Who tests the testers?

The entire (and almost worldwide) scandal that has been shattering national economies all over the planet is based on a hoax of an infection test.

F. William Engdahl, a strategic risk consultant and lecturer, reveals the details in his well-documented article published by New Eastern Outlook.

The widely-praised German model designed to test the COVID-19 pandemic is now engulfed in a series of potentially devastating scandals, Engdahl writes.

These scandals, he adds, are going to the very heart of the testing and medical advice being used to declare draconian economic shutdowns and next, de facto mandatory vaccinations. The scandals, Engdahl adds, involve a professor at the heart of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s coronavirus advisory group. The implications go far beyond German borders to the very top of the World Health Organization (WHO) itself.

Here’s what happened

A test introduced amazingly early on in the Wuhan, China coronavirus saga has become the reason for the emergency lockdowns of businesses, schools, churches and other social arenas worldwide.

The scientific journal Eurosurveillance (of the EU Centre for Disease Prevention and Control) published, as early as January 23, 2020, a study by Dr. Christian Drosten, along with several colleagues from the Berlin Virology Institute at Charite Hospital, along with the head of a small Berlin biotech company, TIB Molbiol Syntheselabor GmbH. They claimed to have developed an effective test to detect whether someone is infected with the novel coronavirus identified first only days earlier in Wuhan. The Drosten article was titled, Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR (Eurosurveillance 25(8) 2020).

Director General of WHO, Tedros Adhanom, the first non-medical doctor to head WHO, endorsed the study almost immediately. The Drosten-backed test for the virus would become known as a real-time or RT-PCR test, has spread via WHO worldwide. It is now the most used test protocol to determine if a person might suffer from a COVID-19-caused illness.

It took a highly-respected group of 23 international virologists, microbiologists and related scientists almost a year to publish (on November 27) a call demanding that Eurosurveillance retract the January 23, 2020 Drosten article. Their study accuses Drosten et al. of “fatal” scientific incompetence and flaws in promoting their test.

Not only was the Drosten PCR test for the Wuhan strain of coronavirus never reviewed by his peers, but nobody questioned it after it had caused severe lockdowns globally and an economic and social catastrophe, either.

Besides, Engdahl quotes the critics, “the Corman-Drosten paper was submitted to Eurosurveillance on January 21st 2020 and accepted for publication on January 22nd 2020. On January 23rd 2020 the paper was online.”

Not only that: Drosten sent his test protocol to WHO in Geneva on 17 January, and WHO officially recommended its use a worldwide testing tool to determine presence of Wuhan coronavirus even before the paper had been published.

It would be perfectly impossible to obtain a serious peer review from at least two experts in the field within 24 hours, the critics point out.

On top of all that, neither Drosten nor his co-author Dr. Chantal Reusken, bothered to disclose a glaring conflict of interest: they both sat on Eurosurveillance’s editorial board.

And another co-author of the Drosten paper who was supposed to add to the cover of apparent scientific credibility to the procedure was head of the company that, blessed by WHO, developed the test being marketed today. Olfert Landt, of Tib-Molbiol in Berlin never disclosed that pertinent fact in the Drosten paper, either.

Besides, the critics question the haste as at the time of publication not many had been aware of the potential worldwide panic.

How about those false positives?

The mainstream media of the world has inundated its users with frightening hourly updates on “the total number of coronavirus infected.”

A major howler: what they do is they simply add each daily increase to a global total of “confirmed cases,” presently over 66 million. Alarming, Engdahl notes, but for the fact that, as Pieter Borger and his fellow scientific collaborators point out, “confirmed cases” is a nonsense number. Why?

For example, the Drosten group gave confusing unspecified primer and probe sequences. As the critics note, “This high number of variants not only is unusual, but it also is highly confusing for laboratories. These six unspecified positions could easily result in the design of several different alternative primer sequences which do not relate to SARS-CoV-2… the confusing unspecific description in the Corman-Drosten paper is not suitable as a Standard Operational Protocol. These unspecified positions should have been designed unequivocally.”

Complex for us non-scientists, but easily explained as saying the experiments were supposed to give a specific result, meaning they had been adjusted for the result, not for the truth.

And, the critical scientists add, “RT-PCR is not recommended for primary diagnostics of infection. This is why the RT-PCR Test used in clinical routine for detection of COVID-19 is not indicated for COVID-19 diagnosis on a regulatory basis.”

The emperor has no clothes

It would have been expected that a test for infection would define positive and negative results and be very specific about the differences between them.

Drosten does not tip-toe around this, he just ignores the topic, his critics say, adding: “These types of virological diagnostic tests must be based on a SOP (Standard Operational Protocol), including a validated and fixed number of PCR cycles (Ct value) after which a sample is deemed positive or negative. The maximum reasonably reliable Ct value is 30 cycles. Above a Ct of 35 cycles, rapidly increasing numbers of false positives must be expected… scientific studies show that only non-infectious (dead) viruses are detected with Ct values of 35.”

Here’s one of the consequences: as the number of tests is ramped up in the onset of winter flu season, PCR “positives” in Germany and elsewhere explode.

The critics continue disassembling the RT-PCR Test in considerable detail, and Engdahl reports them in similar detail.

Here’s the conclusion: the existing PCR test for coronavirus is not worth the price of paper it has been printed on. Everything the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the sundry governments, the WHO and World Economic Forum (WEF) have stood for, as well as the de facto forced untested vaccines, is based on a con.

So, in Engdahl’s own words, the test of Drosten and WHO is more or less, scientific crap.

Who are these guys?

Engdahl has also established another minor issue of major proportions: Professor Dr. Christian Drosten (and the officials at Frankfurt’s Goethe University, where he claims to have received his medical doctorate in 2003), are being accused of degree fraud.

Dr. Markus Kühbacher who specializes in probing scientific fraud (dissertation plagiarism, for example) says not everything is right with Dr. Drosten’s doctor thesis. It ought to be deposited on a certain date with academic authorities at his University. They, in turn, sign a legal form known as Revisionsschein. They must attach their signatures, stamp of the University and date, with thesis title and author. The whole thing then goes to the University archive, including three original copies of the thesis.

According to Kühbacher, the Goethe University has been claiming that Drosten’s Revisionsschein was on file. It wasn’t, and the University spokesman would admit later that it either was not filed, or they just couldn’t find it.

Also, two of the three mandated copies of Drosten’s thesis have “disappeared,” and the remaining single copy seems to be difficult to read. Damaged by water, apparently.

Kühbacher says Drosten will now likely face court charges for holding a fraudulent doctoral title.

Meanwhile, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, the German physician who had proven, following a European Union probe into the matter about a dozen years ago, that the WHO had changed its criteria for determining what kind of spread of what kind of illnesses exists.

The change made the new criteria perfectly irrelevant, and some WHO medical experts ended up receiving (and accepting) lucrative offers from pharmaceutical companies involved in creating medications to treat the then-existing flu viruses.

Dr. Wodarg is now suing the German medical establishment for defamation of character and material damages, because they had called him a “covid-denier.”

What’s at stake?

It is not only the question of the artificially-driven panic campaign.

It has been more and more obvious that the idea behind it was establishing total control over the population worldwide.

People, scared out of their minds, do not even realize that all the hoopla about vaccines is bogus: vaccines are not supposed to treat, they are supposed to prevent.

The question of the vaccines themselves is very involved: nobody other than their creators knows in any useful detail what they consist of, and what potential side effects they can cause.

But the question is elsewhere: it is a strange mix of Marxist and Malthusian utopias, as promoted by WEF’s Klaus Martin Schwab, and self-appointed virologist Bill Gates.

WHO chief Tedros Adhanom is no medical doctor. The WHO is financed massively by Gates, who also advises various governments on COVID-19 measures. The frightfully questionable Drosten PCR test has become the major measuring stick that determines when to impose the most draconian economic measures outside wartime.

All that in the name of the so-called Great Reset, so aptly dubbed by Armstrong Economics as feudalist socialism.

15 thoughts on “Who tests the testers?

  1. Werner Hiob December 12, 2020 at 18:22 Reply

    Excellent article!

    _____

  2. Kathlene December 26, 2020 at 00:04 Reply

    Well composed articles like yours renews my faith in today’s writers.You’ve written information I can finally
    agree on and also use.Maany thanks for sharing.

  3. greekfemalevoice ( December 26, 2020 at 00:13 Reply

    Hello There. Ifound your blog using google. This is an exttremely well written article.
    I’ll make surte to bookmark it and return to rad more of your useful information. Thanks for the
    post. I’ll certainly return.

  4. Bryon January 2, 2021 at 00:22 Reply

    Excellent post. I was checking continuously
    this blog and I am impressed! Extremely useful information. I care for such information a lot.
    I was looking for this certain information for a very
    long time.Thank you and good luck.

  5. εταιρικο βιντεο January 2, 2021 at 00:22 Reply

    Hello everyone, it’s my first visit at this website, and piece
    of writing is genuinely fruitful designed for me,
    keep up posting such articles or reviews.

  6. #greekvoiceover January 2, 2021 at 00:24 Reply

    Would love to perpetually get updated outstanding web blog!

  7. ραδιοφωνικά σποτ January 5, 2021 at 00:30 Reply

    Fabulous, what a webb site it is! This web site provides useful data to us, keep iit up.

  8. Doretha January 6, 2021 at 00:02 Reply

    I think this is one of the most important information for
    me. And i am glad reading your article. But wanna remark on few general things, Thhe
    web site style is perfect, the artgicles is really great!

  9. when can you use medicare January 9, 2021 at 09:29 Reply

    Hey! This is my first comment heree so I just wanted to give a quick shout out and ssay
    I trul enjoy reading through your articles. Appreciate it!

  10. Greek Female Voice Over March 14, 2021 at 07:00 Reply

    Hello! Do you use Twitter? I’d like to
    follow you if that would be okay. I’m definitely enjoying your blog and look forward
    too nnew articles.

  11. annual mileage April 12, 2021 at 14:29 Reply

    Great delivery. Great arguments. Keep up the amazing spirit.

  12. Property Tax Lawyer April 15, 2021 at 04:51 Reply

    Pretty! This has been an extremely wonderful post. Thamks for providing this info.

  13. places to donate cars April 15, 2021 at 04:55 Reply

    Pretty! This has bren an extremely wonderfful post. Thanks for providing this
    info.

  14. Geri April 15, 2021 at 04:57 Reply

    Well composed articles like yours renews my faith in today’s writers.You’ve written information I can finally agree on and
    also use.Many thanks for sharing.

  15. Private medical Insurance April 15, 2021 at 05:08 Reply

    Hello there! Would you mind if I share your blog with my twitter group?
    There’s a lot of people that I think would realply appreciate your content.Please let me know.
    Thanks!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: