rajesh K. Malhotra (Artist Alias: Bobby Rajesh Malhotra), Former 3D Artist / Scientific Visualizations at CeMM – Center for Molecular Medicine of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (2019-2020), University for Applied Arts – Department for Digital Arts Vienna, Austria

Dr. Michael Yeadon BSs(Hons) Biochem Tox U Surrey, PhD Pharmacology U Surrey. Managing Director, Yeadon Consulting Ltd, former Pfizer Chief Scientist, United Kingdom

Dr. Kevin P. Corbett, MSc Nursing (Kings College London) PhD (London South Bank) Social Sciences (Science & Technology Studies) London, England, UK

Dr. Clare Craig MA, (Cantab) BM, BCh (Oxon), FRCPath, United Kingdom

Kevin McKernan, BS Emory University, Chief Scientific Officer, founder Medical Genomics, engineered the sequencing pipeline at WIBR/MIT for the Human Genome Project, Invented and developed the SOLiD sequencer, awarded patents related to PCR, DNA Isolation and Sequencing, USA

Dr. Lidiya Angelova, MSc in Biology, PhD in Microbiology, Former researcher at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Maryland, USA

Dr. Fabio Franchi, Former Dirigente Medico (M.D) in an Infectious Disease Ward, specialized in “Infectious Diseases” and “Hygiene and Preventive Medicine”, Società Scientifica per il Principio di Precauzione (SSPP), Italy

Dr. med. Thomas Binder, Internist and Cardiologist (FMH), Switzerland

Dr. Stefano Scoglio, B.Sc. Ph.D., Microbiologist, Nutritionist, Italy

Dr. Paul McSheehy (BSc, PhD), Biochemist & Industry Pharmacologist, Loerrach, Germany

Dr. Marjolein Doesburg-van Kleffens, (MSc, PhD), specialist in Laboratory Medicine (clinical chemistry), Maasziekenhuis Pantein, Beugen, the Netherlands

Dr. Dorothea Gilbert (MSc, PhD), PhD Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology. DGI Consulting Services, Oslo, Norway

Dr. Rainer Klement, PhD. Department of Radiation Oncology, Leopoldina Hospital Schweinfurt, Germany

Dr. Ruth Schrüfer, PhD, human genetics/ immunology, Munich, Germany,

Dr. Berber W. Pieksma, General Practitioner, The Netherlands,

Dr. med. Jan Bonte (GJ), Consultant Neurologist, the Netherlands, Dr. Bruno

H. Dalle Carbonare (Molecular biologist), IP specialist, BDC Basel,
Switzerland

Comments

  1. Dear scientists,
    After reading your retraction request letter and your review paper regarding the Corman-Drosten paper, I am shocked about the facts and circumstances that you have presented.
    It seems obvious to me, that this Corman-Drosten paper should be retracted immediately, and it should not have been used as a basis (and used as reference) to the PCR of SarsCov2 in public screening, as is (unfortunately) happening around the world.

  2. We already suspected the fraud around the PCR tests. This letter shows it should be immediately stopped, the practise of large scale testing without any correct protocol or CE certificate. We also suspect it is a specific as we have found 100% for other pathogens as well , namely the Aspergillus fungus, which is know to cause pneumonia

  3. May I suggest if you are not doing it already, you get active on writing and submitting your own paper rebutting the whole nonsense across the board.

    That is what I am doing. Coincidentally I am also focussing on ten problems.

    If they don’t retract it that may not be so bad because it will stay there as a living example of how science can be perverted, which could be the topic of many future published rebuttals, and example for students of molecular biology of what not to do.

    1. The perpetrators should be held accountable for probably the biggest fraud executed on humanity of all time, and there should be a commission appointed to recover billions in losses.

  4. I am both ashamed (Corman-Drosten paper) and proud (Dr. Borger) to be a Dutch scientist… This letter and subsequent paper marks the turnkey event in the history of mankind.

    The facts and circumstances presented by the ICSLS paper/letter is astonishing to say the least versus most certainly the international implications of the flawed Corman-Drosten paper and the uptake of major institutions worldwide.

    My sincerest respect to the ICSLS team! Finally, a bright light at the end of the tunnel.

  5. Thank you! Vielen Dank!!
    The depths of deceit are amazing..
    It is so critical, and heartwarming, to have people stepping up, fighting for truth.

  6. Great work. A small point:
    I’m not quite sure about the first part of your definition of a false positive.

    “The definition of false positives is a negative sample, which initially scores positive, but which is negative after retesting with the same test”.

    –followed by:

    “False positives are erroneous positive test-results, i.e. negative samples that test positive.”

    I would say the second sentence is correct, but not the first sentence.

    “initially positive but then testing negative negative after retesting” is in my view a case of *imprecision* (random error) of the test near the limit of detection, not a false positive.

    Check out Hedderich, M Sachs L, “Angewandte Statistik” 17th edition, section 4.5 p 186 “Der diagnostische Test”, Table 4.6. According to that source, a false positive occurs when:

    A sample from a patient *who does not have the disease* gives a positive result in the test.[conditional probability would be P(T+|K-)]

    Of course the critical point is defining what the “disease” is. If it is defined as a infectious state attributable to Sars-Cov-2 then you could argue that *all* results from this test are false positive.

    1. Thank you for pointing out. We just talked about your remark and in one of the follow-up revisions we will change that with your reference. The outcome of the overall message is nevertheless the same, but we are aware of this semantic point.

      1. That’s so interesting …. what’s really crazy is that ANYONE defines “false positive” as a positive result in a patient who doesn’t have the disease. How do you know whether he has the disease?????? It’s not like there’s some other objective metric for testing current infecting. There’s only symptoms. Which are notoriously unreliable; and which include everything from runny nose to heart attack to death.

        The term “false positive”, as defined by the people you quoted here (Hedierick), implies that there’s some objective way besides PCR tests to know who is sick.

        It’s a very misleading use of the term.

        It isn’t a false positive or false negative.
        It’s just nonsense data.

    2. “Of course the critical point is defining what the ‘disease’ is…”
      That’s indeed the question !
      The RT-RNA-PCR-test has primary not the ambition to define a disease (that should be obvious), the test as only the aim to identify some specific RNA… and the question is then: if as such (in demonstrating specific RNA) the test has (some) false-positives?…

  7. I’ve never been so moved by the scientific and the scientists’ insistence on proper science and truth. It is deeply touching to know that these individuals have done so much work on alerting public attention to this grave misconduct that has taken place.

  8. Ostensibly, this is wonderful news. Except for those behind the vaccine scam, who face having the golden cup dashed from their lips. Are they going to allow that?

  9. We express our deepest gratitude to each of you for your scientific review of the flawed Corman-Drosten paper and call for its retraction. You have done a service for the clinical community and the citizenry of the world, that we are unable to do for ourselves due to the technical nature of the matter.

  10. The whole “corona” crime against humanity was never about a virus. Every serious person asked from day one why a corona virus would be worth mentioning at all. And then all this “cases” talk without any strange cases of sickness / death in comparision to the normal flu / corona season.
    Please: Finish this “corona” crime once and for all.

  11. I really want to believe that is going to help us. But do you really think that somebody will take attention except those who already knows that the whole thing is fishy?

  12. This was a very early publication. Tests have now developed over the past 11 months and would have all been subject to sensitivity and specificity verifications to ensure for for use. Rubbishing “PCR testing” as a whole, based on one paper, is ridiculous.

    1. Does not matter, it has to be retracted for various reasons, primarily for:

      a) weak primer design / overall low-tier-protocol quality / severe scientific flaws,

      b) the protocol recieved the official WHO recommendation, and is still recommended at their site as one of only a few protocol recommendations there; at the beginning of the pandemic it was even the only official WHO recommendation even though Zhu’s lab had also submitted a protocol design to the WHO of their own (why is that the case that only Drosten’s protocol gets the WHO-recommendation, even though the protocol design is of questionable quality?),

      c) the protocol serves as blueprint for many follow-up protocols (with equal design flaws, piling up flawed science with more flawed science, doesn’t minimize out the flaws). The PCR-market is unregulated as the Wild West since Charité Berlin didn’t claim any patentship on Corman’s & Drosten’s protocol-design, no regulations and standardisations are or can be enforced.

      d) TIB Molbiol & Roché work with those protocol-specifics and market them as such (“WHO”-approved”: here comes the official WHO-recommendation again into play and must be put into perspective).

      We don’t care about “the test being old” or “other tests being better”. This might or might not be true (this bold statement from your side has no citation, and is therefore highly doubtable).

      We are focusing here on the Corman-Drosten protocol/paper, and nothing else, so I’d suggest to stick to the topic.

      Nothing here is ridiculous, your argument is rather more than weak and not thought through.

      https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/protocol-v2-1.pdf

    2. Not when all the other tests have been based on the fake by Drosten, a CDC report from 13 July shows they have no virus and used a stew of ordinary RNA’s

  13. Stolz, dass “Wort und Wissen” bei den Verfassern doppelt vertreten ist und sogar ein Oschatzer. Wie schön war es, auf dem Collm Ski zu fahren. Die Arbeit sieht voll sophisticated aus. Schon ein erhabenes Schriftstück, wenn es so vor einem liegt, mit Sicherheit ein der Wahrheitsfindung dienliches Lichtschwert. Ich bin stolz, dass ich, wenn natürlich auch nur als laienhafter Leser Anteil an dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit haben darf. Ob Herr Dr. wieder monieren wird?: Ich kann mir da draus nichts entnehmen.

    1. I am very grateful for the detailed work of these good scientists to reveal the truth and lies of this global scandal. From the very moment back in March when a family member told me there was a global pandemic, I knew in my gut it simply wasn’t true. I appreciate that these scientists can concretely prove and show what my inner-knowing told me.

  14. Was a standard ever put in place? Health departments don’t want to answer specific questions like # cycles, baseline virus. Trusting our authorities has been our biggest down fall. They thrive on ignorance and apathy.

    1. Thank you for your help! I’m lost and I don’t know how to help to overcome this Hitler-era 2.0
      Due to ppl like you I have hope.

    2. It’s always the best approach to assume that all official statements from government sources are lies until proved otherwise.

      “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” (B. Obama)
      “When it gets serious, you have to lie” (Jean-Claude Druncker)
      “We’ll know that our disinformation program is complete when everything the public believes is false” (William Casey, CIA Director 1981)

      “record new infections” (false positives or downright fabricated numbers)
      “Two weeks to flatten the curve”
      “the vaccine will let you get back to normal”

  15. Some further observations from own experience:

    1. *Editorial board- and Peer Review*

    In my experience with submissions of multiple papers to medical (Clinical Pharmacology) Journals, initial review can take up to 6 weeks.

    The selected anonymous peer reviewers (or “referees”; normally two experts) will often provide long lists of major and minor concerns that the authors have to (a) address in detail in writing and (b) incorporate in a revised version of the manuscript that show all changes using word processor tracking mode.

    A common reponse from the Editor after review is something like:

    “Your paper may be acceptable for publication after undergoing substantial revision”.

    There then follows a further delay while the authors address the reviewers’ concerns, resubmit the manuscript and await the Editor’s final decision. That can take an additional few weeks too.

    So it is not uncommon to experience a time delay of 3-4 months between submission and acceptance, depending on the nature of the material submitted.

    Acceptance of a paper within a couple of days as in the case discussed here is unprecedented in my experience.

    2. *Ethical requirements of major journals*

    These address conflicts of interest and are comprehensive and stringent:

    “employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership, stock options, expert testimony, grants received and pending, patents received and pending, royalties, and in-kind contributions.”

    “Editors may publish disclosed information if they believe readers will find it important in judging the manuscript. Institutional and personal conflicts of interest must also be declared.”

    [source: https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/journal/15326535/editorialpolicies?=#InformedConsent ]
    [ http://www.icmje.org/ ]

    So it appears that here we have a case of “Rules are for the little people”.

    1. Thank you very much for pointing out, this might be worth to be implemented with your resource links in the next revision of the review report. I’ll notify Prof. Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer & Dr. Pieter Borger about your remarks.

    2. The DNA sequence was released 12 January, the protocol was sold 17 January, issued for approval 21 January, approved 22 January and published 23 January for approval by WHO a few days later. The CEO of the Big Pharma TIB Molbiol was both author as well as Board member of Eurosurveillance (ECDC).

      The revenue based on 2 billion PCR tests globally can be estimated at 200 BILLION DOLLARS.

      I don’t SMELL a rat. I see it hanging in front of my with it’s tail hanging from the lamp laughing in my face.

      When this thing started I so hoped for this to be a natural thing, where Humanity unites, when science guides the blind politicians. I am bitterly disappointed and sincerely hope you guys get awarded the Nobel price for Peace.

      1. I checked that online and I’m really sorry to disagree in this case, but Olfert Landt, CEO of Tib Molbiol is no longer listed on the editorial board of Eurosurveillance. If he ever was. No Idea if that’s the case in the print version?
        Only thing I noticed was, that there is something written about 17 associate editors, but only 16 are listed, along which Christian Drosten is one of them.
        I took screenshots in case they are gonna correct that.

        1. We never mention Olfert Landt as member of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance, his conflict of interest is: TIB Molbiol (CEO, https://www.tib-molbiol.de/de/).
          In the editorial board are: Christian Drosten (Main Author of the Corman-Drosten paper), Chantal Reusken (co-author).

          https://www.eurosurveillance.org/board

          The Addendum section of the original CD-paper release was updated on 29th July 2020 (6 months into the pandemic after the initial release):

          https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045#html_fulltext

          Addendum of 29th July 2020 Update:
          Conflicts of Interest:
          Olfert Landt (CEO Tib Molbiol)
          Marco Kaiser (senior researcher at GenExpress and serves as scientific advisor for Tib-Molbiol)-

          It’s still missing the Labor Berlin-part of Christian Drosten & Victor Corman, both leading the virology department there, the lab is commercially oriented within the PCR-Testing Realm.

          https://www.laborberlin.com/fachbereiche/virologie/

          Also the Muenchhoff et al. publication at Eurosurveillance has no “conflict of interests” listed for Christian Drosten (co-Author of Muenchhoff et al., these MUST be listed there too in regards to his affiliations: Editorial Board Eurosurveillance, Director Virology at Labor Berlin).

          https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.24.2001057

          In the opinion of the International Consortium of Scientists in Life Sciences (ICSLS) this is a severe mal-practise-scheme, reoccuring patterns are observeable here (withholding crucial “conflict of interests” information, never stating it in major work-horses / papers in the field, or adding them months later, especially in regards to publications which determine the faith of whole economies globally and the freedom of the people, we have to be extra-cautious here when it comes to huge scientific bias due to tremendous commercial interests).

          We propose: Future developments of peer review processes should include a) only independent reviewers / non-affiliated to the journal itself (editorial board), b) the review process & protocol should be always transparent and trackable during and after the review process, c) future review processes could rely on decentralized technology to ensure a thick layer of security against manipulations and “unnoticed facts” (conflicts of interest) through the possibility of making it public in every aspect.

          Additional resources: Olfert Landt remarks to CNN, beginning of January 2020:
          https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/24/asia/testing-coronavirus-science-intl-hnk/index.html

          In case of archiving-tools: Screenshots are semi-optimal. Better would be to archive at https://archive.is or internet wayback machine (https://web.archive.org/). Check our references list in the resources section in the review report, relevant links that could be subject of manipulations are listed there with archive-links. The way to go here is: “Always archive everything that seems to be important”.

          1. Thank you very much for your explication. It’s beneficial for those who didn’t read your review or aren’t familiar with the 100s of hours of work of the “ACU” in germany.
            I just wanted to point out, that the comment I had been replying to wasn’t correct, because roland brautigam wrote, Olfert Landt was CEO of Tib Molbiol as also member of the editors board of Eurosurveillance, which just isn’t correct. So we had a little misunderstanding here.
            Personally I appreciate your work, keep it going. But nevertheless false accusations in comments should be corrected as not to give mass media the opportunity to defame your hard work as conspiracy theory or the like, just because they detected some false information in the comments section of your website.
            Best regards

          2. I’m in Seattle. So we now weknow whats bad. Now we need a remedy fast. Who has accurate ,25cy real tests for covid-19. in the US? Need Urgently .Need names of existing meds for early existing, available, safe treatment/therapies. What are those meds in the US? The publiic needs real scientists to make fast recommendations for best meds and best tests ASAP. Bad Scientists have targeted trusting, innocent people arround the world. NOW we need the good scientists to save the day. Please help us stand up to the gov tyranny. In Seattle we need to open this weekend. Any doctors in Seattle area who know the right protocols? Names? We are desperate, Really. Our gov is even shutting down outdoor heater use for outdoor dining. Cruel and Crazy puppet of Gates & IHME Big WHO benefactor. Bottom line we need to end the testdemic, get meds, end dictatorial shut downs. Good science has an obligation to give us what bad science robbed from us. We need immeidate solutions since science seems to have watched this Hoax on humantiy and didnt step up in January to stop it. Scientists like your group can form powerful coalitions to help us out of this before Christmas by publicizing your report, condensed for non scientist. Tell us what fraud happened in one paragraph and the qiuick fix in another.
            Specific Treatment protocols. We can take it from there. If you spread that bulliten all over twitter and Parler INCLUDE your project website, maybe hook upo with Barrington project for fast publicity and quick distribution this weekend. We can take back our countries and our lives before the holidays. Name your campaign, then publish it. Thank you.

  16. OK, there are some Scientist disagreeing with a widely approved paper. Happens all the time.

    Let see if they get published. I doubt that their “paper” can make it. It has to be sound to get published. Maybe in a lesser Journal. Let see.

    Nonetheless, the WHO publishs paper from “both” sides, see the Meta study by Prof Ioannidis. It is rediculous to say the WHO is biased or has a secret agenda.

    One more point, a medical doctor or Prof is not comparable with a real doctor. It is more an add on and proves nothing if you do not get published in international Journals. Even then you have to look closely!

    1. OK, there are some scientists who publish errors. Happens all the time.
      OK, all the world believes it. Happens more often as one thinks (see for instance https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970 or https://www.spektrum.de/news/wissenschaftsmythen-sind-hartnaeckig/1393247)
      The problem is that taking political measures based on doubtful or even false facts makes many people suffer.
      For honest scientists it is a MUST to deal with all the questions with no respect to the ranking of the journal (many best ranked journals have been fooled by fake science).

    2. Easy to make comments without identifying yourself. It’s hard to take you serious until I know your possible motivations.

    3. It’s not ridiculous to imply that the WHO is biased as it has been caught faking a pandemic already back in 2009 for the purpose of of triggering billions of dollars in vaccine contracts. As far as having a “secret agenda”, I have to agree: the malfeasance of the WHO is so clearly out in plain sight that it’s hard to call it “secret”.

  17. I am confused. Is the PCR test flawed and irrelevant or is the retraction letter asking for the submitted letter to be withdrawn as the claims the PCR test is flawed is not true? Can someone who knows please say YES the PCR is flawed or No the PCR is not flawed. I am not medical but firmly believe this virus notwithstanding there have been deaths WITH rather than FROM and now the new thing called long Covid is emerging-but it’s only limited to a small number. What I find interesting is according to WHO figures TB kills 1.4 million each year but it’s not a pandemic. HIV still kills 1M each year. A COVID-19 death is officially labeled by the WHO-which is the same criterion followed by Ireland where I live-is as follows: Any death for any reason that occurred within 28 days of testing positive with the virus.
    This means if a person has died from cancer, from old age, a heart attack, from an injury sustained in an accident, suicide, gunshot wounds-in fact any reason at all so long as it was within 28 days of a positive test for Covid then its officially a COVID-19 death. That cannot be legitimate in my modest opinion.

    1. Answer: PCR tests in general are good tools to determine positives or negatives for infections BUT the protocol to get same for COVID19 is FLAWED and that is a nice word for it. If the protocol is flawed, then all measures taken by governments worldwide were all based on thin air. It is even possible, maybe even likely that COVID19 stopped in May. Also read the below from CEBM at Oxford University: https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/pcr-positives-what-do-they-mean/

  18. Hats off for courage to speak truth. And a big thank you!

    Ironically, this is prime time news item that isn’t going to be aired, ever.

  19. Assuming you are right about a high false positive rate – what would be the consequences? less real case numbers, but therefor the fatatlity rate is skyrocketing up… and less nfection prvention by less quarantaine… ends up in even more dead people…

    1. No, because PCR was used for death reporting too, by. both WHO and CDC. The implication is both case numbers and death numbers are invalid.

    2. Sorry to say, but you do not seem to pay much attention to what you refer to as “fatality rate”, which is “skyrocketing”! Nothing is “skyrocketing”, since approximately 96% (according to the CDC) of the reported Covid19 deaths, are NOT from the virus but due to underlying condition! In other words, the virus is NOT causing these deaths. The IFR of the virus is less or similar to the seasonal flu (between 0.1% to 0.5%). The number of deaths reported by the media and the WHO are scientifically fraudulent in order to scare the public. The WHO has given specific instructions to count ALL deaths (from whatever reason!) as Covid19 deaths, if the deceased tests positive (and in many instances, e.g. in the UK and the USA, not even a test is required!). Please check you facts before commenting.

  20. Hi Bobby

    I assume you have considered media management and how to publish in medical journals, BMJ would look like a suitable candidate as they have recently published a number of articles on corruption and politicisation. In addition, have you also looked at wider media, I know Mike Yeadon has already been on Talk Radio, but the Spectator have recently launched and would reach a wider audience.

    Good luck

  21. To all

    We, our AX0 think tank, monitoring the course of Sars-Cov2 closely since week one of January , experienced quite some discrepancies, in many publications internationally. Quite early, Februari 21, we discovered publications speaking of recontaminations and contamination of patients, not showing any symptoms more than a common cold.

    To our utter surprise, the Dutch government decided to follow a herd immunity strategy, where wide testing, was propagated yet at te same time severely frustrated. GGD’s performed consult by telephone using these as triage to determine if one was subject for testing or had common flu. (a lethal sin)

    Raised continuous suspicion
    The Dutch government based all measure and strategy, upon the use of a RT-qPCR testkit, halting an entire social and economic society with all kind of chain consequences , where we still aren’t seeing the end of yet.

    We have raised questions, we have conveyed published inconsistent contradicting findings, advice uphold by rivm, acting as gvts experts, to find, that no Dutch PM, HM, rivm, top civil servants showed any interest else than bring Dutch society into a state of dictatorship.

    All scientific simple measure,defying the one and only universal principle of crisis management ignoring, stating, quote of HM Hugo de Jonge, “… only a vaccin can save us now…”

    Again all actualized scientific and medical findings and publications ignoring. Even worse, we repeatedly raised one question in the process and progress of commercial pharma claiming to be able to create a vaccine for Sars-Cov2 in a record breaking 4 months(!!?!)

    The question , from perspective to safe human physical and life’s harm, with respect of the aftermath of the prior mexican flu vaccine disaster in mind,

    “Whom and how many, of the tested trial persons of test vaccinations , have been subjected to the active Sars-Cov2 virus, and what are the findings?”

    To date, non of the here prior mentioned, none of the four pharmas, even remotely, respond.

    We are thrilled and utter exited, that science, still has the resilience of selfreflection to act upon huge and grave (commercial) error, with far reaching consequences, to stop, in our humble opinion, grave social and economic consequences, prevented possible grave bodily harm, committed by ill government and commerce eager entities, who only crave for commercial success rather then act for societies wellbeing.

    This brings hope!!!

    We hale, salute, and offer Gratitude and Thank to all members of science, who stand courageous to act, in this retraction paper.

    You are restoring faith in a so often commerce poluted science.

    Respectfully

    Rene Civile, CEO Partner
    AX0 bv
    Netherlands

  22. Das ist der zweite Versuch an das große Geld anderer Menschen zu kommen. Auch sind es die selben Personen, die es versuchen, siehe Schweinegrippe im Jahr 2009. Auch dort mußte der Impfstoff auf Steuerzahlerkosten vernichtet werden. Nur das damals Herr Drosten noch einen Dr.-Titel trug, den er mittlerweile nicht mehr trägt, weil er nie einen hatte! Pfui Teufel!!

  23. Thank you for your efforts in debunking this evident plandemic. The evilness of this plan and the powers behind it exceed the sociopathic level. It’s more than psychological warfare it’s demonic in it’s nature when society is (directly or indirectly)forced to accept mRna based “vaccinations”.

  24. Do you have a Public Relations person that is getting this information out to the Public and Commentators?

    Have there been any law suits in the US against the state’s Health Department having to do with highly questionable data?

    1. If you want to contact us via email feel free to do so, under “contacts” you’ll find our email addresses. We can use support for spreading the knowledge in the US.

  25. As a non-scientist, I have felt for a long time that something was not correct.

    The actions of Government. Mass testing. The reporting in main stream media. All of it.

    Having taken much time with personal enquiry – I have found myself here.

    There are good people in the world and I’m very grateful to be amongst them.

  26. Thank you all so much for your efforts in bringing to light the clearly evident flaws in this dubious test.

    Much of the worlds policy making in response to this virus, which have in turn caused so much destruction and death, has been done so off the back of this flawed test protocol.

  27. Выходит, что шарлатанство делает возможным уничтожение здоровья людей, ограничение их свобод?
    Но это уже было в нацистской Германии, в 1939 -1945гг Надо напомнить о решениях Международного Трибунала тем, кто повторяет преступления нацуистов.

    ModEdit Translation:
    It turns out that quackery makes it possible to destroy people’s health, to limit their freedoms?
    But this was already in Nazi Germany, in 1939-1945. It is necessary to remind those who repeat the crimes of the Nazis about the decisions of the International Tribunal.

    1. Спросите г-на Путина, почему он «радует» население России вакциной, которая до утверждения не прошла должным образом. Почему Путин борется с коронавирусом? Конечно, не из дружбы с Германией, ЕС или Шарите.

      [ModEdit Translation:]

      Ask Mr Putin why he “pleases” the Russian population with a vaccine that did not go through properly before approval. Why is Putin fighting the coronavirus? Certainly not from friendship with Germany, the EU or the Charité.

      1. “Why is Putin fighting the coronavirus?”

        1. The same people are in charge of this scam worldwide, irrespective of the country.

        2. The WHO is headed up by a Chinese communist party puppet. Russia has extensive cooperation with China on many levels.

        3. Great excuse for microcontrol of the population. A wet dream for any politician.

        4. Win international status by faking up a vaccine

        The whole scam works globally because of the stupendous ignorance of 99% of the population at large, who probably couldn’t even calculate a percentage change if requested. Still less now after wearing their black designer cloth masks 12 hours a day. Because…”science”.

  28. It is a very well written article and I hope it gets published and also leads to the retraction of the flawed Cormen-Drosten article, which has done nothing but destroy scientific integrity and credibility.

    Just a quick question though since I am not that knowledgable about primer concentrations… I think primer optimisation often involves testing different primer concentrations between 100-900nM. However, I am aware that using high concentrations of primers (esp. over 1uM) will increase the likelihood of non-specific binding, and false positive results.

    I may be wrong, so please let me know your thoughts, but another issue may be the fact that the Cormen-Drosten paper does not mention how much RNA concentration is used in the RT-PCR reaction… while using high concentrations of primers (with poorly designed primers such as these, this would most likely lead to a false positive). As scientists, we know that we must check the quantity and quality of all samples before proceeding with any experiment even if it was not explicitly explained in a paper but those who are not properly trained in RT-PCR would not know that such a step even exists. It is peculiar that in their paper, Cormen-Drosten decides to write that they use 5uL of RNA but there is no indication of whether they checked the quality and quantity of RNA or the quantity (gram) used. If the Covid test kits were produced based on this paper by non-scientists, this detail may also have been overlooked. For example, the FDA Clarifi Covid test kit protocol fails to mention how much patient RNA should be included other than the volume (1.5 uL) in each reaction.

    https://www.fda.gov/media/142379/download

  29. Watson & Crick’s 1953 Double Helix paper to the journal Nature: “A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid”, took more than 3 weeks from submission to approval:

    http://dosequis.colorado.edu/Courses/MethodsLogic/papers/WatsonCrick1953.pdf

    submitted April 2 (see end of text), published April 25, 1953. Watson mentions the submission date and the expected 1-month approval time in his book “The Double Helix”.

    In terms of length (870 words) it would be a brief letter to the Editor by today’s standards.

    So even revolutionary real science in the most compact form didn’t manage to get published in 24 hours.

  30. This site (located in New York) documents loads of retractions that are going on all the time:

    https://retractionwatch.com/

    I have the impression (may be incorrect) that retractions by non-American authors are more frequently reported than American ones, for whatever reasaon.

    They have a collection of retracted ConV1d papers that is not particularly impressive.

    There is no mention of your current action, which I find rather suspect, even if a retraction has not actually taken place.

  31. Am Tag als die Dinge über Covid-19 veröffentlicht wurden, war klar das dies wieder einer Fake-Virus ist. An den Koch’schen Postulaten ist jeder Virusnachweis gescheitert, so das man sagen kann es wurde nie ein Virus nachgewiesen. Somit existiert ein Virus erstmal nicht!
    Die PCR-Test ist schon ein fauler Zaubertrick. Man vermehrt “Etwas” 2 hoch 32, (ca. 4 Milliarden) dann hat soviel Substanz das man erst jetzt ein Nachweis führen kann.

    Woher konnte man wissen, dass das Ausgangsmaterial dem Virus entspricht. Keiner konnte mir bisher erklären, wie man komplexe Moleküle kopieren kann. Auch da vermute ich nur faulen Zauber.

    Auch die anderen Mikroben von Pilzen bis Bakterien waren nie Krankheitserreger, sondern Mikro-Chirurgen der Natur. Die verschiedenen Mikroben arbeiten nur an speziellen Keimblättern, Ein Pilz arbeitet nie am äußeren Keimblatt, dem Plattenepithel.

    Nach den Schulmedizinischen Dogmen, musste eine Mandelentzündung beim einatmen die Mikroben in die Lungen spülen und dort weitere Entzündungen verursachen. An einem so einfachen Beispiel ist die Infektionstheorie widerlegt.

  32. Note the Cambridge Universities findings today of 9000 PCR tests all came back false positive after conducting 2 tests. I am not qualified in anything, just pointing it out.

    Good luck in this, it is a crime against the human race.

  33. About your retraction request:

    https://retractionwatch.com/2020/12/07/public-health-journal-seeking-further-expert-advice-on-january-paper-about-covid-19-pcr-testing-by-high-profile-virologist/

    and also, according to https://2020news.de/en/drosten-paper-under-fire/

    “From an informed source, 2020News has learned that an international group of policy makers has now additionally contacted Eurosurveillance with a request to immediately review the allegations and to arrive at a final assessment by December 14, 2020”

  34. The covid-era has revealed many sad realities – perhaps most notable for me is the manipulation of ‘science’, corruption of mainstream media and the total disregard for humanity.

    Thank you for your commitment to collaboration, and truth. It is actions such as yours that fortify my belief that truth will prevail.

  35. Dear Reviewer team,
    I thank you so much for presenting this review summary. I’m myself bichochemist working in molecular biology and designed many primer in the past. I was wondering myself back in March when I downloaded the protocol directly from the WHO website and found out by blasting the used primer were not specific, recognizing other Coronafamilie virus and here the Drosten team using even as positive control samples from 2002/2003, apart from the protocol design. Here I learned a few more things,I’m impressed and wondering about. I never thought science could come to such a corrupted situation, and we need to come back, what I thought it was, science being independent of political ideologies and pressure

    1. If the technique is NOT specific, how can the technical sheets declare 97% or so of specificity? How could this go through and how could governments take decisions based on #”infections” tested with this protocol, promoting lockdowns? Again I ask: are current PCR tests still based on this initial article? Is it possible?

  36. “(…) bör man beakta att kvarstående PCR-positivitet finns rapporterat upp till flera månader efter genomgången infektion.”

    auto translation sweden to english:

    “(…) it should be noted that residual PCR positivity has been reported up to several months after infection.”

    I do not speak swedish; the sentence above is taken from a document on the “Folkhälsomyndigheten” website (“Public Health Agency of Sweden”, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Health_Agency_of_Sweden ) with date 26 November 2020:

    https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/publicerat-material/publikationsarkiv/p/provtagningsindikation-for-pavisning-av-pagaende-covid-19/

    https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/contentassets/342206f2612a4d7180a5f187b03eb452/provtagningsindikation-pavisning-pagaende-covid-19.pdf

  37. E. M. Oneal says: (November 30, 2020 at 12:49 pm): “Of course the critical point is defining what the ‘disease’ is…”

    That’s indeed the question !

    The RT-RNA-PCR-test has primary not the ambition to define a disease (that should be obvious), the test as only the aim to identify some specific RNA… and the question is then if as such (in demonstrating specific RNA) the test has (some) false-positives?…

  38. Well, I understand that approximately a year ago some scientists identified an unknown RNA particle inside people’s bodies. I also understand this PCR test is a tool to recognise such RNA particle in one’s body. So far so good, I guess. Could someone please explain to me in plain English how they identified/sequenced this RNA particle, and how they subsequently established that all people with this unknown RNA particle inside their bodies suffer from an infectious disease we now call COVID-19?

    Many thanks for shedding light on this topic. Great work.

  39. I am wondering whether any of the “independent reviewers” from the “international consortium of life-science scientists” ever tried to get in contact with the authors of the C-D paper? This would be a typical normal first step.

    1. Dear Andrej Trampuz from the Charité Berlin,

      1) I assume that you wanted to write independent without quotation marks, if not, we would have expected at least a neutral approach by a commenter with an official Charité Berlin e-mail address. And if those quotation marks signal scientific bias, then we would ask you to provide evidence for that.

      2) If you would have checked our supplementary material & downloads section properly, as well as properly reading through the main review report & reference list, you would have realized that Dr. Pieter Borger has a) contacted one of the co-authors of the Corman Drosten-paper (Dr. Adam Meijer) with insufficient answers as a result, as well as b) asking Eurosurveillance for the official peer review protocol. The latter demand was not fulfilled by Eurosurveillance Editorial board – stating non valid argumentations when it comes to general peer review transparency & scientific peer review process validation.

      Since you haven’t read the main review report properly, and also didn’t check the references section there, I am copy pasting the Supplementary material for you here again:

      [2] Email communication between Dr. Peter Borger & Dr. Adam Meijer: Supplementary Material:
      [24] ECDC reply to Dr. Peter Borger, 18th November 2020:
      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B6yoCGvp3FTvNkMQ4GV95QSQgwWalBj5/view?usp=sharing

  40. I wonder why eurosurveillance is not able yet to react in a proper way. As more days go by as more reputation they lose.

  41. I give my highest admiration and support to these brave scientists for their efforts to show the fraud of case numbers and to save us from the greatest fraud in medical history.You scientists are the one spot of white light in these dark times. History will prove you right. History is on your side.

  42. Dear consortium members,

    As you do not show experimental data supporting your theoretical concerns, your retraction request sounds very very weak!

    1. We are releasing an Addendum section soon. I am copy pasting here a small part of the index of references and literature pinpointing the problematic Charité primer design, taken from our upcoming addendum.

      The peer reviewed scientific literature released after 23rd January 2020 (official publication date of Corman et al. at Eurosurveillance 2020) provides several additional concrete pieces of evidence deriving from wet lab experiments with the Corman Drosten-paper protocol- design.

      […]

      These studies nullify the most common complaint voiced (no wet lab evidence) regarding the retraction letter. There is no need for the authors of the Corman-Drosten (CD manuscript) retraction request to perform wet lab experiments to prove these deficits as those experiments are already evident in fully peer reviewed journals. These papers represent diverse labs with diverse authors and different jurisdictional influence on the scientific funding and research.

      1. Muenchhoff et al.
      2. Jung et al.
      5. Konrad et al.
      16. Nalla et al.
      17. Dahdouh et al.

      Stay tuned.

      1. Dear Bobby,

        I tried now several times to post a comment but unfortunately it never gets released. I am trying it now as a reply to one of your comments.

        Exceptional theories require exceptional proof. Given that essentially no peer-reviewed publication from experts in the field of diagnostic PCR questions the general use and reliability of the Corman et al., 2020 protocol to monitor the pandemics, you will need to substantiate your claims by providing real experimental data. It should be easy for an internationl consortium of experts to collect a reasonable number of patients samples and perform a comparison of PCR methods.
        Furthermore, you keep neglecting the bigger picture. We observe excess mortality essentially everywhere SARS CoV2 spreads. We see a wave of infections as diagnosed by PCR and 1 to 3 weeks later the number of Covid19 deaths rises, simultaneously with excess mortality.

        Besides this I have some additional comments:

        I wonder about the qualification of some of the authors to comment on such highly specific topics such as primer concentration, cycle numbers etc for RT-PCR. Some of the authors clearly lack a track-record of publishing in this field.

        ‘1a) Erroneous primer concentrations
        Reliable and accurate PCR-test protocols are normally designed using between 100 nM and 200 nM per primer [7].
        [7] Real-Time PCR Handbook Life Technologies

        However looking at the referenced article [7] one can find the following statement on page 5.
        ‘Optimal results may require a titration of primer concentrations between 50 and 500 nM. A final concentration of 200 nM for each primer is effective for most reactions.’

        and on page 54:
        ‘In some circumstances, mainly multiplexing reactions, a primer and probe optimization matrix is necessary. In this application, different ratios or concentrations
        of forward primer to reverse primer, and sometimes even probe ratios, are tested to find the ideal concentration combination for a given assay. The ideal primer concentration can be anywhere from 100 to 600 nM, while probe concentrations can be between 100 nM and 400 nM.’

        Higher primer concentrations for probe-based assays is also supported by the recent literature. Bustin and Huggett, 2017 in their recent article about primer design for qPCR state:
        ‘Primer concentrations for SYBR I Green assays tend to be lower (100–400 nM) than for probe-based assays (300–900 nM), but there are always exceptions that prove that rule.’

        Noteworthy, the assay designed by Corman et al., 2020 uses a probe-based detection system, as do essentially all WHO reference protocols. The protocol developed by the CDC for example uses a primer concentration of 500 nM (and 45 cycles run time), the method developed by the Japanese colleagues uses 500 and 700 nM, respectively for the forward and reverse primer.

        In summary, the referenced articles do not support the conclusion that the assay designed by Corman et al., 2020 uses an ‘extremely high’ concentration of primers.

        Nowadays mainly hightroughput fully automated systems are in place such as the Cobas platform. These systems have been validated by the manufacturer and additionally validated/compared by users.

        For example, Boutin et al., 2020 and Poljak et al., 2020 directly compared the PCR test/primers developed by Corman et al., 2020 with the Cobas system. These direct comparisons provide the oppurtunity to answer the question whether the Charite protocol indeed returns a high number of false positive results.
        Poljak et al found 126 positive samples using the Charite protocol of which 3 returned negative results using the Cobas system (all with high ct values).
        Boutin found 281 positive samples using the Charite protocol of which 2 returned negative results using the Cobas system (again high ct values)
        Noteworthy correlation R2 of ct values between 0.82 and 0.98 indicating a very high degree of comparability between the Charite protocol and the Cobas system.
        The authors concluded that there is an exceptional agreement between the methods.

        These results do not support the conclusion that the Charite protocol returns many false positives and thereby has contributed to the ‘creation’ of a pandemic, but rather provides additional evidence the protocol is indeed fit for purpose.

        sincerely,
        Stefan Jahn

        1. Dear Stefan,

          Thank you for your great comment! Good to see, that also professional comments are appearing in this comment section!

          I would like to add, that all experts in the PCR/qPCR field should know that for proper primer/probe design real experiments are more important than theoretical considerations (see also Dendan et al. 2020). In addition, it is very important to note here, that certified diagnostic labs only apply optimized and validated kits in combination with proper controls (see e.g. the Cobas SARS-Cov-2 test by Roche). That means, that the kit manufacturers might use the e.g. Corman et al. 2020 paper (or other information) as basis for further optimizations and subsequent validation of their kits. Hence, the Corman et al. 2020 paper could be seen as a pioneering work which was published immediately after the SARS-Cov-2 genome sequence was available.

          In my opinion, this retraction request sounds very weak from a technical/scientific point of view because ICSLS does not provide real data supporting their theoretical concern. Finally, I do not understand what the ICSLS really wants to achieve with this retraction request? Even if the Corman et al. 2020 paper will be retracted: this will have no impact on the currently applied optimized and validated test kits! So what?

        2. Dear colleague, for now I will comment about the “bigger picture” you are referring to in your 3rd paragraph above. Unfortunately, you seem to be totally missing the “bigger picture”. There is no “excess mortality” shown in a national (country) level anywhere in the world yet. Strictly local “excess mortality” may exist, but it is easily explainable due to criminal mismanagement of the situation (e.g. NY or Michigan states or Canada etc, forcing the spread of the virus to care homes) or human errors (e.g. Sweden, not preventing the spread to care homes). Actually, there is absolutely no increase in overall death numbers, for example, in the USA (according to John Hopkins University News Letter of November 22, which was subsequently censored and the article removed! – I got an electronic pdf print). This was evident even since April and May 2020 from various reports from official EU or USA stats sources. The same holds for the UK and Germany etc. And all this, despite the fact that the WHO has has given specific instructions to count ALL deaths (from whatever reason!) as Covid19 deaths, if the deceased simply (!) tests or had tested positive to a RT-PCR test. New scientific papers will hopefully come out soon, about the whole of 2020, and I doubt that there will be a single country in the world that will show excess total deaths, that will be far and above the total deaths of previous flu seasons. This, of course, decimates the claims for a “pandemic”, to which you are subscribing to.

          I may sympathise somehow if someone is being misled regarding “excess mortality”, due to the tremendous misinformation in the media. However, regarding the PCR “diagnosis”, that is a different ball game. According to Kary Mullis the inventor of the PCR test: “PCR is just a process that allows you to make a whole lot of something out of something. It doesn’t tell you that you are sick, or that the thing that you ended up with was going to hurt you or anything like that” (his exact words in a 1997 video filmed in Santa Monica, minute 51’+). Hence, there is absolutely no “diagnosis” regarding the administration of the PCR test alone. There must also be clear visible symptoms in order to make a diagnosis. Asymptomatic individuals do NOT spread a thing (this is proven by a 10 million people study in China – this matter is closed, despite mostly fraudulent efforts from the media to keep it alive). Additionally, any Ct value above a max of 30 cycles is meaningless and only dead virus fragments may be detected at best (RT-PCR Ct values according to the WHO guidelines are way above, near 50 cycles (!), which is rampant fraud in plain view). It is truly saddening to see that knowledgeable scientists fail to see what is going on globally (what about the lay person then).

      2. Dear Bobby,

        Thanks for your reply. But sorry, this is not really convincing!

        – Muenchhoff et al. 2020: authors are discussing „false-negatives“
        – Konrad et al. 2020: authors are discussing sensitivity of different test-set ups (thus the discussion is about false-negatives)
        – Naila et al. 2020 „no false-positive results observed“
        Dahdouh et al. 2020:

        Why do you have a problem with the fact that pioneering work will always be further optimized? Do you have a hidden agenda?

        1. Dear Gustav,

          It seems like you haven’t read the literature, but I guess nothing will satisfy you until our Addendum is visible.
          Your remark about “agenda” seems pretty biased and irrelevant, so I hope you understand if I ignore that.

          I am also copy pasting here the conclusion of the Muenchhoff et al. study for you, in case you haven’t read it until the end:

          A reduced sensitivity was noted for the original Charité RdRp gene confirmatory protocol, which may have impacted the confirmation of some COVID-19 cases in the early weeks of the pandemic. The protocol needs to be amended to improve the sensitivity of the RdRp reaction.

          1. Dear Bobby,

            Low sensitivity = false-negative!

            Your theoretical concern is based on the assumption that the RT-PCR test might produce too many false-positives.

            However, the papers you mentioned are discussing false-negative results!

            Please convince the readers of your retraction request that there is a real false-positive issue with real data! Thank you!

        2. And take Boutin et al., 2020 and Poljak et al., 2020 for example. HT PCR Assay on a Cobas platform compared to the Charité protocol. The authors concluded that the results of the two methods agreed exceptionally well.

          Apologies for hacking in your thread Gustav Ganz but my comment didn’t got through on several tries si I tried to post as a reply.

          Dear Bobby, would it be possible for you to entangle the two comments for clarity. Thank you very much.

  43. Its known for quite some time, that there are secret contracts worldwide between pharmaceutical/vaccine industry with governments, that if the WHO says the word PANDEMIC, that these contracts are being validated. How nice is that.

    1. Also the PANDEMIC word will suffice for most insurances not applying (so insurance companies will not pay for what they were hired for). Sad, sad, sad. And sad to know that the definition has been changing over the time (as I’ve heard). With what intent? No-one knows. Is a chronology of those changes available anywhere?

  44. Deaths until cw49 (in thousands)

    UK taken from ONS
    2020 562.5
    average 2015-19 496.5
    –> excess deaths of 13% compared to average 2015-19 (all excess deaths occured during the first and second wave of Covid19)

    Belgium taken from Statbel

    2015 100.4
    2016 98.3
    2017 99.4
    2018 100.6
    2019 99.0
    2020 119.3
    –> excess deaths of 19% compared to average 2015-19 (all excess deaths occured during the first and second wave of Covid19)

    According Euromomo, the 26 countries reporting into the monitoring project had a cumulative excess mortality of 330k in 2020. Thats 210k deaths more than in the strong flu season 2018 and between 300k and 260k more than in the other years 2015-2019.
    Allmost all excess deaths occured during the first and the second wave of Covid19.

    The majority of excess deaths can be attributed to Covid19 according to two lines of evidence i) death certificates list Covid19 as the underlying cause of disease in 85-95% of deaths and ii) excess deaths is correlated with SARS CoV2 cases (only in regions with high prevalence and in times of an outbreak)

    Thanks for considering these aspects.

  45. Unfortunately my first comment got deleted by mistake. For reasons of transparency I am posting the information again. All data are derived from the official sites of the respective country.

    I would like to comment on the ‘bigger picture’ and excess mortality by providing the cumulative number of deaths of 3 different countries until cw 49:

    US taken from CDC (in thousands):
    2015 2541
    2016 2499
    2017 2572
    2018 2611
    2019 2622
    2020 3012
    –> excess deaths of 17% compared to average 2015-19 (excess deaths in US throughout the year since beginning of the pandemic, in individual regions excess deaths occured during the SARS CoV2 outbreaks in these regions)

    Sweden taken from SCB (in thousands)
    2015 84.6
    2016 83.3
    2017 84.2
    2018 84.5
    2019 80.9
    2020 88.3
    –> excess deaths of 6% compared to average 2015-19 (all excess deaths occured during the first and second wave of Covid19)

    Switzerland taken from BFS (in thousands):
    2015 63.7
    2016 60.3
    2017 62.5
    2018 62.8
    2019 63.4
    2020 68.0
    –> excess deaths of 9% compared to average 2015-19 (all excess deaths occured during the first and second wave of Covid19)
    Deaths until cw49 (in thousands)

    UK taken from ONS
    2020 562.5
    average 2015-19 496.5
    –> excess deaths of 13% compared to average 2015-19 (all excess deaths occured during the first and second wave of Covid19)

    Belgium taken from Statbel

    2015 100.4
    2016 98.3
    2017 99.4
    2018 100.6
    2019 99.0
    2020 119.3
    –> excess deaths of 19% compared to average 2015-19 (all excess deaths occured during the first and second wave of Covid19)

    According Euromomo, the 26 countries reporting into the monitoring project had a cumulative excess mortality of 330k in 2020. Thats 210k deaths more than in the strong flu season 2018 and between 300k and 260k more than in the other years 2015-2019.
    Allmost all excess deaths occured during the first and the second wave of Covid19.

    The majority of excess deaths can be attributed to Covid19 according to two lines of evidence i) death certificates list Covid19 as the underlying cause of disease in 85-95% of deaths and ii) excess deaths is correlated with SARS CoV2 cases (only in regions with high prevalence and in times of an outbreak)

    Thanks for considering these aspects.

  46. I congratulate the scientists who have approached the subject of SARS-Cov2 isolation with the utmost scientific rigor. It is a problem on which I myself, in my small way, too had already published this scientific note on 12 April 2020, supporting the same arguments: http://igienenaturaleortopatia.altervista.org/blog/coronavirus/nuovo-virus- o-rna-human-unknown-federico-tubaro /? fbclid = IwAR0AGla5TLlPBnk79cGptXQ3c9_L78Jo-8D_w80xYx_a6MnembAXxB8JX9c

Comments are closed.