IN Parts 1 and 2 of this series, I investigated the failings of the real time RT-PCR test in detecting Covid-19 and the controversies associated with the Corman-Drosten research paper that published its workings.
In Part 3 today, I go further into these controversies and report on the subsequent launch of the largest class-action lawsuit in history, led by Dr Reiner Fuellmich, centring on the charge of the fraudulently marketed PCR test.
Turning first to the authors of the Corman-Drosten (CD) paper published in Eurosurveillance on January 23, 2020, one of the two lead authors, German virologist Professor Christian Drosten, was one of the first scientists to identify the SARS virus and develop a testing kit for it in 2003. It was his close associate and co-author’s company (Olfert Landt’s TIB Molbiol) that was first to come to market with the SARS testing kit and then later with the RT-PCR testing kit for SARS-CoV-2.
Marco Kaiser, another co-author of the CD paper, is also a scientific adviser to TIB Molbiol. Though there are clear and significant conflicts of interests, they were not stated in the original CD paper. However, after Eurosurveillance’s editorial team were contacted regarding this controversy (and after Drosten and Landt had denied they had a conflict of interest) the paper was finally updated on July 29, 2020, to include the conflict of interest for Landt and Kaiser. Drosten’s name was not included in the conflicts of interests statement as one of the editors of Eurosurveillance.
Drosten was turned into an overnight star after developing the real time RT- PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, which was accepted as the standard of testing by the World Health Organisation. On March 17, 2020, the German weekly magazine Stern published an article headlined ‘This is how Christian Drosten became the most important man in Germany.’
Drosten is the director of the Institute of Virology at Berlin’s Charité hospital, one of Germany’s largest university hospitals, which happens to be a recipient of generous grants from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Dr Victor Corman, the other lead author of the paper, also works at Charité’s Institute of Virology. Drosten’s evaluations have heavily influenced German government policy on mandatory mask wearing, school closures and lockdowns.
Looking into Dorsten’s career history, we find he was heavily involved in Germany’s swine flu controversy in 2009. He predicted: ‘It is a widespread viral infection with side-effects far more severe than anyone could imagine from the most dangerous vaccine.’ At his urging, hundreds of millions of euros was spent on a rushed-through vaccine, GlaxoSmithKline’s Pandemrix. His doomsday prophesy never came to pass, with only 30 confirmed swine flu deaths in Germany. However Pandemrix proved to have severe consequences, with links to narcolepsy in both children and adults. Dorsten’s doomsday prediction echoes that of Professor Neil Ferguson detailed in my investigation into Sage. He similarly warned of 65,000 deaths from swine flu in the UK in 2009; in fact only 457 deaths were linked to the virus. Based on Ferguson’s model, the government spent £1.2billion to prepare for the swine flu pandemic. More than 20million doses of vaccine were left over.
Another co-author of the CD research paper is Professor Maria Zambon, a British virologist who is a member of Sage and Nervtag and is on the WHO International Health Regulations emergency committee. Zambon is also director of Reference Microbiology for Public Health England. She is highly influential, both in the UK and on the world stage.
In Part 1 of my investigative report, I wrote that the WHO accepted the Corman-Drosten PCR testing protocol of which Zambon is a co-author for the novel coronavirus as early as January 13, 2020, knowing full well that it had not been peer-reviewed at that stage. It was however supposedly ‘peer-reviewed’ in an unprecedented 24 hours, the time between when the paper was submitted (January 21) and published (January 23) in Eurosurveillance. This ‘official’ peer review has inexplicably never been released, even after repeated requests by an international consortium of scientists. What’s also odd is that the WHO did not declare the novel virus to be a pandemic until almost two months later on March 11, 2020. The question of whether, as a co-author of the CD paper, Zambon’s influential ties with the WHO helped garner their instant approval of it certainly needs asking.
A close associate of Zambon at PHE’s Virus Reference Department (VRD) based in Colindale, London, is Dr Joanna Ellis, another co-author of the CD paper. She works as the scientific lead in the Respiratory Virus Unit (RVU). The VRD is a WHO-accredited national laboratory. It’s hard not to draw the conclusion that both Zambon and Ellis would have heavily influenced the way the UK government responded to the novel virus by quickly implementing a mass testing programme on an epic scale, using the Corman-Drosten protocol of real time RT-PCR testing for the virus.
As I discussed in Part 1, billions of pounds was spent by the UK government on the country’s mass PCR testing programme that has been proved to be ‘not fit for purpose’ and a tragic waste of taxpayers’ money. What’s even more tragic is the way it’s been used to justify the deadly perpetual lockdowns which have devastated lives and led to hundreds of thousands of non-Covid deaths.
What’s also interesting to note is that in the CD paper published in Eurosurveillance, the authors claimed ‘before public release of virus sequences from cases of 2019-nCoV, we relied on social media reports [my emphasis] announcing detection of a SARS-like virus. We thus assumed that a SARS-related CoV is involved in the outbreak’. They go on to report that ‘we downloaded all complete and partial SARS-related virus sequences available in GenBank by 1 January 2020’. This appears to be a significant anomaly as the research paper begins by stating: ‘A novel coronavirus currently termed 2019-nCoV was officially announced as the causative agent by Chinese authorities on 7 January.’
It’s highly questionable why, more than a week before the Chinese authorities officially announced a novel coronavirus named 209-nCoV (later renamed SARS-CoV-2) as ‘the causative agent’, the co-authors decided to ‘rely’ on social media that a SARS-like virus had been detected. The next step they took was to download all the SARS related sequences ‘by January 1’ to develop an RT-PCR test designed to detect this new virus whose genome sequence was not officially been published until January 10.
In November, 2020, the 22-strong International Consortium of Scientists in Life Sciences (ICSLS) officially challenged the Corman-Drosten (CD) paper, submitting their own external peer review to Eurosurveillance. The lead author was Dr Pieter Borger and among the co-authors was Dr Michael Yeadon, former vice president of Pfizer. I referenced this in Part 1, saying that the external peer review found ten major flaws of the RT-PCR test in detecting SARS-CoV-2. They strongly criticised the CD paper for not undergoing a legitimate peer review and for its ‘flawed science’, and they called its authors ‘intellectually dishonest’.
This brings me to Dr Reiner Fuellmich, a top German and US trial lawyer, who has won unprecedented lawsuits against Deutsche Bank and Volkswagen. He is leading a team of 34 lawyers (the group is called the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry) seeking to prosecute global officials over Covid-19 lockdowns in the largest class-action lawsuit in history. The lawsuits will be launched in Canada and the US, and then can be joined by ‘all affected parties worldwide’.
A February 2021 article in the Alberta Press states that the suit will ‘target those they believe are responsible for the lockdowns, from local level politicians to the World Health Organisation (WHO) and pharmaceutical companies. They seek damages for people negatively impacted by lockdowns, saying it is a deliberate crime against humanity and must be legally qualified as crimes against humanity, as defined in Section 7 of the International Criminal Code.’
Fuellmich explains: ‘Our focus is upon the PCR test because if we manage to convince a court of law that this is a fraudulent PCR test being marketed with the assertion that it can detect infection – if we can convince a court of law that this is a false statement – then the whole house of cards is going to come crashing down.’
In a video presentation posted on YouTube in October 2020 Fuellmich explains how since July 2020 he and his team have been listening to the testimonies of a large number of international scientists and experts ‘to find answers to questions about the corona crisis that people worldwide are asking’.
He goes on to argue why ‘this corona crisis must be renamed a corona scandal and [why] those responsible for it must be criminally prosecuted and sued for civil damages . . . so that no one will ever again be in a position of such power as to be able to defraud humanity with their corrupt agendas.’
I for one can’t wait to see how this case will unfold. Humanity is counting on it.