INTEGRAL WORLD: EXPLORING THEORIES OF EVERYTHING
An independent forum for a critical discussion of the integral philosophy of Ken Wilber
Publication dates of essays (month/year) can be found under "Essays".
Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld.net in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Author of “Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion” (SUNY Press, 2003), which has been translated into 7 languages, and of 175+ essays on this website.
|The raw material was gathered by China:
- Patient samples
- SARS-CoV-2 virus
- SARS-CoV-2 sequence (sent to Germany)
|Several tests were developed in Germany based on:
- SARS-CoV sequence
- Bat virus sequences
- SARS-CoV-2 sequence (received from China)
- Bat viruses
- SARS-CoV-2 (synthetic)
- Common cold viruses
- Influenza viruses
Etc. (20 known viruses in total)
To summarize: the Corman-Drosten test was based on a full SARS-CoV-2 genome received from Chinese researchers, who had assembled it within days. Given their expertise with SARS-CoV the Drosten team re-used an existing test protocol for this previous SARS virus, but also added specifics that would makes sure SARS-CoV-2 was matched. So there are generic and specific elements to this test. However, it is not so generic that viruses other than animal bat or SARS viruses are matched as well, and it can distinguish between SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2. As a proper test for this new virus should be able to do. And even if that SARS-CoV-2 element was skipped, the SARS-generic test would still make do because SARS-CoV is no longer circulating.
None of these basic facts were picked up by the two authors/contributors of the Review Report, who feature so erroneously as "courageous scientists" in the Naomi Wolf video interview. False heroism, if you ask me.
HOW A CONSORTIUM OF NON-EXPERTS IS BUILT
The main objection of the Review Report main authors to the response from Eurosurveillance seemed to be that it did not address their many points of criticism. Well, it turns out that that work has already been done. On Researchgate I found a long article by Andreas Beyer, which reviewed the Corman-Drosten Review Report paper point-by-point. Beyer is currently a university professor in molecular biology at the Westfälische Hochschule in Recklinghausen, Germany. In this role he covers the fields of: standard methodology of molecular biology, DNA sequencing, PCR, biochemistry and computer-assisted sequence analysis. His competence by far exceeds those of most "top scientists in the life sciences" of the Consortium that published the Review Report.
As Beyer drily remarks when commenting on the "expertise" of the 22 authors/proofreaders of the Review Report: with few exceptions, none of them are molecular biologists with PCR-related experience. Now this has often been taken to involve unwarranted ad hominem attacks on the Consortium members, but that is most definitely not the case. Qualifications do matter here. It is highly relevant. With the exception of first author Pieter Borger and Kevin McKernan, none of these luminaries have evidenced any practical experience or theoretical expertise with this specialized field, not even the last author (who normally has a senior and supervising role in scientific articles), Ulrike Kämmerer, who specializes in cancer and nutrition!
Here's Beyer's breakdown of the Consortium members:
|CONSORTIUM MEMBERS||COMMENTS BEYER|
|Dr. Peter Borger (MSc, PhD), Molecular Genetics, W+W Research Associate, Lörrach, Germany||"W+W" (for Wort und Wissen, "Word and Knowledge") is a creationist association. There are no laboratories and scientific research groups. And hence, there is also no "Research Associate".|
|Rajesh Kumar Malhotra (Artist Alias: Bobby Rajesh Malhotra), Former 3D Artist / Scientific Visualizations at CeMM - Center for Molecular Medicine of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (2019-2020), University for Applied Arts - Department for Digital Arts Vienna, Austria||A "3D-artist", seriously??|
|Dr. Michael Yeadon BSs(Hons) Biochem Tox U Surrey, PhD Pharmacology U Surrey. Managing Director, Yeadon Consulting Ltd, former Pfizer Chief Scientist, United Kingdom,||Former Pfizer employee (pharmacologist / toxicologist / manager) and anti-vaccationist / conspiracy theorist, not a molecular biologist|
|Dr. Clare Craig MA, (Cantab) BM, BCh (Oxon), FRCPath, United Kingdom||A pathologist is not a molecular biologist|
|Kevin McKernan, BS Emory University, Chief Scientific Officer, founder Medical Genomics, engineered the sequencing pipeline at WIBR/MIT for the Human Genome Project, Invented and developed the SOLiD sequencer, awarded patents related to PCR, DNA Isolation and Sequencing, USA||Since decades McKernan is involved in science management and organisation, now he is chief sales officer and hence out of practical science since many years (Medical Genomics). ["When it comes to cannabis genetics and microbial detection, Medicinal Genomics is in a class of its own."]|
|Dr. Paul McSheehy (BSc, PhD), Biochemist & Industry Pharmacologist, Loerrach, Germany||A biochemist / pharmacologist is not a molecular biologist|
|Dr. Lidiya Angelova, MSc in Biology, PhD in Microbiology, Former researcher at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Maryland, USA||We could not find any scientific publication of Dr. Angelova on Corona or on diagnostic PCR systems. Moreover, it seems as if she has a different job now and is no more active in science.|
|Dr. Fabio Franchi, Former Dirigente Medico (M.D) in an Infectious Disease Ward, specialized in “Infectious Diseases” and “Hygiene and Preventive Medicine”, Società Scientifica per il Principio di Precauzione (SSPP), Italy||A physician - microbiology, hygiene, infectiology - is not a molecular biologist. None of his three scientific, peer-reviewed papers has to do with PCR-systems.|
|Dr. med. Thomas Binder, Internist and Cardiologist (FMH), Switzerland||An internist / cardiologist is not a molecular biologist|
|Prof. Dr. med. Henrik Ullrich, specialist Diagnostic Radiology, Chief Medical Doctor at the Center for Radiology of Collm Oschatz-Hospital, Germany||A radiologist is not a molecular biologist. Besides this, he is the second author belonging to the pseudoscientific creationist organisation "Wort und Wissen" - he even is the chairman|
|Prof. Dr. Makoto Ohashi, Professor emeritus, PhD in Microbiology and Immunology, Tokushima University, Japan||Prof. Ohashi was a specialist for Epstein-Barr-Virus as well as viral induced lymphoma. He never was involved in Corona research or in development of diagnostic PCR systems.|
|Dr. Stefano Scoglio, B.Sc. Ph.D., Microbiologist, Nutritionist, Italy||A microbiologist / nutritionist is not a molecular biologist|
|Dr. Marjolein Doesburg-van Kleffens (MSc, PhD), specialist in Laboratory Medicine (clinical chemistry), Maasziekenhuis Pantein, Beugen, the Netherlands||A specialist in Laboratory Medicine is not a molecular biologist|
|Dr. Dorothea Gilbert (MSc, PhD), PhD Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology. DGI Consulting Services, Oslo, Norway Review Report - Corman-Drosten et al., Eurosurveillance 2020||An environmental chemist / toxicologist medicine is not a molecular biologist|
|Dr. Rainer J. Klement, PhD. Department of Radiation Oncology, Leopoldina Hospital Schweinfurt, Germany||An oncologist is not a molecular biologist|
|Dr. Ruth Schruefer, PhD, human genetics/ immunology, Munich, Germany||PhD in immunology 2006. She seems to be out of science since then.|
|Dra. Berber W. Pieksma, General Practitioner, The Netherlands||General Practitioner? Seriously??|
|Dr. med. Jan Bonte (GJ), Consultant Neurologist, the Netherlands||An neurologist is not a molecular biologist|
|Dr. Bruno H. Dalle Carbonare (Molecular biologist), IP specialist, BDC Basel, Switzerland||This person is out of practical science since decades. He is involved in science management and organisation instead.|
|Dr. Kevin P. Corbett, MSc Nursing (Kings College London) PhD (London South Bank) Social Sciences (Science & Technology Studies) London, England, UK||Nursing and Social Sciences, seriously?|
|Prof. Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer, specialist in Virology / Immunology / Human Biology / Cell Biology, University Hospital Würzburg, Germany||Prof. Kämmerers expertise as given on her website at the Würzburg gynaecological hospital - where she is listed as research assistant - is human biology, virology, immunology and cell biology. However, the "research"-link on this site does not list virology. She is author of popular science books on cancer and nutrition. Her scientific work comprises quite a few papers on immunology, cancer, and reproduction biology. There is only a virological paper on enteroviruses (with her as coauthor) from 1998 and a paper on detection of picornavirus by PCR from 1995. There was a short e-mail exchange between her and me in December 2020. I asked her for her own experience and skills in qPCR. She refused to answer In other words: She neither is a virologist nor an expert in PCR. However, she distributes conspiracy theory, e.g. in "Die freie Welt" - an internet-newspaper of the right-wing populist party AfD, where she said "PCR-test is like reading the tea leaves".|
The main, or at least the last author of the Review Report paper, Ulrike Kämmerer, recently gave a rather curious justification of the doubtful expertise of the the Consortium members:
About the authors [of the Review Report] it was always said that we weren't active virologists who deal with SARS-CoV-2. PCR is a completely normal, mundane, routine method in every laboratory. I don't have to be a top virologist or anything on the contrary: the people who do their daily work with it, see where these technical flaws are much faster than someone who hovers somewhere above.
I don't have to be a bricklayer to see a wall is skewed. (p. 75)
Yet, how many of these 22 "experts" have this day-to-day experience with PCR testing? It is precisely those PCR specialists, like Andreas Beyer, Ian MacKay and others, who posses this expertise, and who have raised stern objections to this whole retraction project! It is precisely the bricklayers who have to be listened to here.
In fact, this whole notion of an "INTERNATIONAL CONSORTIUM OF SCIENTISTS IN LIFE SCIENCES (ICSLS)" which produced the Review Report is an inflated charade when it comes to relevant technical PCR expertise. In my opinion, Borger and McKernan could have co-authored it with more, not less credibility. And even then, as Beyer comments: Borger is currently a "research associate" at the Christian-creationist organization Wort und Wissen, which has no research division or laboratory, and McKernan is more of a sales manager for Medical Genomics (and specializing in the genomics of... cannabis. Hey, I am from Amsterdam).
Actually, in a recent interview the second author of the retraction paper, Bobby Malhotra, gives us some insight in how the "Consortium" came together:
On a day when I was very upset [after his contract was not renewed in Q4, 2020], I created a mega thread on Twitter with 124 tweets. In "Corona Ausschuss Nr. 22", Corona Committee No. 22, Prof. Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer had explained the problem of Drosten PCR tests. I linked this with my knowledge and tried to explain it for the beginner on Twittera mixture of corruption, bioinformatics and the PCR problem. This thread pretty much hit home.
This is how I came across Dr. Pieter Borger, who was already critical on ResearchGate at the same time... After a meeting with Pieter Borger and Ulrike Kämmerer, everything was actually clear relatively quickly. We split up, asked our scientific circles and gathered 22 scientists... So we went on a search with Kevin McKernan. He's sort of our "Mister Technical Details," the technical details man, the "Mister PCR" of the scientific literature.
From him we know that this Charité [Corman-Drosten] primers & probes design is actually pretty garbage. We then put such technical details into the Addendum. For example, the RdRp gene has too low a sensitivity. The point is that you have to have a certain kind of sensitivity to be really sure that this result is true. It just isn't.
As I wrote in Part 20, the reduced sensitivity of one part of the Corman-Drosten test is widely known, and hardly a reason to demand a retraction. I would say "the first pancake always fails" and the more pancakes we bake, the better they become.
A POINT-BY-POINT REBUTTAL OF BORGER ET AL.
Beyer calls the tone of the Review Report paper “presumptuous and insolent”. But on to the Review Report itself and its main points of criticism directed at the Corman-Drosten PCR protocol. I restrict myself to the SUMMARY CATALOGUE OF ERRORS FOUND IN THE PAPER of the Review Report, and will quote Beyer's comments in full:
|BORGER ET AL.||BEYER'S COMMENT|
|1. There exists no specified reason to use these extremely high concentrations of primers in this protocol. The described concentrations lead to increased nonspecific bindings and PCR product amplifications, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.||Everyone who is experienced in the design of such qPCR systems knows: The so-called standard concentrations only are guide values to start with. Appropriate concentrations have to be determined empirically. Hence it is failed to criticise a qPCR only on "theoretical" grounds without any laboratory test.|
|2. Six unspecified wobbly positions will introduce an enormous variability in the real world laboratory implementations of this test; the confusing nonspecific description in the Corman-Drosten paper is not suitable as a Standard Operational Protocol making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.||
Here four severe errors of Borger et al have to be stated.
I: Viral genomes accumulate mutations, not equally distributed over the genome. For primers target positions have to be chosen that are as well conserved as possible, at the same time different to other groups. However, perfect targets in fact do not exist. Hence, positions with ambiguities, resulting in wobble-positions, have to be accepted. This is proper design rather than a design error.
II: Such wobble positions do surely not create "enormous variability". Primers with wobble positions from the start are synthesised and later used as defined mixtures.
III: For users, wobble positions do not cause confusion. Every professional PCR operator knows the respective code and knows how to handle it.
IV: PCR with wobble-primers will not automatically lose specificity. Specificity is determined during establishment and validation of the test. By the way, wobbleprimers are standard (not only) for HIV-diagnostics since decades.
|3. The test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments. Therefore, the test cannot be used as a diagnostic for intact (infectious) viruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus and make inferences about the presence of an infection.||
This argument is completely mistaken.
I: No test at all can discriminate between complete and incomplete / fragmented viral genomes.
II: The ability to such discrimination is unnecessary because each genome copyno matter if intact or damagedoriginates from a cell infected with an intact virus.
|4. A difference of 10° C with respect to the annealing temperature Tm for primer pair1 (RdRp_SARSr_F and RdRp_SARSr_R) also makes the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.||First, the authors confuse annealing temperature (which for both primers necessarily is identical) with melting temperature. Indeed, melting temperatures should be as similar as possible. But again: Everyone who has experience in PCR design knows that realityi.e. the sequence contextdictates what is feasible. Greater deviations of melting temperatures sometimes are inevitable. This is one more reason for exhaustive testing of a diagnostic qPCR system which has been done by Corman et al.|
|5. A severe error is the omission of a Ct value at which a sample is considered positive and negative. This Ct value is also not found in follow-up submissions making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.||Again Borger et al. mix up technical terms. You never can predefine a Ct value, since Ct is measured during each qPCR run for each sample. Probably the threshold is meant instead. But this also does not make any sense, because the threshold is dependent from the detection system and the qPCR machine used. Obviously, - Borger et al. have no idea how to perform a qPCR test: Alongside with the samples, a dilution series is processed, serving as a standard to compare the samples with.|
|6. The PCR products have not been validated at the molecular level. This fact makes the protocol useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.||Of course PCR fragments have been analysed by gel electrophoresis in the beginning! This is standard procedure! However, it needs not to be mentioned because specificity testing is more important. Moreover, the three independent oligonucleotides employed for TaqMan qPCR guarantee for high specificity. And the Drosten-Corman paper thoroughly documents validation of the qPCR system.|
|7. The PCR test contains neither a unique positive control to evaluate its specificity for SARS-CoV-2 nor a negative control to exclude the presence of other coronaviruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.||The opposite is true. The Corman-Drosten paper describes some positive and negative controls as well as thorough validation. Precise setup of the testincluding controlsis up to each individual user. And the user also has to define his own SOP.|
|8. The test design in the Corman-Drosten paper is so vague and flawed that one can go in dozens of different directions; nothing is standardized and there is no SOP. This highly questions the scientific validity of the test and makes it unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.||Half of the claim is untrue, the other half is irrelevant. Indeed, the Corman-Drosten paper specifies all relevant information: Primer and probe sequences, concentrations, PCR conditions. On the other hand, formulation of the SOP is up to the user and not to the publisher of a test.|
|9. Most likely, the Corman-Drosten paper was not peer-reviewed making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.||Indeed, peer reviews usually take days or even weeksEurosurveillance, however, is known for high speed. Sometimesespecially when authors and journal agree that publication is urgentarrangements are made: Either reviewers may stand by the very hour the paper is filed. Or the paper is filed and reviewed bit by bit. In such a case the noted day of submission is the day when the last part or the last data were filed. This may well be the day of approval. By the wayin the case of the CormanDrosten publication, the paper was available to reviewers one week before on a preprint server.|
|10. We find severe conflicts of interest for at least four authors, in addition to the fact that two of the authors of the Corman-Drosten paper (Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken) are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance. A conflict of interest was added on July 29 2020 (Olfert Landt is CEO of TIB-Molbiol; Marco Kaiser is senior researcher at GenExpress and serves as scientific advisor for TIB-Molbiol), that was not declared in the original version (and still is missing in the PubMed version); TIB-Molbiol is the company which was "the first" to produce PCR kits (Light Mix) based on the protocol published in the Corman-Drosten manuscript, and according to their own words, they distributed these PCR-test kits before the publication was even submitted; further, Victor Corman & Christian Drosten failed to mention their second affiliation: the commercial test laboratory "Labor Berlin". Both are responsible for the virus diagnostics there and the company operates in the realm of real time PCR-testing.||Conflicts of interest only exist if the respective coauthors had an advantage from the publication, e.g. by marketing and distribution of kits or by gaining market share. However, the described qPCR system is freely available and applicable for everyone and reagents can be purchased from any distributor, Hence it is hard to interpret this claim of Borger et al. different than vicious slander.|
There are other pertinent points raised in the Beyer paper, but I leave it to you to pursue this further, if that's your interest. But as you can see from the above, there is, again, a world of difference between the belligerent and accusative mood of the Corman-Drosten Review Report and the informed opinions of experienced scientists, who know that what works in theory doesn't always do so in practice. As we say in Dutch: "The best helmsmen stand on shore" (which seems to be equivalent to: "Bachelors' wives and maidens' children are well taught", source: Heywood, 1546).
Beyer is even more blunt in his final conclusions:
The authors claim to be able to refute the Drosten paper on scientific grounds.
However, if you want to criticise a scientific paper, you should do this in the form of another scientific paper, published in a scientific journal with peer review (!) and not in the form of a private www-domain. This fact alone already renders this "peer review" highly dubious. Hence, as long as the text by Borger et al. has not been checked and accepted by a scientific journal (which will not happen due to its blatant errors) it is nothing than expression of opinion of some laypeople. Second, the fact that the authors did not perform a single experiment but argue alone on basis of "theoretical considerations" is more than questionable. Third, the authors have no expertise in analytic / diagnostic PCR systems. There is only a single virologist among themProf. Ohashi. And he has no experience in corona research. The ignorance of the authors can easily be recognised by the flawed critique they utter. Some of the mistakes they make even are beginner's mistakes. It is nothing but imprudence to criticise on such weak grounds a peer-reviewed paper from an internationally well-respected scientific group. Fourth, the respective qPCR-system has now been used worldwide since several months. If it was faulty, if it had any of the claimed impairments it would have been criticised long ago. In contrarymeanwhile there have quite a few comparisons of existing PCR assays been published (z. B. Afzal 2020, Matheeussen et al. 2020, Nalla et al. 2020, Vogels et al. 2020). No one has found severe drawbacks in the Corman-Drosten assay (just a less sensitive RdRp-assay in comparison to others, that was all). Fifth, it can easily be shown that all critical points submitted by the authors implode under closer inspection. However, quite a bit technical knowledgenot available for laypeopleis necessary to see through this flawed argumentation. And so, this "paper" already has become famous among conspiracy theory proponents, anti-vaccationists and creationists: Audacter calumniaresemper aliquid haeret... [slander boldly, something always sticks]. Last, Borger et al. were given the chance to comment on my arguments and to defend themselves. They kept silent.
In all, this "peer review" is at best pseudoscienceif not conspiracy theory and slander.
In the meantime, Bobby Malhotra, who we met in the video and who features as the second author of the Review Reportand is for sure the most vindicative and the least qualified of all, being a 3D artisthas already announced an official reply to Beyer's paper, again losing all sense of perspective and proportion (there we have the ad hominems again!).
We will release a refute of this utter nonsense soon. TL:DR: utter nonsense, circular reasoning, and he gets all the facts false, even our biographies. We are not in a hurry to refute his points, they are full of ad hominems, etc.— Bobby Rajesh Malhotra ? (@Bobby_Network) February 6, 2021
But we will refute them nevertheless soon.
So it's "totally wrong" vs. "utter nonsense"? Not a good climate for productive debate. Two paradigms or false equivalence? "Free and reliable science" or "political and pseudoscience" (as Pieter Borger frames it)? I would not put my bet on the Consortium. They will predictably complain, "Yes, but what about our Addendum?" But if the theoretical foundations of their Review Report are so problematic, why bother?
Appendix 1 : Another Debunk of the Retraction Request
Dan Wilson, a PhD scientist in molecular and structural biology, has a YouTube channel "Debunk the Funk with Dr. Wilson", on which I found this debunk of the Borger et al. paper. He has also debunked Kaufman, Cowan, the Chromosome 8 canard, Michael Yeadon, the lab orgin theory, and many other topics covered in THE CORONA CONSPIRACY, so he's definitely a kindred spirit.
|CLAIMS BORGER ET AL.||COMMENTS WILSON|
|The PCR test is based on a theoretical model of the virus||The PCR test is based on the full genome of the virus|
|It is impossible to make a valid PCR test without a virus isolate||This is just wrong. Though not ideal, it is entirely possible|
|Primer temperatures used in this PCR protocol are too high||It is well within the range of what people normally use.|
|Wobbly base pairs in primers and probes cause confusion||Wobbly base pairs were used for unconserved regions|
|The test detects fragments, not the full genome of the virus||PCR tests only detect fragments, by design|
|The number of amplification cycles used is too high||The positives show up in real time, irrespective of the maximum|
|Setting a high number of amplification numbers is useless||It can still be useful to find pre- or post-sympomatic cases|
|Biological validations a lacking in this paper||True, but it doesn't make the paper invalid|
|There was no peer review done on this paper||The peer review for this paper was fast-tracked|
|Some authors of this paper are also editors of the journal||This happens sometimes, but it doesn't make the paper invalid|
|This test produces too many or only false positivies||Where are all these false positives, seriously?|
He concludes: why do we find positives only in countries that are still impacted by the virus, with many hospitalized cases and deaths, and not in countries were they have seemed to have beaten the virus (even though wide-scale testing has continued)?
Ultimately this critique [by Borger et al.] is nothing more than conspiracy theories with an illusion of expertise behind it. It offers really no helpful critiques, nothing of scientific substance to this conversation and only serves to galvanize the COVID-denying movement.
Ironically the more people deny COVID the more dangerous the virus gets.
Another astute observation by Wilson: "this Corman-Drosten paper reflects both the good and the bad parts of science during this pandemic." He recommends reading Ed Young's piece for The Atlantic: "How Science Beat the Virus, and what it lost in the process". From which:
[T]he COVID-19 pivot has also revealed the all-too-human frailties of the scientific enterprise. Flawed research made the pandemic more confusing, influencing misguided policies. Clinicians wasted millions of dollars on trials that were so sloppy as to be pointless. Overconfident poseurs published misleading work on topics in which they had no expertise. Racial and gender inequalities in the scientific field widened.
 Victor M Corman et. al., "Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR", PMC, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, (Euro Surveillance, 2020 Jan 23).
 Pieter Borger et. al., "Review report Corman-Drosten et al. Eurosurveillance 2020", External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results, November 27, 2020.
 Naomi Wolf, "PCR Lab Visit: Whistleblowers Kevin McKernan, Bobby Malhotra Explain Why COVID Tests are 'Garbage'", YouTube, 24 Jan 2021.
 Korinna Hennig, "Coronavirus Update, Folge 16", NDR, March 18, 2020.
 Andreas Beyer, "Pseudowissenschaftliche Kritik an einem von der Berliner Charité veröffentlichten Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2)-Test, publiziert von Peter Borger und Koautoren / Pseudoscientific criticism on a Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) test published by Peter Borger and coauthors-PCR-Borger-Report", January 2021, www.researchgate.net (PDF)
 "Illa", Das PCR-Desaster, Genese und Evolution des "Drosten-Tests", Verlag Thomas Kubo, 2021 (PDF). Kämmerer's quote comes from a partial transcript from: 38. Sitzung zum Thema "Angriff auf Mensch und Gesellschaft" (corona-ausschuss.de, February 5, 2021), which is inluded in this book.
 Aya Velázquez, "We are in the middle of an information war", medium.com, Febuary 3, 2021.
 Ed Young, "How Science Beat the Virus, and what it lost in the process", The Atlantic, December 14, 2020.
83 Vaccine Myths from docbastard.net