3 years ago

480

Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t
11/08/2020 por JMS

By Gina Kolata

New York Times Monday, January 22, 2007

Dr. Brooke Herndon, an internist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, could not stop coughing. For two weeks starting in mid-April last year, she coughed, seemingly nonstop, followed by another week when she coughed sporadically, annoying, she said, everyone who worked with her. Before long, Dr. Kathryn Kirkland, an infectious disease specialist at Dartmouth, had a chilling thought: Could she be seeing the start of a whooping cough epidemic? By late April, other health care workers at the hospital were coughing, and severe, intractable coughing is a whooping cough hallmark. And if it was whooping cough, the epidemic had to be contained immediately because the disease could be deadly to babies in the hospital and could lead to pneumonia in the frail and vulnerable adult patients there.

It was the start of a bizarre episode at the medical center: the story of the epidemic that wasn’t. For months, nearly everyone involved thought the medical center had had a huge whooping cough outbreak, with extensive ramifications. Nearly 1,000 health care workers at the hospital in Lebanon, N.H., were given a preliminary test and furloughed from work until their results were in; 142 people, including Dr. Herndon, were told they appeared to have the disease; and thousands were given antibiotics and a vaccine for protection. Hospital beds were taken out of commission, including some in intensive care.

Then, about eight months later, health care workers were dumbfounded to receive an e-mail message from the hospital administration informing them that the whole thing was a false alarm. Not a single case of whooping cough was confirmed with the definitive test, growing the bacterium, Bordetella pertussis, in the laboratory. Instead, it appears the health care workers probably were afflicted with ordinary respiratory diseases like the common cold.

Now, as they look back on the episode, epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists say the problem was that they placed too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test that led them astray. Infectious disease experts say such tests are coming into increasing use and may be the only way to get a quick answer in diagnosing diseases like whooping cough, Legionnaire’s, bird flu, tuberculosis and SARS, and deciding whether an epidemic is under way. There are no national data on pseudo-epidemics caused by an overreliance on such molecular tests, said Dr. Trish M. Perl, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins and past president of the Society of Health Care Epidemiologists of America. But, she said, pseudo-epidemics happen all the time. The Dartmouth case may have been one the largest, but it was by no means an exception, she said. There was a similar whooping cough scare at Children’s Hospital in Boston last fall that involved 36 adults and 2 children. Definitive tests, though, did not find pertussis. “It’s a problem; we know it’s a problem,” Dr. Perl said. “My guess is that what happened at Dartmouth is going to become more common.”

Many of the new molecular tests are quick but technically demanding, and each laboratory may do them in its own way. These tests, called “home brews,” are not commercially available, and there are no good estimates of their error rates. But their very sensitivity makes false positives likely, and when hundreds or thousands of people are tested, as occurred at Dartmouth, false positives can make it seem like there is an epidemic. “You’re in a little bit of no man’s land,” with the new molecular tests, said Dr. Mark Perkins, an infectious disease specialist and chief scientific officer at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, a nonprofit foundation supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. “All bets are off on exact performance.”

Of course, that leads to the question of why rely on them at all. “At face value, obviously they shouldn’t be doing it,” Dr. Perl said. But, she said, often when answers are needed and an organism like the pertussis bacterium is finicky and hard to grow in a laboratory, “you don’t have great options.” Waiting to see if the bacteria grow can take weeks, but the quick molecular test can be wrong. “It’s almost like you’re trying to pick the least of two evils,” Dr. Perl said.

At Dartmouth the decision was to use a test, P.C.R., for polymerase chain reaction. It is a molecular test that, until recently, was confined to molecular biology laboratories. “That’s kind of what’s happening,” said Dr. Kathryn Edwards, an infectious disease specialist and professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University. “That’s the reality out there. We are trying to figure out how to use methods that have been the purview of bench scientists.” The Dartmouth whooping cough story shows what can ensue. To say the episode was disruptive was an understatement, said Dr. Elizabeth Talbot, deputy state epidemiologist for the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services. “You cannot imagine,” Dr. Talbot said. “I had a feeling at the time that this gave us a shadow of a hint of what it might be like during a pandemic flu epidemic.” Yet, epidemiologists say, one of the most troubling aspects of the pseudo-epidemic is that all the decisions seemed so sensible at the time. Dr. Katrina Kretsinger, a medical epidemiologist at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who worked on the case along with her colleague Dr. Manisha Patel, does not fault the Dartmouth doctors. “The issue was not that they overreacted or did anything inappropriate at all,” Dr. Kretsinger said. Instead, it is that there is often is no way to decide early on whether an epidemic is under way.

Before the 1940s when a pertussis vaccine for children was introduced, whooping cough was a leading cause of death in young children. The vaccine led to an 80 percent drop in the disease’s incidence, but did not completely eliminate it. That is because the vaccine’s effectiveness wanes after about a decade, and although there is now a new vaccine for adolescents and adults, it is only starting to come into use. Whooping cough, Dr. Kretsinger said, is still a concern.

The disease got its name from its most salient feature: Patients may cough and cough and cough until they have to gasp for breath, making a sound like a whoop. The coughing can last so long that one of the common names for whooping cough was the 100-day cough, Dr. Talbot said. But neither coughing long and hard nor even whooping is unique to pertussis infections, and many people with whooping cough have symptoms that like those of common cold: a runny nose or an ordinary cough. “Almost everything about the clinical presentation of pertussis, especially early pertussis, is not very specific,” Dr. Kirkland said. That was the first problem in deciding whether there was an epidemic at Dartmouth. The second was with P.C.R., the quick test to diagnose the disease, Dr. Kretsinger said. With pertussis, she said, “there are probably 100 different P.C.R. protocols and methods being used throughout the country,” and it is unclear how often any of them are accurate. “We have had a number of outbreaks where we believe that despite the presence of P.C.R.-positive results, the disease was not pertussis,” Dr. Kretsinger added. At Dartmouth, when the first suspect pertussis cases emerged and the P.C.R. test showed pertussis, doctors believed it. The results seem completely consistent with the patients’ symptoms. “That’s how the whole thing got started,” Dr. Kirkland said. Then the doctors decided to test people who did not have severe coughing. “Because we had cases we thought were pertussis and because we had vulnerable patients at the hospital, we lowered our threshold,” she said. Anyone who had a cough got a P.C.R. test, and so did anyone with a runny nose who worked with high-risk patients like infants. “That’s how we ended up with 134 suspect cases,” Dr. Kirkland said. And that, she added, was why 1,445 health care workers ended up taking antibiotics and 4,524 health care workers at the hospital, or 72 percent of all the health care workers there, were immunized against whooping cough in a matter of days. “If we had stopped there, I think we all would have agreed that we had had an outbreak of pertussis and that we had controlled it,” Dr. Kirkland said.

But epidemiologists at the hospital and working for the States of New Hampshire and Vermont decided to take extra steps to confirm that what they were seeing really was pertussis. The Dartmouth doctors sent samples from 27 patients they thought had pertussis to the state health departments and the Centers for Disease Control. There, scientists tried to grow the bacteria, a process that can take weeks. Finally, they had their answer: There was no pertussis in any of the samples. “We thought, Well, that’s odd,” Dr. Kirkland said. “Maybe it’s the timing of the culturing, maybe it’s a transport problem. Why don’t we try serological testing? Certainly, after a pertussis infection, a person should develop antibodies to the bacteria.” They could only get suitable blood samples from 39 patients — the others had gotten the vaccine which itself elicits pertussis antibodies. But when the Centers for Disease Control tested those 39 samples, its scientists reported that only one showed increases in antibody levels indicative of pertussis. The disease center did additional tests too, including molecular tests to look for features of the pertussis bacteria. Its scientists also did additional P.C.R. tests on samples from 116 of the 134 people who were thought to have whooping cough. Only one P.C.R. was positive, but other tests did not show that that person was infected with pertussis bacteria. The disease center also interviewed patients in depth to see what their symptoms were and how they evolved. “It was going on for months,” Dr. Kirkland said. But in the end, the conclusion was clear: There was no pertussis epidemic. “We were all somewhat surprised,” Dr. Kirkland said, “and we were left in a very frustrating situation about what to do when the next outbreak comes.” Dr. Cathy A. Petti, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Utah, said the story had one clear lesson. “The big message is that every lab is vulnerable to having false positives,” Dr. Petti said. “No single test result is absolute and that is even more important with a test result based on P.C.R.” As for Dr. Herndon, though, she now knows she is off the hook. “I thought I might have caused the epidemic,” she said.

The German virologist Professor Dr. Christian Drosten is THE face of the current corona crisis! The weekly magazine Stern even ran the headline in March 2020: “The coronavirus has made virologist Christian Drosten the most sought-after man in the Republic, and a star.”[1]

For it was Christian Drosten who developed the PCR Corona test in January 2020, which from then on served as the standard method for detecting the Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 worldwide. As Director of the Berlin Charité Institute, he is a very influential advisor to the German government and participated as an expert in many government press conferences.

Thus, through his assessments, he also significantly influenced far-reaching political decisions, such as the compulsory wearing of masks, the suspension of regular school lessons, or the closure of the entire catering industry.

Out of a series of awards, the Federal Cross of Merit on Ribbon in 2005 and the Federal Cross of Merit 1st Class in 2020 stand out.

In this program, however, a file in four parts is shared, which shows a completely different face of Christian Drosten and throws light on his hardly known background:

“The Drosten File” Part 1: Christian Drosten And His Mis-Predictions
Due to Drosten’s awards, one should expect that his assessments and forecasts will be accurate. Here are just two examples of his always worrying forecasts compared with actual developments:

Forecast 1: 2003 / SARS
“If the epidemic cannot be pushed back in the near future, there may be repeated cases of SARS.[…] If outbreaks of such pulmonary diseases were to occur regularly in certain countries, it could have a serious impact on their economies. An effective vaccine cannot be expected for at least one to two years.”
Actual development: According to the WHO, since the beginning of the so-called SARS epidemic in 2003, there have been only 8,096 SARS cases worldwide with 774 deaths; in Germany, only 9 cases occurred and not a single death.
Forecast 2: 2009 / Swine flu
“The disease is a serious common viral infection that produces significantly more severe side effects than anyone can imagine from the worst vaccine.”

Although there was no reliable data on numbers of cases, Drosten urged people to get vaccinated against swine flu.
Actual development: The predicted epidemic never occurred. Nevertheless, vaccines were ordered by Western governments for several hundred million euros, but the vast majority of the population rejected them despite Drosten’s urgent recommendation. Moreover, the vaccines caused far more serious damage than the swine flu itself.
Conclusion: Drosten’s scary forecasts, which always aimed at the “standard solution; vaccination”, turned out to be fatal misjudgements resulting in gigantic economic damage.

How is it possible that he continues to appear credible as THE advisor to the government with these repeated horror predictions?

“The Drosten File” Part 2: Christian Drosten And His Doctoral Degree
As Prof. Dr. Christian Drosten became probably the best-known scientist in Germany as a result of the Corona crisis, there were also increasing questions about his doctoral thesis.

Strange inconsistencies came to light:

1st inconsistency:
Drosten allegedly received his doctorate from Frankfurt’s Goethe University in 2003. Surprisingly, however, the Frankfurt University Library was initially unable to provide a single copy of his thesis.
2nd inconsistency:
When asked by Dr. Markus Kühbacher, a scientist specializing in scientific fraud, the university’s press spokesman stated that the copies had been damaged during a flood. According to Kühbacher, the press spokesman later had to admit that he had “communicated false factual claims to him regarding Mr. Drosten’s dissertation.” The German National Library also did not have a single copy before 2020. This is normally mandatory for doctoral theses.
3rd inconsistency:
It is also very strange that in the catalogue of the German National Library – in which all university publications must be listed – no entry for Christian Drosten can be found for the years 2000-2003.
4th inconsistency:
On October 15, 2020, The Goethe University in Frankfurt am Main published a statement of correction regarding the “False allegations about the doctoral procedure of Prof. Dr. Christian Drosten”. This shows that Mr. Drosten has been entitled to use the title Dr. med. since September 4, 2003.
This is very surprising, because in a WHO document he is already listed as a Dr. in April 2003 – five months earlier.

These and other numerous inconsistencies prompted the lawyer Dr. Reiner Füllmich to refer to Drosten as the “Captain of Köpenick” [in German history, a legendary imposter] in the extra-parliamentary Corona Investigation Committee.

On December 2, 2020, Kühbacher filed a lawsuit with the Regional Court of Stuttgart regarding the “deposit copies of Mr. Drosten’s dissertation and their alleged storage in excessively moist conditions. These legal proceedings could bring further spicy inconsistencies to light.

However, things could get even more unpleasant for Drosten, as Dr. Füllmich has already filed an initial claim for damages against Drosten on behalf of one of his clients who suffered financial loss as a result of the Corona measures. A class action lawsuit in the USA is in preparation.

Ultimately, it is not about his doctorate, but about the question of Christian Drosten’s credibility. Why has he persistently remained silent for months and not clarified these serious allegations without reservation? This is certainly not conducive to his credibility.

“The Drosten File” Part 3: Christian Drosten And His PCR Test
The PCR test for the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus developed by Drosten in January 2020 at lightning speed is “the test of the year”! These test results are the legitimation for national governments worldwide to enforce the most massive restrictions of fundamental rights against citizens!

As recently as 2014, Drosten said of this PCR test method: “The method is so sensitive that it can detect a single hereditary molecule of this virus. If such a pathogen, for example, flits across a nurse’s nasal mucosa for a day without her getting sick or noticing anything else, she is suddenly a MERS case. Where previously, people at death’s door were reported, now mild cases and even people without symptoms are suddenly included in the reporting statistics. This could also explain the explosion in the number of cases in Saudi Arabia. On top of this, the local media have made an incredible fuss about it.”

Doesn’t this quote from Drosten accurately reflect the current Corona situation?

“Reporting statistics suddenly include perfectly healthy people and distort them.”

“Explosion in case numbers.”

“The Media is exaggerating things beyond belief.”

This begs the question; Did Drosten design this PCR protocol in order to trigger a “case-demic”?

A recent scientific research paper by 22 top-class scientists substantiates this suspicion, as they have refuted the scientific basis of the Drosten study, which served as the test protocol adopted by the WHO.

Also, initial court decisions have confirmed the unscientific nature of the Drosten study and his PCR test.

With his unscientific study and the unfit-for-purpose test based on it, this one man has significantly steered the entire Corona scenario: Christian Drosten – Not only he himself, but also the test he developed proves to be implausible upon close examination.

“The Drosten File” Part 4: Christian Drosten And His Manifold Entanglements
A decisive indicator for the credibility of scientists is their neutrality and impartiality.

1. Is Drosten’s neutrality and impartiality even possible – given his connection to Olfert Landt?

Olfert Landt is one of the regular co-authors of Drosten’s studies – including the current Corona test publication. He is also the owner of the Berlin biotech company TIB Molbiol Syntheselabor GmbH, which produces Corona PCR tests. Drosten and Landt have apparently discovered a successful “business model”: in the case of pandemics and the most diverse viral outbreaks, they jointly develop a PCR test for them: this was already the case in 2002/2003 for SARS, in 2011 for EHEC, in 2012 for MERS, in 2016 for the Zika virus, in 2017 for yellow fever.

It is always the same trick, which they have now resorted to again for the Corona panic. Landt also admitted this to the Berliner Zeitung: “The test, the design, the development, came from the Charité. We just immediately converted that into a kit format. When you don’t have the virus, which was initially only available in Wuhan, we can make a synthetic gene [i.e. using computer modelling] to simulate the virus genome. We did that very quickly.”

Right at the start of the Corona crisis, Landt and his Berlin-based biotech company were producing Corona test kits for 1,500,000 Corona tests per week, and by February they had already tripled their sales.

In the meantime, he has probably reaped gigantic profits from these tests. It is somehow doubtful that Landt will pocket the entire economic success and that Drosten will only benefit in his reputation.

Regardless of the extent to which Drosten derived personal benefit from this, the question arises as to how it can be that developments are pushed forward with public funds and subsequently private companies profit from them to such an extent?

2. is Drosten’s neutrality and impartiality even possible – given his connections to the pharmaceutical industry?

Drosten received, among other things:

the “Förderpreis für Klinische Infektiologie”, sponsored by Aventis Deutschland Pharma GmbH and endowed with 5,000 euros,
the “Diagnostics Award of the European Society for Clinical Virology” of the US pharmaceutical company Abbott Laboratories, which is endowed with 2,500 euros and is associated with further interesting privileges for the award winner, and
via Charité Berlin, of which Drosten is the Institute Director, was in receipt of around $335,000 from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in December 2019 and March 2020. This foundation is by no means altruistic, but is known for its proximity to the vaccine industry.
Do these awards and grants create conflicts of interest that in the past led him to always promote vaccination as a way out?

The current crisis also seems to substantiate this suspicion, as Drosten himself does not shy away from an unlawful violation of the professional code of conduct of the state medical association by recommending certain vaccine manufacturers.

Therefore, don’t Drosten’s statements and studies have to be completely re-evaluated from the perspective of bias? Who would believe a scientist who propagates smoking as harmless and at the same time receives awards and funds from the tobacco industry?

CONCLUSIONS:
Fatal mispredictions, numerous unexplained inconsistencies regarding his doctoral thesis, a hastily developed “SARS-CoV-2 PCR test” with fundamental scientific flaws, and an unsuspected quagmire of financial entanglements, deprive Christian Drosten of any credibility.

If the central key figure in the entire Corona crisis turns out to be untrustworthy upon closer examination, then this raises serious questions:

On the basis of this unscientific foundation, must not the entire Corona events with the inevitable threat of economic and financial collapse of entire nations finally be investigated for those pulling the strings and profiteers in the background?
Might it not therefore amount to a staged takeover and even lead to the introduction of digital surveillance of entire nations under the pretext of fighting a pandemic?
Why do the mass media responsible for critical reporting fail to reveal the “Drosten file”, why do they keep it under wraps?

Loading comments...