The Drosten Paper
Along with Neil Ferguson’s predictions that over two million could die from a novel coronavirus in the USA, there was also a scientific paper that laid the foundation for what would occur in 2020.
Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR, the so-called Drosten paper (named after one of its authors), has the following statement in the Abstract section:
Aim: We aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings without having virus material available.
And from the Introduction section of the Drosten paper is this statement:
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.
It’s a straightforward declaration that they developed a test without having samples of the virus. But, how can it be claimed that a test for a virus can be made without a virus to use as a reference point? Subsequently, when the WHO directed countries to “test, test, test” it was the RT-PCR test that was to be used. Together, the WHO’s guidance and the PCR test laid a pseudo-scientific foundation for the lockdown. The WHO also recommended that PCR be used with a high “cycle threshold” that ensured a large number of positive test outcomes. (Think of a high cycle threshold as analogous to the volume on an amplifier turned up so high that random background noise becomes deafening.)
Cease and desist papers served on Prof. Dr. Christian Drosten by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich
The above describes the basic elements of the illegitimate lockdown. Below are some excerpts from Cease and desist papers served on Prof. Dr. Christian Drosten by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich which make a far stronger case. While these excerpts cover the essential elements, you can refer to the paper for the details.
1. The first false claim: No basic immunity
But the World Health Organisation, too, has itself meanwhile indirectly conceded that the mortality is not higher than that of a normal flu.
2. The second false claim: symptomless risk of infection
The assumption that a person can fall ill with COVID-19 completely unnoticed and pass the virus on to other people similarly unnoticed, and without obvious symptoms, is without evidence and is only supported by almost frighteningly weak studies.
3. The third false claim: PCR-based diagnostics
Without the lie of a symptom-free risk of infection, no one would have come up with the idea of testing even perfectly healthy people for SARS-CoV-2 using PCR. In reality, PCR-based diagnostics are fraught with so many sources of error that it was downright irresponsible to introduce them for symptomless people:
4. The fourth false claim: the menace of overload of the health care systems
There was no sign of an overload of the healthcare system. On the contrary, the clinics suffered from a lack of capacity utilization because essential medical services were not provided for other patients for fear there might be a big rush of COVID-19 patients at some point. Doctors and nursing staff were put on short-time work.
5. The fifth false claim: Restriction on freedom can be beneficial
Finally, the assumption that individual or collective restrictions on liberty had any positive effect on management of the pandemic is in no way tenable. Rather, the opposite is the case.
In making the case that lockdowns were never necessary the document states “It is not the virus but only test results that are spreading exponentially.”
Other legal challenges to the illegitimate lockdown
A German man celebrating his birthday in violation of the lockdown was acquitted and the court stated the lockdown was a “catastrophically wrong political decision with dramatic consequences for almost all areas of people’s lives.”
German tourists were detained in Portugal after testing positive for Covid-19. They were forced to stay in Portugal and to quarantine. The case went to court. The court ruled that the PCR was not proof that the tourists were infected.
“If a person has a positive PCR test at a cycle threshold of 35 or higher (as in most laboratories in the USA and Europe), the chances of a person being infected are less than 3%. The probability of a person receiving a false positive is 97% or higher ”.
Conclusion
Creating a test for a virus without having the virus seems about as sensible as searching for a burglar when there is no crime scene and no property reported stolen. The good news is that this odd state of affairs seems to be collapsing under the weight of its own poor logic.
Sources:
Christian Drosten & the Fraud Behind COVID 19 PCR Testing
Cease and desist papers served on Prof. Dr. Christian Drosten by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich
Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR
Full Paper:
German Court Rules That COVID-19 Lockdowns Are Unconstitutional
‘Test, test, test’: WHO chief’s coronavirus message to world