Did the Corman-Drosten Protocol “rely on social media reports” to seek (& then find) SARS-CoV-2?
Check out our latest joint article (myself and Jessica Hockett) on the "social media reports" which apparently pointed the authors of the paper describing the PCR test which launched the “covid pandemic” towards SARS….
Update:
Further to a comment below and my response, I thought it worthwhile pointing out - to those unaware - that Drosten was central to the development of the PCR test for SARS, which was as bizarre a story as the one around SARS-CoV-2:
The creation of the test for SARS-1 was an astonishingly far-fetched tale...
This article, from March 2003 explains further:
From the above:
So, more reliance on things read “on the internet”. Of course, this can be taken 2 ways (at least):
It’s unverifiable cover for some other involvement
It’s illustrative of just how dangerous responding reflexively to a plethora of real-time information gathered from around the world can be.
Thought experiment: How hard would it be to cook up a 'pandemic' during a random winter season with sufficient sniffles going through the population?
Provide plenty of well orchestrated fear mongering through various channels and government information, use the absurdly dodgy PCR test on a sufficiently large scale and many 'cases' will be detected. Combine that with the deadly WHO protocols, hire some mad statisticians presenting their scary graphics, based on completely unscientific models. Add a pinch of drama (the first Covid-19 patient in the Netherlands was reported just when the minister of health was being interviewed on national tv. And he was informed by handing over a small piece of paper that contained the dreaded message. Later we learned via an FOO request that it was staged). It would only work if many nations would follow the same path of course. Et voila, you have your 'pandemic'.
I wish people would stop referring to PCR as a test. It is not a test---it is a laboratory procedure used to multiply small amounts of DNA. Primers consisting of short sequences of nucleotides are added to a sample solution and bind to complementary sequences there and multiply them to whatever level is desired by repeated doubling each time the PCR protocol is followed (each doubling is a cycle). The sequences "found" are definitely determined by the selection of the primers to which they bind. The short sequences found are then put into one of a few computer programs that will then generate a large number of possible "genomes" from which one can be selected that fits with one in a large existing registry of supposed viral genomes. Virology has inappropriately labelled this technique as having "isolated" a virus despite the fact that no single virus has ever been physically or biochemically isolated in the sense that the average reader would imagine. Read the original study out of Wuhan claiming to have discovered a "novel" virus and pay particular attention to the Methods section that describes how several short sections of nucleotides were used as primers to identify and then multiply via PCR and then generated an enormous number of possible genomes that would suggest that it was in the group designated as corona viruses.