It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Found This External Peer Review of the RTPCR Test and What it Says Might Surprise You

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 27 2020 @ 08:05 PM
The link I'm posting is to the PDF version of a report done on the Covid 19 test and it's efficacy. Apparently the Cormen-Drosten paper (the paper that supposedly shows the RTPCR test's ability to diagnose Covid) was published about 24 hours after being submitted for peer review. But there's way more to it than that, even. But unfortunately I'm not feeling the whole typing it out thing, not to mention I don't want to poison the well by pointing out the information. Definitely worth a read, [snipped] e_molecular_and_methodological_level_consequences_for_false_positive_results


link is to a PDF download
edit on Sun Dec 27 2020 by DontTreadOnMe because: Community Announcement re: Decorum

posted on Dec, 27 2020 @ 08:26 PM
I'd already caught on to the extreme numbers of cycles they were recommending the test be run at. It's 38 cycles per the FDA.

posted on Dec, 27 2020 @ 09:21 PM
a reply to: ZogJones

Many different organizations are looking into this and similar issues because we now have what we need to generate a valid test. They bring up valid points, the test isn’t inaccurate but it could be better. Honestly, the fact that the authors have a perceived conflict of interest should be enough for the paper to have issues.

It is still a preprint and I’m sure will be modified and changed as they move to publish and undergo peer review.

It definitely needs work and with so many different labs using different protocols and testing equipment, creating a standardized process could be challenging.

ETA: Looks like the rapid antigen tests will have problems of their own.

Lancet - Rapid Antigen Buyer Beware

edit on 27-12-2020 by TheAMEDDDoc because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2020 @ 12:41 AM
some thoughts apart from clear conflict of interest.

NWO puppet mr. drosten was also involved in the MERS and SARS scam some years ago that also were just media hyped deseases and maybe test runs for the real thing now.

the corona pcr test was ready middle of january, at a time when hardly anyone knew about sars-cov-2. but drosten et al sure had knowledge about it from event 201

the corona pcr test seems to be designed that way to create as many positives as possible.
results are abnormal high numbers of "infected" to feed the media panic narrative.

the pcr test practically gives no hint if a person is infected or infectious and, therefore, is useless to estimate the real number of infections.

my personal belief is that 50-70% of positive people do not have an infection.
same applys for the panic number "covid-19 deaths".

posted on Dec, 28 2020 @ 08:37 AM
a reply to: ZogJones
This does not surprise me since we are seeing people in Europe using the mail in tests on tables, bananas, dogs, and even just opening the stick and putting it into the shipping vial and all coming back positive. Also our boi Musky even noted issues when he took 4 rapid tests with conflicting results.

Elon Musk sowed doubts about the accuracy of coronavirus tests on Friday — just hours after tweeting that he took four rapid tests with conflicting results.

Two tests came back negative, two came back positive. Same machine, same test, same nurse.

NYP Article

top topics

log in