Comments from "Normon Pilon" responding to Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg's insightful article Covid19: A case for medical detectives (an excellent English version republished on Off-Guardian):
Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg posts several links on his website to studies by Drosten et al. that ‘prove’ that their test targets viruses known to have been established in the human virome well before the so-called emergence of sars-cov-2.
One link references a study from as early as November 2010, titled:
Genomic Characterization of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Related Coronavirus in European Bats and Classification of Coronaviruses Based on Partial RNA-dependent RNA Polymerase Gene Sequences
But especially interesting is a study referenced from January 2014, titled:
Ecology, Evolution and Classification of Bat Coronaviruses in the Aftermath of SARS
From the abstract of that study, you can quote the following:
We then present evidence for a zoonotic origin of four of the six known human CoVs (HCoV), three of which likely involved bats, namely SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and HCoV-229E; compare the available data on CoV pathogenesis in bats to that in other mammalian hosts; and discuss hypotheses on the putative insect origins of CoV ancestors.
(The emphasis is mine.)
Now put that together with this quote from the detection study of the 2019 novel coronavirus:
"These virus-positive samples stemmed from European rhinolophid bats. Detection of these phylogenetic outliers within the SARS-related CoV clade suggests that all Asian viruses are likely to be detected."
Clearly, then, the Drosten test is sensitive to a range of viruses known since at least 2014 to have been established in the human (and other) virome(s). Thus, indeed, as Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg asserts: “Drosten’s test detects SARS-like viruses, that preexisted worldwide before Wuhan.”
If you are testing for a pathogen already widespread in a population, it’s not the pathogen that’s novel and propagating, but your testing and its misleading results. In effect, the so-called ‘pandemic’ is an artifact of the testing.
In another comment, Pilon further explains how the PCR test used all over the world to detect the "novel" (i.e., novel to us) corona virus is nonspecific:
Drosten et al. designed a PCR test presumed to specifically target the also presumed unique RNA signature of the hypothetical (because as yet to be isolated) SARS-CoV-2 virus, but in the absence of any actual RNA samples of the actual SARS-CoV-2 virus:
"In the present case of 2019-nCoV, virus isolates or samples from infected patients have so far not become available to the international public health community. We report here on the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation, designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens. Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology."
(The emphasis is mine)
Source: Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR
The test which is supposed to be specific to SARS-CoV-2 has been validated by ‘positive’ readings of genetic material related “to the 2003 SARS-CoV.”
Therefore, the test reacts to — exactly as Wolfgang Wodarg has put it — “SARS-like viruses.”
To emphasize the point: the test, on Drosten’s own admission, is LESS THAN specific to SARS-CoV-2, since something OTHER THAN SARS-CoV-2 has been relied upon to ‘validate’ the test.
And to repeat: Drosten’s 2014 study, referred to above, established the fact that the “SARS-like viruses” at hand, i.e., likely involving bats, are also likely part and parcel of “four of the six known human CoVs (HCoV),” that is to say, likely to include elements of those phylogenetic outliers from the European rhinolophid bats that were used to ‘validate’ the test.
I think, therefore, that Dr. Wodarg is quite justified in his assertions about the non-specificity of the Dosten test, to which Drosten et al. themselves attest.
No comments:
Post a Comment