“Wildly-Inaccurate” PCR testing protocols – Inside Hillier’s request letter

The Corman-Drosten protocol is the “most commonly-used testing protocol in the world for detecting the SARS-CoV-2 virus which may, in certain cases, lead to the disease COVID-19.” – Hillier’s Request for Expedited Federal Investigation Into Scientific Fraud in Public Health Policies

The letter begins its discussion of the PCR test with a section titled “The world’s predominant, wildly-inaccurate PCR testing protocols are based on incomplete, theoretical genome sequences supplied by China.” It references the Court of Appeal of Lisbon that “concluded that this PCR test was producing as many as 97% false positives).” We referenced the court decision itself which has been translated here.

The decision gives reference to a study titled “Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction–Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures, Including 1941 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Isolates.” The study of 3790 inoculated samples when discussed how many positives were able to stay positive at different cycle thresholds.

It found the following;

“It can be observed that at Ct = 25, up to 70% of patients remain positive in culture and that at Ct = 30 this value drops to 20%. At Ct = 35, the value we used to report a positive result for PCR, <3% of cultures are positive. ” – Oxford Academic

Corman and Drosten were provided with “theoretical” genome sequences by Chinese scientists used to create PCR protocol

The letter says that the genome sequences used to create their PCR protocol (Corman and Drosten) were provided by Chinese scientists including Yong-Zhen Zhang and Shi Zhengli, Director at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It then gives reference to this document from the World Health Organization titled “Diagnostic detection of 2019-nCoV by real-time RT-PCR.”

The letter states;

“Corman and Drosten were provided in silico (theoretical) genome sequences used to create their PCR protocol by Chinese scientists including Yong-Zhen Zhang and Shi Zhengli, Director at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. (These genome sequences were then posted to the open-source depository Virological.org on January 10, 2020). The Corman-Drosten Protocol was submitted to the WHO on January 13, eight days prior to the date it was submitted to the medical journal Eurosurveillance for “peer review.”

The WHO released the Corman-Drosten Protocol on January 21, the same day it was submitted to Eurosurveillance. Drosten sits on the board of Eurosurveillance, a conflict of interest. The Corman-Drosten Protocol was accepted by Eurosurveillance the very next day, January 22 (the same day the WHO confirmed human-to-human transmission), an extraordinarily quick turnaround.”

Editorial Board Eurosurveillance

The WHO released the Corman-Drosten Protocol on January 21, the same day it was submitted to Eurosurveillance. Driosten sits on the board of Eurosurveillance, a conflict of interest.

Randy Hillier letter to call for investigation into scientific fraud in Public Health Policies

Hillier’s letter calling for an investigation into scientific fraud of public health policies also references Pieter Borger’s report accompanied by 3 other researchers titled “External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false-positive results.”

You can find out more about Pieter Borger’s qualifications here.

Borger credentials

Pieter Borger introduction research gate website

Mr. Borger also points out that the Corman-Drosten paper was not peer-reviewed. Under a section in Borger’s paper titled “Summary catalogue of errors found in the paper,” Borger writes about a few points that stood out to us.

3 points from Borger’s paper

1.) “The test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments. Therefore, the test cannot be used as a diagnostic for intact (infectious) viruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus and make inferences about the presence of an infection.”

2.) “The test design in the Corman-Drosten paper is so vague and flawed that one can go in dozens of different directions; nothing is standardized and there is no SOP (standards of practice). This highly questions the scientific validity of the test and makes it unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus

3.) “We find severe conflicts of interest for at least four authors, in addition to the fact that two of the authors of the Corman-Drosten paper (Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken) are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance. A conflict of interest was added on July 29, 2020 (Olfert Landt is CEO of TIB-Molbiol; Marco Kaiser is a senior researcher at GenExpress and serves as the scientific advisor for TIB-Molbiol), that was not declared in the original version (and still is missing in the PubMed version); TIB-Molbiol is the company which was “the first” to produce PCR kits (Light Mix) based on the protocol published in the Corman-Drosten manuscript, and according to their own words, they distributed these PCR-test kits before the publication was even submitted [20]; further, Victor Corman & Christian Drosten failed to mention their second affiliation: the commercial test laboratory “Labor Berlin”. Both are responsible for the virus diagnostics there [21] and the company operates in the realm of real-time PCR-testing.”

Molecular biologist Pieter Borger and his team have submitted a retraction request for the Corman-Drosten PCR protocol.

“Corman and Drosten’s PCR protocol thus has every indication of being fraudulent”

The letter reads;

“The first and major issue is that the novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2… is based on in silico sequences, supplied by a laboratory in China because at the time neither control material of infectious (“live”) or inactivated SARS-CoV-2 nor isolated genomic RNA of the virus was available to the authors. To date, no validation has been performed by the authorship based on isolated SARS-Cov-2 viruses or full-length RNA thereof.”

In addition, “the primers and probes in Drosten’s protocol are incomplete and non-specific; the primer concentrations are four to five times too high.” The letter then brings up a peer-reviewed study from June that compared the accuracy of the COVID-19 PCR test protocols on the shortlist recommended by the WHO.

The PCR protocol was “developed by the CDC (the N2 US CDC protocol) – likewise based on in silico genome sequences supplied by China-fared little better than the Corman-Drosten protocol. The Corman-Drosten assay and N2 US CDC assays were positive for all specimens including “negative samples and negative controls (water).”

The letter then says “together these two PCR protocols account for the majority of COVID-19 PCR tests conducted in the Nations. Both rely on in silico sequences from China, and both produce wildly inaccurate results, testing positive for all specimens including negative samples and plain water.”

PCR testing protocols came from China Hillier’s request argues

The letter argues that the recommendation of a high cycle threshold count came from the WHO who based their guidance off of 3 studies from China that used cycle thresholds from 37 to 40.

They then reference something that Diverge Media reported on November 3rd, 2020 in our article titled “Bombshell Ontario runs PCR tests at fraudulent amplification levels” – Dr. Anthony Fauci stating that a cycle threshold of 35 or more should not be considered a positive result.

Article: *Bombshell* Ontario runs PCR tests at fraudulent amplification levels

The letter reads;

“As Dr. Anthony Fauci mentioned in a July 2020 interview, a cycle threshold of 35 or more should not be considered a positive result:

What is now sort of evolving into a bit of a standard…if you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more… the chances of it being replication-confident are minuscule… So, I think if somebody does come in with 37,38, even 36, you got to say, you know, it’s just dead nucleotides period.”

The letter points out that doctors interviewed by the New York Times agreed with Dr. Fauci that anything above 35 cycle thresholds is too sensitive. “A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35,” said Juliet Morrison virologist at UC Riverside. Dr. Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said he would set the figure at 30, or even less. Current testing standards in Canada range from 33-45. You can find the full list of cycle thresholds used at different labs across Canada in our article linked above.

We recently sent an inquiry into the Minister of Health and members of the Ministry of Health asking about Ontario’s cycle threshold data.

We’ve asked for the information on Ontario’s cycle threshold data

Diverge media email to Minister of Health and members of the Ministry of Health

Our questions to the Minister of Health and the Ministry of Health;

  1. What is the percentage of cases to date that are from PCR tests (not probable and not antigen tests)?
  2. What is the average number of cycles that the PCR test has had to be run at to obtain a positive result in Ontario? To reiterate, out of all positive PCR results in the province – what is the average cycle threshold count of those positive PCR tests?
  3. How many positive PCR tests were under a 25 cycle threshold count (as a percentage)?
  4. How many positive PCR tests (as a percentage) were over 35 cycles? How many were positive (as a percentage) at 40 cycles and over?
  5. Why don’t you list the cycle threshold number that was run to obtain a positive Covid result on the paperwork given to the patient?

The issues with the PCR test cannot be overstated. We need to know the answers to the questions above – and the answers to the doubts cast on the PCR test by Hillier’s letter.

As stated in the Oxford Academic study titled “Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction–Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures, Including 1941 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Isolates,” only 3 percent of positive PCR test results cultured at 35 or more cycle thresholds was actually positive.

“It can be observed that at Ct = 25, up to 70% of patients remain positive in culture and that at Ct = 30 this value drops to 20%. At Ct = 35, the value we used to report a positive result for PCR, <3% of cultures are positive. ” Oxford Academic

That is why our question to the Ministry of health is so important – if the majority of our positive tests come from a cycle threshold above 35 we can be sure that the number of positive cases is drastically overstated. This would mean that the entire lockdown would be based on completely inflated numbers. Not exactly something that can be justified considering the lives lost to suicide, overdoses, and the number of businesses destroyed.

Diverge Media is an independent Canadian media company dedicated to bringing you the stories that matter. We do not, and will not ever accept government funding for our work. Therefore, we rely entirely on the donations of generous readers/viewers. If ou would like to support our work you can do so by donating in the form below. All the best, The Diverge Media team.

Diverge Media Donation

$
Personal Info

1.00
Diverge Media Donation
Terms

Donation Total: $20.00

Published by Greg Staley

Greg Staley is a husband, and a father to 3 beautiful girls. He is a concerned citizen who is closely watching his government's actions through critical thinking, and assessment of all qualified and relevant data. He believes in going to the Primary sources of data at all times if possible.