It was all very slickly organised and very tightly controlled from towards the end of 2019. In black and white that recommendation for 45ct for the 'test'..how to create and diagnose a 'pandemic' and get rich off the back of it. Drosten was integral to the ensuing destruction of people's lives, businesses and their important social connections. 'Cases' precipitated more and longer lockdowns, and they were 'cases' spun out of the Corman Drosten 'test'. The more times the con and the spin is exposed the better....because the 'power wielders' would rather it was forgotten, swept in to the dusty corners of everyday lives.
Yes, i agree. At least he is on the safe side, 45 cycles is a good and relieable number for the test. It would be dissapointing to have a test that finds nothing, we could have made the wrong assumption that noone is sick. 🤔
A patient sample: a mixture of particles of all kinds, bacteria, fungi, endogenous fragments, substances of unknown origin, drugs. Foetal bovine serum is added to this chaotic mixture to make it even more chaotic and then analysed. ............In Wuhan, an ophthalmologist (...?....) concluded that a man with cancer had an unusual and completely new lung disease. His patient sample, the chaotic mix of all of the above plus cancer cells, served as material for the sars 2 genome sequence.
Again: calculation of a sequence from a mixture.
However, Drosten did not have this smear at all while he was developing the "test". In a fit of honesty, Drosten once said that virus isolation was not possible anyway, that it rarely or never succeeds and that he was not sure whether the Chinese had been successful with it. In the following the head of virology at the Chinese CDC said in a television interview that nothing has ever been isolated.
So Drosten develops a test protocol and primer (starter molecules) for a test that is supposed to find something he has never had in his hands, without the chaotic patient sample, only on the basis of social media references and computer templates of other "viruses" that have also never been isolated, but come from mixtures of creatively calculated computer sequences.
Presumably you are aware of the demolition of the Corman/Drosten nonsense re the PCR "test" by about 35 proper researchers, including Dr Thomas Binder.
I don't have it to hand right now but in the event you don't know it, I'll dig it out and post it.
The more time that passes since the Great Covid Dumpster Fire, the more one thing becomes clear. Anyone who didn't make a crap-ton of money off it either wasn't trying hard enough or was too honest to attempt to do so. Hell, I'm starting to feel like I could have found a way to ride the scam. Drosten is almost as shameless as Bill Gates. (But only almost.) Dr. PFauci is in a class alone, however!
I don’t think Drosten made any money out of the PCR kits. As far as I know, he doesn’t have any financial interest in TIB-Molbiol. Landt surely did, and in the meanwhile TIB-Molbiol was acquired by Roche, which undoubtedly meant a further financial windfall for him.
BioNTech started first preclinical study already on January 14 in fact, which means its vaccine project must have started already in 2019! (I reconstruct the timeline here: https://brownstone.org/articles/biontech-pfizer-vax-timeline/.) This is probably why the European Investment Bank provided a first 50 million euros in debt financing to BioNTech in mid-December 2019. It is worth noting in this connection that Eurosurveillance is also funded by the EU. Furthermore, it’s a largely German operation. The Editor-in-Chief Ines Steffens is a German epidemiologist. (She did her MD at the University of Mainz, where BioNTech was founded). I believe her second-in-command, Kathrin Hagmaier, is also German. Drosten himself is on the editorial board.
The potential conflicts of interest are in fact to be found everywhere In this story. It’s not just Drosten and Landt…
As @michaelpalmer has said, the creation of the SARS-CoV-2 “pandemic” scare was “not the first rodeo” for those involved. I guess he had in mind Drosten’s (maybe others’?) involvement with SARS-1…
As an academic, he profits professionally regardless.
While Drosten didn’t (TMK) ever say this, anytime an academic says they are doing something pro bono or purely for scholarly purposes, they ignore the fact that they benefit in other ways. Not all incentives are monetary in a direct or immediate fashion, and not all profit is financial.
Furthermore, even if Drosten didn’t receive a “cut” of testing sales, we have no clue what consulting contracts, one-time fees, stock options, other perks, or future opportunities he received as a result of his testing or COVID-related enterprises.
I agree that it’s not just Drosten who should be probed re: conflicts. He’s listed fourth of the Germans on the original protocol and LAST on the Eurosurveillance paper — which in academia is the “lowest” position on a paper. So I do find it rather funny that he is the focus of the credit/blame…which could have more to do with his SARS-1 endeavors and general notoriety.
Early on in 2021 I came across the analysis of the PCR scam, the Mulliss interviews etc and the rather obvious reality that the pandemic wouldn’t exist without the test … it was always a “casedemic” as someone once opined. The question that remains for me is just how this was so carefully controlled from what appears to be a relatively small group of well-connected insiders and sociopaths, how is it that public health authorities, health ministers etc around the world at every level just swallowed the bullshit unquestioningly, they can’t all have been so credulous or uncritical could they? Was it peer pressure, in-group preferencing, fear, panic?
This is a quote of Christian Drosten from 2014 when he was asked about the PCR test in an interview about MERS. (Translated from the German.)
"... the method is so sensitive it can identify a single genetic molecule. If such a pathogen for example were to be found lying dormant in a nurse all day in the mucous membrane of her nose, she would be identified as a MERS case without being ill, or even being aware of it. Where previously only critically ill patients were recorded in the statistics, those with very mild symptoms and even completely healthy people were now included. This what explains the surge in cases in Saudi Arabia. This is further exacerbated by the sensational reporting of the local media."
Source: "What Covid-19 Can Teach Us" by Dr. med. Thomas Hardtmuth 2021. (English Translation by Bernard Jarman.) The author is a general and thoracic surgeon with research specialisation in virology and the role of viruses in nature and evolution.
Endnote 28 in this short book has the most succinct characterisation of PCR I have met:
The PCR test is essentially a linear test which does not measure 'either/or' but 'how many'.
45 cycles is normal. How far the machine attempts to take it is not the same as what is interpreted. The important bit is only calling a positive if you see exponential growth that crosses the *cycle threshold.* The threshold is determined based on the opinion of the scientists using the controls and any positive samples as a guide to where it should be. You then see how many cycles had taken place at the point where it crosses. If that is 45 the result is meaningless. In terms of any possiblity of transmission anything over 25 was meaningless for SARS-CoV-2 testing. Ultimately where the threshold is places is massively subjective - you need well trained scientists making a fair assessment. For covid this was done by AI provided in numerous countries by UgenTec. The UK government were successfully sued over the signing of the contract with UgenTec by DiagnosticsAI. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54455666
"Intended use by intended users" is a key principle in measurement and assessment of any kind (not just in medicine - across disciplines and fields).
It was violated many times over by scientists and public health in 2020+. Practice runs occurred in 2003 and 2009 with faked pandemics and, in smaller ways, with the 2014 ebola "crisis," Zika, etc.
Evidence of human-to-human transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is very, very thin. It is inferred, not demonstrated.
Patterns in clinical observations did not precede the deployment of mass testing in hospitals. Pierre Kory's testimonies reinforce this point.
Do you (or does anyone) have a source/citation for "12-13 Jan WHO accepts the Drosten test as gold standard"? I ask because I had looked for purposes of this timeline and couldn't find it: https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/timeline-the-naming-of-sars-cov-2
A note on page 1 explains which terms are used to refer to the viral agent being targeted for detection. No distinction between virus and disease is made.
"Abbreviations and taxonomy related to the Wuhan virus are not used in any systematic way, i.e., there are multiple different designations and abbreviations for the “Wuhan virus” in this document. They all relate to the same viral agent. We use the term “SARS-related Coronavirus” to include the SARS virus as well as the clade of betacoronaviruses known to be associated with (mainly) rhinolophid bats across the Palearctic. The latest taxonomy classifies these viruses in a subgenus termed Sarbecovirus."
FWIW, the ct is 45 on the 13 Jan 2020 version of the protocol (linked above) too.
I agree there were financial conflicts of interest and I read Drosten's emails in the ICTV-CSG correspondence accordingly. Especially on February 13, 2020, his devil-may-care attitude can be attributed in part to the fact that making money irrespective of the conflict with the WHO and Chinese virologists over the name of the virus and the "disease" (as was Bart Haagman, another author on the protocol who was also on the CSG) https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/the-sars-cov-2-name-game-long-read
Source seems to be this. Of course, "gold standard" is a term of art rather than an officially defined term, so indeed, it is not declared as such by the WHO in that document. However, if we regard the phrase as meaning "the best test, by which we judge other tests" I think it's reasonable to claim that the WHO declared the test as "gold standard" given the content, tone and existence of the 13 Jan document.
Yes, I see what you're saying. "Gold standard" is simply a characterization meaning that because the WHO shared it, the WHO considered it the standard to be used.
That is why I used the passive voice i.e., "Corman-Drosten protocol was released" versus saying anything about the WHO anointing or endorsing it on that day. If we had emails or some other records showing the WHO sent it out or published it, then I could change the wording.
(I recognize this is me being somewhat pedantic, but I really would like to know what happened with the 13 Jan 2020 protocol and if it was disseminated that day.)
It was all very slickly organised and very tightly controlled from towards the end of 2019. In black and white that recommendation for 45ct for the 'test'..how to create and diagnose a 'pandemic' and get rich off the back of it. Drosten was integral to the ensuing destruction of people's lives, businesses and their important social connections. 'Cases' precipitated more and longer lockdowns, and they were 'cases' spun out of the Corman Drosten 'test'. The more times the con and the spin is exposed the better....because the 'power wielders' would rather it was forgotten, swept in to the dusty corners of everyday lives.
Massive shock to see Drosten involved 🤨
Yes, i agree. At least he is on the safe side, 45 cycles is a good and relieable number for the test. It would be dissapointing to have a test that finds nothing, we could have made the wrong assumption that noone is sick. 🤔
A patient sample: a mixture of particles of all kinds, bacteria, fungi, endogenous fragments, substances of unknown origin, drugs. Foetal bovine serum is added to this chaotic mixture to make it even more chaotic and then analysed. ............In Wuhan, an ophthalmologist (...?....) concluded that a man with cancer had an unusual and completely new lung disease. His patient sample, the chaotic mix of all of the above plus cancer cells, served as material for the sars 2 genome sequence.
Again: calculation of a sequence from a mixture.
However, Drosten did not have this smear at all while he was developing the "test". In a fit of honesty, Drosten once said that virus isolation was not possible anyway, that it rarely or never succeeds and that he was not sure whether the Chinese had been successful with it. In the following the head of virology at the Chinese CDC said in a television interview that nothing has ever been isolated.
So Drosten develops a test protocol and primer (starter molecules) for a test that is supposed to find something he has never had in his hands, without the chaotic patient sample, only on the basis of social media references and computer templates of other "viruses" that have also never been isolated, but come from mixtures of creatively calculated computer sequences.
And then things really got going.
Yes, thats strange to realise, Mr Drosten started with his test the pandemic, he pushed the red start button. How can he live with that ?
Presumably you are aware of the demolition of the Corman/Drosten nonsense re the PCR "test" by about 35 proper researchers, including Dr Thomas Binder.
I don't have it to hand right now but in the event you don't know it, I'll dig it out and post it.
Of course! See the articles here - some of which I co-authored.
https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/t/pcr-testing
Just making sure.
The more time that passes since the Great Covid Dumpster Fire, the more one thing becomes clear. Anyone who didn't make a crap-ton of money off it either wasn't trying hard enough or was too honest to attempt to do so. Hell, I'm starting to feel like I could have found a way to ride the scam. Drosten is almost as shameless as Bill Gates. (But only almost.) Dr. PFauci is in a class alone, however!
I don’t think Drosten made any money out of the PCR kits. As far as I know, he doesn’t have any financial interest in TIB-Molbiol. Landt surely did, and in the meanwhile TIB-Molbiol was acquired by Roche, which undoubtedly meant a further financial windfall for him.
BioNTech started first preclinical study already on January 14 in fact, which means its vaccine project must have started already in 2019! (I reconstruct the timeline here: https://brownstone.org/articles/biontech-pfizer-vax-timeline/.) This is probably why the European Investment Bank provided a first 50 million euros in debt financing to BioNTech in mid-December 2019. It is worth noting in this connection that Eurosurveillance is also funded by the EU. Furthermore, it’s a largely German operation. The Editor-in-Chief Ines Steffens is a German epidemiologist. (She did her MD at the University of Mainz, where BioNTech was founded). I believe her second-in-command, Kathrin Hagmaier, is also German. Drosten himself is on the editorial board.
The potential conflicts of interest are in fact to be found everywhere In this story. It’s not just Drosten and Landt…
As @michaelpalmer has said, the creation of the SARS-CoV-2 “pandemic” scare was “not the first rodeo” for those involved. I guess he had in mind Drosten’s (maybe others’?) involvement with SARS-1…
As an academic, he profits professionally regardless.
While Drosten didn’t (TMK) ever say this, anytime an academic says they are doing something pro bono or purely for scholarly purposes, they ignore the fact that they benefit in other ways. Not all incentives are monetary in a direct or immediate fashion, and not all profit is financial.
Furthermore, even if Drosten didn’t receive a “cut” of testing sales, we have no clue what consulting contracts, one-time fees, stock options, other perks, or future opportunities he received as a result of his testing or COVID-related enterprises.
I agree that it’s not just Drosten who should be probed re: conflicts. He’s listed fourth of the Germans on the original protocol and LAST on the Eurosurveillance paper — which in academia is the “lowest” position on a paper. So I do find it rather funny that he is the focus of the credit/blame…which could have more to do with his SARS-1 endeavors and general notoriety.
cc: @Jonathan Engler @Clare Craig
Early on in 2021 I came across the analysis of the PCR scam, the Mulliss interviews etc and the rather obvious reality that the pandemic wouldn’t exist without the test … it was always a “casedemic” as someone once opined. The question that remains for me is just how this was so carefully controlled from what appears to be a relatively small group of well-connected insiders and sociopaths, how is it that public health authorities, health ministers etc around the world at every level just swallowed the bullshit unquestioningly, they can’t all have been so credulous or uncritical could they? Was it peer pressure, in-group preferencing, fear, panic?
This is a quote of Christian Drosten from 2014 when he was asked about the PCR test in an interview about MERS. (Translated from the German.)
"... the method is so sensitive it can identify a single genetic molecule. If such a pathogen for example were to be found lying dormant in a nurse all day in the mucous membrane of her nose, she would be identified as a MERS case without being ill, or even being aware of it. Where previously only critically ill patients were recorded in the statistics, those with very mild symptoms and even completely healthy people were now included. This what explains the surge in cases in Saudi Arabia. This is further exacerbated by the sensational reporting of the local media."
Source: "What Covid-19 Can Teach Us" by Dr. med. Thomas Hardtmuth 2021. (English Translation by Bernard Jarman.) The author is a general and thoracic surgeon with research specialisation in virology and the role of viruses in nature and evolution.
Endnote 28 in this short book has the most succinct characterisation of PCR I have met:
The PCR test is essentially a linear test which does not measure 'either/or' but 'how many'.
As regards the PCR test it is just a load of CRP (sic).
https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/2022/05/03/pcr-and-rapid-lateral-flow-tests/
Christian Drosten, 'In him horrid arse Satan chi cretin', only one of many suitable anagrams of his full name, Christian Heinrich Maria Drosten.
Even Christian Drosten on its own gives us 'horridness intact'.
https://baldmichael.substack.com/p/christian-drosten-german-virologist?utm_source=publication-search
45 cycles is normal. How far the machine attempts to take it is not the same as what is interpreted. The important bit is only calling a positive if you see exponential growth that crosses the *cycle threshold.* The threshold is determined based on the opinion of the scientists using the controls and any positive samples as a guide to where it should be. You then see how many cycles had taken place at the point where it crosses. If that is 45 the result is meaningless. In terms of any possiblity of transmission anything over 25 was meaningless for SARS-CoV-2 testing. Ultimately where the threshold is places is massively subjective - you need well trained scientists making a fair assessment. For covid this was done by AI provided in numerous countries by UgenTec. The UK government were successfully sued over the signing of the contract with UgenTec by DiagnosticsAI. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54455666
Normal for what?
"Intended use by intended users" is a key principle in measurement and assessment of any kind (not just in medicine - across disciplines and fields).
It was violated many times over by scientists and public health in 2020+. Practice runs occurred in 2003 and 2009 with faked pandemics and, in smaller ways, with the 2014 ebola "crisis," Zika, etc.
Evidence of human-to-human transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is very, very thin. It is inferred, not demonstrated.
Patterns in clinical observations did not precede the deployment of mass testing in hospitals. Pierre Kory's testimonies reinforce this point.
Do you (or does anyone) have a source/citation for "12-13 Jan WHO accepts the Drosten test as gold standard"? I ask because I had looked for purposes of this timeline and couldn't find it: https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/timeline-the-naming-of-sars-cov-2
All I could find is what I said for 13 Jan 2020:
Corman-Drosten testing protocol released. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/wuhan-virus-assay-v1991527e5122341d99287a1b17c111902.pdf
A note on page 1 explains which terms are used to refer to the viral agent being targeted for detection. No distinction between virus and disease is made.
"Abbreviations and taxonomy related to the Wuhan virus are not used in any systematic way, i.e., there are multiple different designations and abbreviations for the “Wuhan virus” in this document. They all relate to the same viral agent. We use the term “SARS-related Coronavirus” to include the SARS virus as well as the clade of betacoronaviruses known to be associated with (mainly) rhinolophid bats across the Palearctic. The latest taxonomy classifies these viruses in a subgenus termed Sarbecovirus."
FWIW, the ct is 45 on the 13 Jan 2020 version of the protocol (linked above) too.
I agree there were financial conflicts of interest and I read Drosten's emails in the ICTV-CSG correspondence accordingly. Especially on February 13, 2020, his devil-may-care attitude can be attributed in part to the fact that making money irrespective of the conflict with the WHO and Chinese virologists over the name of the virus and the "disease" (as was Bart Haagman, another author on the protocol who was also on the CSG) https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/the-sars-cov-2-name-game-long-read
Source seems to be this. Of course, "gold standard" is a term of art rather than an officially defined term, so indeed, it is not declared as such by the WHO in that document. However, if we regard the phrase as meaning "the best test, by which we judge other tests" I think it's reasonable to claim that the WHO declared the test as "gold standard" given the content, tone and existence of the 13 Jan document.
https://x.com/theotherphilipp/status/1364954560758956048
Yes, I see what you're saying. "Gold standard" is simply a characterization meaning that because the WHO shared it, the WHO considered it the standard to be used.
What I wasn't able to verify from "The Other Phillip's" thread is whether the WHO ACTUALLY uploaded it on 13 Jan 2020 (ie, it was actually shared/distributed that day). I had previously checked Wayback to see if that was the case, but could not verify, as the PDF only goes back to Feb 2020. https://web.archive.org/web/20200701000000*/https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/wuhan-virus-assay-v1991527e5122341d99287a1b17c111902.pdf
That is why I used the passive voice i.e., "Corman-Drosten protocol was released" versus saying anything about the WHO anointing or endorsing it on that day. If we had emails or some other records showing the WHO sent it out or published it, then I could change the wording.
(I recognize this is me being somewhat pedantic, but I really would like to know what happened with the 13 Jan 2020 protocol and if it was disseminated that day.)