Pharmaceutical Industry: Farming people all over the world

Linda

Shocking Facts About the Pharmaceutical Industry

'Big drug companies have been accused of putting profits above patients, spinning false PR campaigns and more. Here are some of the most shocking facts about the pharmaceutical industry.'

Read more ...

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/04/19/shocking -facts-about-the-pharmaceutical-industry.aspx

Big drug companies have been accused of putting profits above patients, spinning false PR campaigns and more. Here are some of the most shocking facts about the pharmaceutical industry.

The price of drugs is increasing faster than anything else a patient pays for: The prices of the most heavily prescribed drugs are routinely jacked up, sometimes several times a year. Some medications have a mark-up of 1,000 percent over the cost of their ingredients.

Your doctor may have an ulterior motive behind your prescription: Drug reps often give gifts to convince doctors to prescribe the medications that they represent. These drug reps usually have no medical or science education.

Pharmaceutical companies spend more on marketing than research: Almost twice as much!

Guilty of Medicare fraud: Pharmaceutical companies are being tried in federal courts as a result of their exploitation of Medicare. AstraZeneca had to pay more than $340 million in penalties for coaching doctors to cheat Medicare.

The combined wealth of the top 5 pharmaceutical companies outweigh GNP of sub-Saharan Africa: In fact, the combined worth of the world’s top five drug companies is twice the combined GNP of that entire region.

Americans pay more for prescription meds than anyone else in the world: $200 billion in 2002 alone.

"New" Drugs aren't really new: Two-thirds of “new” prescription drugs are identical to existing drugs or modified versions of them.

Drug companies are taking advantage of underdeveloped countries to perform clinical trials: In developing countries, government oversight is more lax.

For more shocking facts, click the link below.
Sources:

* Nursing Online Education Database March 27, 2008

What Type of Cookware Do I Recommend?
The Teflon, aluminum, stainless steel, or copper cookware you use to prepare your food may be hazardous to your health. Now you can cook healthy and delicious meals at home with our magnificent new cast iron cookware.

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

According to Corporate Watch, Fortune magazine has declared the world’s biggest drug company, Pfizer the “fifth-best wealth-creator” in America.

The question is: who benefits from this “creation of wealth”? It’s certainly not the Americans who pay a thousand percent markup for the drugs Pfizer pumps out.

Americans pay far more for their drugs than any other nation. Take this, for example: according to PricewaterhouseCoopers fascinating report, Pharma 2020: The Vision, India spends $420 per diabetic patient per year. The U.S., in comparison, spends an average of $10,844 per year per patient.Their report also states:

“The current pharmaceutical industry business model is both economically unsustainable and operationally incapable of acting quickly enough to produce the types of innovative treatments demanded by global markets. In order to make the most of these future growth opportunities, the industry must fundamentally change the way it operates.

Some of the major changes PwC anticipates for the industry are:

* Health care will shift in focus from treatment to prevention.
* Pharmaceutical companies will provide total health care packages.
* The current linear phase research & development process will give way to in-life testing and live licensing, in collaboration with regulators and health care providers.
* The traditional blockbuster sales model will disappear.
* The supply chain function will become revenue generating as it becomes integral to the health care package and enables access to new channels.
* More sophisticated direct-to-consumer distribution channels will diminish the role of wholesalers.

Now, some of this has an encouraging ring to it, such as shifting the focus from treatment to prevention. Other “predictions” are far more menacing, including the development of more sophisticated direct-to-consumer distribution channels for drugs.

People are Waking Up to the Truth About Health

Fortunately, more people are waking up to the illusion and deception of the drug industry as a whole, and starting to clearly see the truth. Last year’s PricewaterhouseCoopers' report cited a declining trust in the reputation of the mega-pharmaceuticals.

The main reason is because the public is absolutely right in their estimation that drug companies manipulate or suppress negative clinical trials, promote their toxic products for unapproved uses, and focus on developing drugs that are no better than older ones.

This is yet another indication that my vision to reconfigure and reform the deadly state of conventional health care in America is getting closer to becoming a reality. So keep up the good work folks. But please be aware, the battle has merely begun… Each of the 25 facts listed in the article above constitutes a problem within the system that needs to be changed or abolished.

Physicians must also, en masse, come to the realization that what they are doing is going nowhere. This may be one of the most difficult areas to change, as the pharmaceutical industry has devised a highly effective system of indoctrination and very specific psychological techniques to bamboozle physicians. Doctors usually believe they are immune to persuasion tactics, and drug reps know just how important it is to maintain that illusion – which is why it works so well.

Consider for a moment the in-depth report published in both The New England Journal of Medicine and PLoS Medicine, which admitted that pharmaceutical sales reps are trained in tactics that are on par with some of the most potent brainwashing techniques used throughout the world!

The idea that reps provide some kind of valuable, informative service to physicians is total fiction, created and perpetuated by the drug industry, to keep this deadly, but profitable, scheme going.

Poison For Profit

Another shocking fact that few consider is that virtually every major pharmaceutical company has a corresponding branch that creates the toxins and poisons that contribute to the chronic diseases their drugs and medical devices treat.

So these huge transnational companies profit not only from the sale of products such as pesticides, herbicides and GM crops, but also from the symptoms and chronic illnesses that they can trigger.

The vast majority of chemicals found in pesticides and other products undergo little or no testing for chronic, low level exposures and for chronic health effects, effectively creating a circle of destruction and double profits.

Below is a list of such chem/pharm companies:

Chemical Division

Pharmaceutical Division

Aventis (herbicides, fungicides, pesticides, GM food)

Aventis Pharma

Monsanto (herbicides, fungicides, pesticides, GM food)

Pharmacia

BASF (herbicides, fungicides, pesticides)

BASF Pharmaceuticals

Merck Research Company (precursors for pesticides and neurotoxins)

Merck

Dow Chemical (industrial chemicals and pharmaceuticals)

Dow Pharmaceuticals

Make no mistake about it. The drug companies are incredibly powerful, and overcoming their influence over your life will take a mammoth effort.

But there are concrete steps you can take to combat the drug companies' self-interest, save yourself loads of money, and improve your health so you can avoid unnecessary drugs in the first place.

Ten Steps to Reduce Your Pharmaceutical Expenses Now

Take charge of your own health now instead of handing it over to the drug companies.

How do you do that?

You can start by using the Internet to locate non-drug alternatives to your health challenges. Many start with my site as it has more than 150,000 pages to help you understand more about how you can improve your health without drugs or surgery, through simple lifestyle modifications.

These are the basic tenets of optimal health that have always remained permanent truths, regardless of what marvels modern science comes up with next:

1. Eat a healthy diet that’s right for your nutritional type (paying very careful attention to keeping your insulin levels down)
2. Drink plenty of clean water
3. Manage your stress
4. Exercise
5. Get plenty of appropriate sun exposure
6. Limit toxin exposure
7. Consume healthy fat
8. Eat plenty of raw food
9. Optimize insulin and leptin levels
10. Get plenty of sleep

If you want to further understand how corporations and government manipulate science and the media by preying upon the public trust -- and how to protect yourself -- I highly recommend the book "Trust Us, We're Experts."

One of the primary purposes of Mercola.com is to provide you with the insight to protect and defend yourself from these major corporate interests (as well as the government they've purchased). I’ve committed myself to providing you with practical and straightforward advice and suggestions on how to optimize your body to prevent disease, reach your optimal weight, and live longer.

ianrcrane · Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 12:10 pm Post subject: Global Food Code

Organic Food and Natural Medicines under Threat

The Global Trade Mission for Food and Medicines (Codex Alimentarius)

On 25/26/27th April, Totnes Civic Hall will be host to The Alternative View, an international event convened specifically to raise awareness of the threat posed to organic foods and natural medicines by global regulations being drafted behind closed doors, on behalf of large corporate interests.

The continued availability of natural, herbal and homeopathic medicines is being threatened throughout the world by carefully drafted legislation, which is slowly but surely finding its way on to the statute book. Unless we wake up to what is going on it will be too late and the only medicines available in Europe and ultimately world wide, will be products of the pharmaceutical companies.

Further proposals are being prepared that will require all imported food to be irradiated (ostensibly to prevent disease spread) while at the same time allowing unimpeded market access to unlabelled genetically modified products.

“For many people this agenda is so outrageous, they cannot believe such goals are achievable,” says event organiser Ian R Crane. “Yet, this may be the reality as soon as December 31st 2009”.

Codex Alimentarius, the mysterious yet all-powerful instrument of world governance, is a global commission set up in 1963 by the WHO (World Health Organisation) and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation) to develop standards, guidelines and codes of practice in relation to foods and medicines. Its stated objective is to protect the health of consumers, ensure fair trading practices and promote the coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organisations. It is now integrated within the WTO (World Trade Organisation) whose power is such that all signed up governments are required to implement its directives without need for parliamentary scrutiny. Working with and dominated by multinational interests, this strange creation is preparing global regulations that will negatively impact on the health and well being of the world's people.

The EU Food Supplements Regulation introduced last year was conceived by Codex. It has been adopted by the EU and is already being implemented in several countries. As a result many effective and long used herbal remedies can no longer be sold. It will also be illegal soon to sell certain herbs as food – they are equated with illegal drugs.

Confirmed speakers at The Alternative View include:

Phillip Day – Author & Chief Executive of Credence Health Food Products
Dr. Robert Verkerk – Chief Executive: Alliance for Natural Health
David Icke – Author & analyst of the Global Political & Economic Agenda

More Information: www.thealternativeview.co.uk

Ticket Hotline: 01803 840 069

Press Contact: Ian R. Crane

Tel: 01626 355 857 or 0779 151 8740 - Email: ianrcrane@hotmail.com

Notes:

1) Ian R Crane has set up a Codex Awareness Initiative to raise awareness of these issues to the threats posed to Natural Health & Natural Medicine

www.foodcode.blogspot.com

Event Supporters:

1). Breathing Space Magazine: www.breathingspace-magazine.com

2). Further information on issues relating to natural medicines are available from the Alliance for Natural Health: www.anhcampaign.org

3). Biodynamic Agricultural Association is a UK based charity set up to promote biodynamic farming, gardening and forestry - a unique organic approach which is increasingly recognised throughout the world as being one of the most sustainable
forms of agriculture in existence: www.biodynamic.org.uk

4). Greenlife Health Food Store – Totnes: www.greenlife.co.uk

5). Positive Health Magazine – www.positivehealth.com

Whitehall_Bin_Men · Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2014 5:45 pm Post subject:

How to Stop Your Doctor Killing You
By Vernon Coleman
Publisher: European Medical Journal
Publication date: 11 Sep 2003
Language: English

Customer reviews
24 reviews
http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Stop-Your-Doctor-Killing/dp/1898947147

4.1 out of 5 stars 4.1 out of 5
Customer Images
Most helpful reviews
4.0 out of 5 stars Like the reviewer below I'm a doctor and the vast majority of what Vernon Coleman says is painfully true. When I first saw it on the coffee table at work I got cross - knee ...
- Dr. J. Foxlee
5.0 out of 5 stars I am a doctor and I have to admit that I started to read this book expecting to be angered. But I was not. It's all true. I'm sorry to have to admit. If more doctors read it ...
- michael h
4.0 out of 5 stars I love the book, it gives a great deal of help to those who need medical advise especially what questions to ask when seeing your doctor. I purchased this copy for a friend as ...
- PAUL ALLEN

TonyGosling · Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2020 11:52 am Post subject:

VERY VERY RICH ENEMIES: Trump EXPOSES BIG PHARMA at his Jobs Speech in Cleveland Ohio

Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj0KekUqfF8

VERY VERY RICH ENEMIES: Trump EXPOSES BIG PHARMA at his Jobs Speech in Cleveland Ohio
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj0KekUqfF8

Whitehall_Bin_Men · Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2020 3:00 pm Post subject:

ALERT: Your health is top priority. We’re committed to providing reliable COVID-19 resources to keep you informed and safe.
Home Pfizer
Pfizer
https://www.drugwatch.com/manufacturers/pfizer/

Pfizer is a New-York based Big Pharma company. It’s known for its products like Advil, *, Xanax and Zoloft. It was the second-largest pharmaceutical company in revenue in 2017. But the medical industry giant has had its share of legal troubles and scandal. This includes marketing fraud allegations and unapproved clinical trials.

By Kristin Compton
Edited By Emily Miller
This page features 23 Cited Research Articles
Last modified: December 2, 2020
FACT CHECKED
Pfizer is a pharmaceutical company that created many well-known drugs. Pfizer brands include Advil, Bextra, Celebrex, Diflucan, Lyrica, Robitussin and *.

The Big Pharma company is also the mastermind behind many popular consumer products. Some of the company’s biggest names include Chapstick and Preparation-H.

Pfizer got its start over 150 years ago. It’s come a long way, evolving from a “one-stop-shop” to a multinational corporation.

Pfizer has had many triumphs. It discovered citric acid. It mass produces penicillin and vitamin C. But for all its successes, it has also seen its fair share of lawsuits and scandal.

Consumers have accused Pfizer of selling defective products. The U.S. government has charged the company with health care fraud.

Fortune magazine named Pfizer the world’s most admired pharmaceutical company in 1997. But in 2017, a Reputation Institute report ranked Pfizer last among the top 17 drug makers for reputation.

What Is Pfizer?

Pfizer is a publicly-traded global pharmaceutical company headquartered in New York City. Its revenues reached $52.5 billion in 2017.

Pfizer makes Advil, Xanax, Depo-Provera, Neosporin, Lyrica and Dimetapp. It specializes in vaccines and cancer, heart and diabetes treatments. It also makes medicines for disorders of the endocrine (hormones) and nervous systems.

The shareholder-owned company operates in 180 countries. Its research headquarters are in Groton, Connecticut. It employs more than 96,000 people worldwide.

FACT
Pfizer manufacturers more than 350 different pharmaceuticals.
Source: Pfizer Product List
Pfizer History

German-American cousins Charles Pfizer and Charles Erhart began Pfizer in 1849. Brooklyn was Pfizer’s first home.

The company started as a manufacturer of fine chemicals. It operated out of one building. The stand-alone structure served as an office, laboratory, factory and warehouse.

As the company expanded, the headquarters moved to Manhattan in 1868. A separate warehouse opened in Chicago in 1882.

One of the company’s first successful products was Santonin, a cure for intestinal worms.

DID YOU KNOW?
Pfizer discovered citric acid. The organic acid is in Coca-Cola, Dr. Pepper and Pepsi.
Source: Pfizer's History
Pfizer was also known as the world’s top producer of vitamin C. People use the vitamin as a defense against scurvy and the common cold.

In 1952, Pfizer had moved into eight new international locations. It also established its Agricultural Division, later known as Animal Health.

Pfizer acquired several other companies over the years. Many of these companies made billions for Pfizer with their established research and drug development.

Warner-Lambert was one of these companies. It’s the original maker of Lipitor. Warner-Lambert merged with Pfizer in 2000.

Lipitor quickly grew to be the largest-selling pharmaceutical of any kind in history. It reached $9.6 billion in revenue in 2011.

Pfizer Products

Pfizer manufacturers and/or markets many well-known products. Studies link some of its products to serious side effects. The products prompted FDA warnings and lawsuits.

Popular Pfizer Products and Brands
Nexium24HR
Over-the-counter heartburn drug
Prevnar 13
Vaccine to prevent pneumonia
Advil
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (pain reliever)
*
Erectile dysfunction drug
Xanax
Psychoactive medicine
Zoloft
SSRI antidepressant
Lipitor
Cholesterol medicine
Chantix
Smoking cessation drug
Bextra
Cox-2 inhibitor (pain reliever)
Depo-Testosterone
Testosterone replacement therapy drug
EpiPen
Auto-injector emergency allergy medicine
Celebrex
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (pain reliever)
Zithromax
Macrolide antibiotic (bacterial infections)
Eliquis
Anticoagulant (blood thinner)
Protonix
Proton pump inhibitor acid-reducer
Prempro
Hormone replacement drug therapy
Effexor
SNRI antidepressant
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
Stay up to date on dangerous drugs and devices, keep up on lawsuit and settlement news, learn about FDA recalls and more.

SIGN UP NOW
Drugwatch Newsletter thumbnail
Pfizer Lawsuits and Settlements

Pfizer faces a growing number of lawsuits in 2018 involving some of its most popular drugs. In the past, courts dismissed thousands of lawsuits against Pfizer. The company also agreed to settle cases over illegal marketing and health care fraud.

PFIZER SETTLEMENT AND FINE
Pfizer set a record for the largest health care fraud settlement and the largest criminal fine of any kind with $2.3 billion in 2009.
Source: U.S. Department of Justice
Protonix

People are suing Pfizer over Protonix. Protonix lawsuits say Pfizer failed to warn about the risk of kidney problems. In 2013, Pfizer agreed to pay $55 million to settle criminal charges. The U.S. Department of Justice said Wyeth promoted Protonix for unapproved uses in 2000 and 2001. Pfizer acquired Wyeth in 2009.

LEARN MORE ABOUT PROTONIX LAWSUITS

Prempro

Nearly 10,000 women filed Prempro breast cancer lawsuits against Pfizer. By 2012, Pfizer settled most of the claims for more than $1 billion.

Chantix

About 3,000 people filed Chantix lawsuits against Pfizer. They claimed Chantix caused suicidal thoughts and severe psychological disorders. In 2013, the company set aside about $288 million to resolve these cases. One case settled for an undisclosed amount just before trial in 2012.

Depo-Testosterone

More than 6,000 testosterone therapy lawsuits were pending in May 2018. The lawsuits say testosterone products caused strokes, blood clots and heart attacks.

LEARN MORE ABOUT TESTOSTERONE LAWSUITS

Effexor

A federal panel closed the consolidated Effexor litigation in 2013. Lawsuits claimed birth defects.

Zoloft

A judge dismissed Zoloft cases in 2016. Lawsuits included similar claims to Effexor XR. The judge did not disagree that Zoloft caused birth defects. But the judge concluded there was insufficient evidence to definitively link the two.

Eliquis

A judge dismissed a group of federal Eliquis cases in 2017. Injured patients continue to file severe bleeding claims in Delaware state court.

Lipitor

A judge dismissed Lipitor lawsuits in 2017. Women who took the drug filed lawsuits after developing Type 2 diabetes. There is currently an appeal pending.

Pfizer Drug Recalls

Pfizer has had to recall some of its popular products due to quality issues and poor packaging. Effexor XR and Prempro are two products affected by recalls.

Prempro

In 2013, Pfizer announced it was recalling five lots of Prempro. Prempro is a hormone replacement therapy drug. Routine testing revealed the strength of the drug was low.

Effexor XR

In 2014, Pfizer recalled two lots of its antidepressant drug Effexor XR. Tikosyn was discovered in an Effexor XR bottle. Tikosyn is one of the company’s heart pills. Pfizer warned that the combination of the two different drugs could be deadly.

Pfizer Scandal

In 1996, Pfizer conducted an unapproved clinical trial. It involved children with meningitis in Nigeria, CBS News reported. The trials led to the deaths of 11 children. Dozens more were left disabled.

PFIZER’S UNAPPROVED CLINICAL TRIAL
The unauthorized trial involved tests on 200 children with Pfizer's antibiotic Trovan.
Source: BBC News
Trovan is a drug severely restricted in use because of its potential to cause liver damage. Injury to the liver as a result of taking Trovan can lead to liver failure and death.

In 2011, Pfizer paid $700,000 to four families who lost children during the Trovan trials.

In addition, the company set up a $35 million fund for those affected by Trovan. Pfizer also agreed to sponsor health projects in Kano, Nigeria.

Pfizer Logo
Pfizer Facts
Please seek the advice of a medical professional before making health care decisions.
SHARE THIS PAGE:
Share on Twitter
Share on Facebook
Related Pages
Manufacturers Overview
Abbott Laboratories
AbbVie Inc
Allergan
AstraZeneca
Atrium
Bayer
Boehringer Ingelheim
Boston Scientific
Bristol-Myers Squibb
C.R. Bard
Coloplast
Cook Medical
Daiichi Sankyo
Eli Lilly & Co.
Endo International and American Medical Systems
Ethicon
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
Johnson & Johnson
Merck & Co.
Pfizer
Stryker Corporation
Takeda Pharmaceuticals

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK
Did You Find Drugwatch Helpful?

YES NO
Kristin Compton
WRITTEN BY
Kristin Compton
Writer
Kristin Compton's background is in legal studies. She worked as a paralegal before joining Drugwatch as a writer and researcher. She was also a member of the National Association of Legal Assistants. A mother and longtime patient, she has firsthand experience of the harmful effects prescription drugs can have on women and their children. Some of her qualifications include:

Bachelor of Arts in Legal Studies | Pre-Law from University of West Florida
Past employment with The Health Law Firm and Kerrigan, Estess, Rankin, McLeod & Thompson LLC
Personal experience battling severe food allergies, asthma and high-risk pregnancies
EDITED BY
Emily Miller
Emily Miller
Managing Editor
23 Cited Research Articles

Drugwatch.com writers follow rigorous sourcing guidelines and cite only trustworthy sources of information, including peer-reviewed journals, court records, academic organizations, highly regarded nonprofit organizations, government reports and interviews with qualified experts. Review our editorial policy to learn more about our process for producing accurate, current and balanced content.

Pfizer. (n.d.) Pfizer 2017 Annual Review. Retrieved from https://www.pfizer.com/files/investors/financial_reports/annual_report s/2017/our-business-our-purpose/performance/index.html
Overley, J. (2017, May 31). AbbVie Tops Pharma Reputation Report, Pfizer Ranks Last. Retrieved from https://www.law360.com/articles/929882/abbvie-tops-pharma-reputation-r eport-pfizer-ranks-last
Edwards, J. (2011, February 9). Pfizer Bribed Nigerian Officials in Fatal Drug Trial, Ex-Employee Claims. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pfizer-bribed-nigerian-officials-in-fatal -drug-trial-ex-employee-claims/
BBC News. (2011, August 1). Pfizer: Nigeria drug trial victims get compensation. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14493277
U.S. Department of Justice. (2009, September 2). Justice Department Announces Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in Its History. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-largest-he alth-care-fraud-settlement-its-history
Helfand, C. (2017, March 14). Pfizer. Retrieved from https://www.fiercepharma.com/special-report/2-pfizer
Staton, T. (2013, March 4). Pfizer settles 2,000-plus Chantix suits, tales $273M charge. Retrieved from https://www.fiercepharma.com/sales-and-marketing/pfizer-settles-2-000- plus-chantix-suits-takes-273m-charge
Pfizer. (2017). Company Fact Sheet. Retrieved from https://www.pfizer.com/about/leadership-and-structure/company-fact-she et
U.S. Department of Justice. (2016, April 27). Wyeth and Pfizer Agree to Pay to Pay $784.6 Million to Resolve Lawsuits Alleging That Wyeth Underpaid Drug Rebates to Medicaid. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wyeth-and-pfizer-agree-pay-7846-million -resolve-lawsuit-alleging-wyeth-underpaid-drug-rebates
Stein, R. (2016, January 11). Popular Acid Reflux Drugs Are Linked to Kidney Disease Risk. NPR. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/01/11/462423759/popular -acid-reflux-drugs-are-linked-to-kidney-disease-risk
CBS News. (2017, February 23). Heartburn meds associated with increased risk of kidney damage, study finds. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/heartburn-acid-reflux-drugs-ppi-associate d-with-increased-risk-kidney-damage/
FiercePharma. (2011, February 10). Pfizer to Pay $330M in Prempro settlement. Retrieved from https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/pfizer-to-pay-330m-prempro-settlem ent
U.S. National Library of Medicine. (2017, November 6). DEPO-TESTOSTERONE- testosterone cypionate injection, solution. DailyMed. Retrieved from https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=cfbb53d4-b868 -4a28-8436-f9112eb01c39&
U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois. (n.d.). MDL 2545; In re Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation. Retrieved from https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/mdl-details.aspx?UGlDS1bLxpRHyfdf3l5DJQ= =
Stevens, S. (2012, December 21). Pfizer to pay $1M to Oregon for violating earlier settlement. Portland Business Journal. Retrieved from https://www.bizjournals.com/portland/morning_call/2012/12/pfizer-to-pa y-1m-to-oregon-for-mislea.html
Pfizer. (2012, March 12). Appendix A 2011 Financial Report. Retrieved from https://s21.q4cdn.com/317678438/files/doc_financials/Annual/2011/finan cial2011.pdf
Reuters. (n.d.). Pfizer Inc (PFE.N). Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/companies/PFE.N
Armstrong, D. (2012, December 1 Cool

. Pfizer Said to Fire 20% of U.S. Primary-Care Sales Force. Bloomberg. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-18/pfizer-to-fire-about-20-perc ent-of-u-s-primary-care-sales-force.html
Harris, G. (2009, September 2). Pfizer pays $2.3 Billion to Settle Marketing Case. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/business/03health.html?_r=0
Pierson, R. (2008, October 17). Pfizer to settle Bextra, Celebrex lawsuits. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pfizer-bextra/pfizer-to-settle-bext ra-celebrex-lawsuits-idUSTRE49G43220081017
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2018, May 15). MDL Statistics Report: Distribution of Pending MDL Dockets by District. Retrieved from http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/Pending_MDL_Dockets_By_D istrict-May-15-2018.pdf
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2014, October 9). Transfer Order. In Re: Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation. Retrieved from http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2545-Tag-Along_Trans fer-10-14.pdf
Oliver v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company et al. (2018, January 3). Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial. Superior Court of the State of Delaware. Retrieved from https://jc6kx1c9izw3wansr3nmip8k-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/up loads/2018-01-03-Oliver-Complaint.pdf
VIEW ALL SOURCES
On This PageOn This Page
What Is Pfizer?
History
Products
Lawsuits and Settlements
Drug Recalls
Scandal
CLOSE
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
Join our newsletter to stay up to date on dangerous drugs and devices, keep up on lawsuit and settlement news, learn about FDA recalls, and more.
SIGN UP NOW
NAVIGATE
FAQ
Lawsuits
FDA
News
Drugs
Health Info
Devices
Drugwatch Podcast
Side Effects
Beyond Side Effects
Drugwatch.com
Keep people safe from potentially harmful drugs, medical devices and procedures by informing them of medical conditions, severe side effects and ways to take action.

MORE ABOUT US
(888) 645-1617
Who Am I Calling?
Connect with Drugwatch on Facebook Connect with Drugwatch on Twitter Connect with Drugwatch on YouTube Contact Drugwatch by Email
Click for the BBB Business Review of Drugwatch.com, LLC

AMWA Member Logo

APHA Logo

This website is certified by Health On the Net Foundation. Click to verify.
This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information: Verify here.
Drugwatch is located at:
1 South Orange Ave, Suite 201, Orlando, FL 32801

The information on this website is proprietary and protected. It is not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Any unauthorized or illegal use, copying or dissemination will be prosecuted. Please read our disclaimer for more information about our website.

Drugwatch.com is sponsored by law firms. This website and its content may be deemed attorney advertising. Prior results do not predict a similar outcome. For more information, visit our sponsors page.

TonyGosling · Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2020 11:50 pm Post subject:

STOP THE PFIZER VACCINE
The UK regulator approved Pfizer/BioNTech on 2 December 2020.
This decision must be overturned. We can initiate a Judicial Review.
http://stoppfizer.org

The grounds for review are fully explained in the petition to the European Medicines Agency submitted on 1 December 2020 by Dr Mike Yeadon and Dr Wolfgang Wodark.

Below is the petition they submitted it is the most important scientific challenge to the vaccine and testing regimes established since January 2020.

PETITIONER: December 1, 2020

Dr. med. Wolfgang Wodarg

Germany

CO-PETITIONER:

Dr. Michael Yeadon

England, CT3 1R

TO:

European Medicines Agency

Committee for human medicinal products (CHMP)

COVID-19 EMA pandemic Task Force (COVID-ETF)

Domenico Scarlattilaan 6

1083 HS Amsterdam

The Netherlands

info@ema.europa.eu

press@ema.europa.eu

!! URGENT !!

PETITION/MOTION FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE/REGULATORY ACTION REGARDING

CONFIRMATION OF EFFICACY END POINTS AND USE OF DATA IN

CONNECTION WITH THE FOLLOWING CLINICAL TRIAL(S):

PHASE III - EUDRACT NUMBER: 2020-002641-42 SPONSOR PROTOCOL NUMBER: C4591001 SPONSOR:

BIONTECH SE (SOCIETAS EUROPAEA), AN DER GOLDGRUBE 12, 55131 MAINZ, GERMANY

AND ANY OTHER ONGOING CLINICAL TRIALS OF VACCINE CANDIDATES DESIGNED TO STOP TRANSMISSION OF THE VIRUS FROM THE VACCINE RECIPIENT TO OTHERS AND/OR TO PREVENT COVID-19 OR MITIGATE SYMPTOMS OF COVID-19 FOR WHICH PCR RESULTS ARE THE PRIMARY EVIDENCE OF INFECTION

WITH SARS-COV-2

ADMINISTRATIVE/REGULATORY STAY OF ACTION

This petition for a stay of action is submitted by the undersigned (“ Petitioner” or “Lead Petitioner”) to request the EMA a) stay the Phase III clinical trial(s) of BNT162b (EudraCT Number 2020-002641-42) in the EU (current protocol country: Germany) until study design is amended to conform with the requests in the “Action Requested” section (B.) below; and b) stay all other clinical trials of vaccine candidates designed to stop transmission of the virus from the vaccine recipient to others and/or prevent or mitigate symptoms of COVID-19 for which PCR results are the primary evidence of infection.

Because of the compelling need to ensure the safety and efficacy of any COVID-19 vaccine licensed by the EMA (and/or the German Paul-Ehrlich-Institut), and to allow Petitioner the opportunity to seek appropriate emergency judicial relief should the EMA deny its Petition,

Petitioner respectfully requests that EMA act on the instant Petition immediately.

DECISIONS INVOLVED
Approval of trial design and/or decision to not challenge trial design for Phase III trial of BNT162 (EudraCT Number 2020-002641-42)
Approval of trial design and/or decision to not challenge trial design of all other clinical trials of vaccine candidates designed to stop transmission of the virus from the vaccine recipient to others and/or to prevent or mitigate symptoms of COVID-19 for which PCR results are the primary evidence of infection.
ACTION REQUESTED
Stay the Phase III trial of BNT162 in the protocol country Germany and in any other EU protocol countries (as applicable) until study design is amended to provide that:
Before an Emergency Authorization/Conditional Approval and/or Unrestricted Authorization is issued for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, all “endpoints” or COVID-19 cases used to determine vaccine efficacy in the Phase 3 or 2/3 trials should have their infection status confirmed by appropriate Sanger sequencing (as described in section C. III. below), given a) the high cycle thresholds used in some trials; and b) design flaws of certain RT-qPCR tests identical to or modeled after what is sometimes called the “Drosten-Test”.

Stay the clinical trials of all vaccine candidates designed to stop transmission of the virus from the vaccine recipient to others and/or to prevent or mitigate symptoms of COVID-19 for which PCR results are the primary evidence of infection until study design is amended to provide that:
Before an Emergency Authorization/Conditional Approval and/or Unrestricted Authorization is issued for vaccine designed to stop transmission of the virus from the vaccine recipient to others and/or to prevent or mitigate symptoms of COVID-19, all “endpoints” or COVID-19 cases used to determine vaccine efficacy should have their infection status confirmed by appropriate Sanger sequencing (as described in section B. III. below), given a) the high cycle thresholds used in some trials; and b) design flaws of certain RT-qPCR tests identical to or modeled after what is sometimes called the “Drosten-Test”.

High cycle thresholds, or Ct values, in RT-qPCR test results have been widely acknowledged to lead to false positives. Also, a group of scientists and researchers have recently called for a retraction of the paper that describes the so called “Drosten-Test” (sometimes also being referred to as the “Corman-Drosten protocol” - a specific RT-qPCR assay described by Corman,Victor M., Drosten, Christian and others in “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR.” Euro Surveillance 2020;25(3):pii=2000045. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045).
All RT-qPCR-positive test results used to categorize patient as “COVID-19 cases” in the trials and used to qualify the trial’s endpoints should be verified by Sanger sequencing to confirm that the tested samples in fact contain a unique SARS-CoV-2 genomic RNA. Congruent with FDA and EMA requirements for a confirmed diagnosis of human papillomavirus (HPV) using PCR, the sequencing electropherogram must show a minimum of 100 contiguous bases matching the reference sequence with an Expected Value (E Value) <10-30 for the specific SARS-CoV-2 gene sequence based on a BLAST search of the GenBank database (aka NCBI Nucleotide database).

STATEMENT OF GROUNDS
As detailed herein, (i) without the requested stay, the Petitioner and many EU residents/citizens will suffer irreparable harm, (ii) the request is not frivolous and is being pursued in good faith, (iii) the request demonstrates sound public policy, and (iv) the public interest favors granting a stay.
Petitioner deems the current study designs for the Phase II/III trials of BNT162b (“the Pfizer/BioNTech trial”) to be inadequate to accurately assess efficacy. Petitioner also deems the designs of clinical trials of vaccine candidates designed to stop transmission of the virus from the vaccine recipient to others and/or to prevent or mitigate symptoms of COVID-19 for which PCR results are the primary evidence of infection to be inadequate to accurately assess efficacy.
Petitioner and the public will suffer irreparable harm if the actions requested herein are not granted, because once the EMA (and other appropriate bodies in the various EU member states) approves the COVID-19 vaccines in question, both governments of EU member states and employers in the EU are most likely going to recommend them for widespread use. If the assignment of cases and non-cases during the course of the trials is not accurate, the vaccines will not have been properly tested. If the vaccines are not properly tested, important public policy decisions regarding its use will be based on misleading evidence. The medical and economic consequences to EU member states and their residents/citizens could hardly be higher.
IV. Furthermore, if the vaccines are approved without an appropriate and accurate review of efficacy, then any potential acceptance or mandate of these vaccines is likely to be based on inaccurate evidence regarding the vaccine, namely that it will stop transmission of the virus from the vaccine recipient to others and/or that it will reduce COVID-19 disease and deaths. The Pfizer/BioNTech trial protocol and other trial protocols are currently not designed to determine whether either of those objectives can be met; and even if it was, if cases cannot be reliably identified, neither objective could be reliably met.

The public interest also weighs strongly in favor of the requested relief because improving the accurate determination of primary endpoints (i) will comport with the best scientific practices, (ii) increase public confidence in the efficacy of a product likely to be mandated or intended for widespread use, and (iii) not doing so will have the opposite result and create uncertainties regarding the efficacy of and need for the COVID-19 vaccines.
VI. Petitioner hereby incorporates the grounds, facts, arguments and opinions stated in the “PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION REGARDING CONFIRMATION OF EFFICACY END POINTS OF THE PHASE III CLINICAL TRIALS OF COVID-19 VACCINES” which has been submitted to the FDA by Dr. Sin Hang Lee via electronic filing on November 25, 2020 (Exhibit A - Docket No. FDA-2020-P-2225). Exhibit A attached hereto shall be incorporated herein and shall be understood to be a part hereof as though included in the body of this petition.

VII. Petitioner hereby also incorporates the grounds, facts, arguments and opinions stated in the external peer review of the “Drosten- Test” (Exhibit B). Design flaws of certain RT-qPCR tests that are identical to or modeled after what is sometimes called the “Drosten-Test” can lead to false-positive results in trials designed such that PCR results are the primary evidence of infection. Exhibit B attached hereto shall be incorporated herein and shall be understood to be a part hereof as though included in the body of this petition

VIII. For a vaccine to work, our immune system needs to be stimulated to produce a neutralizing antibody, as opposed to a non-neutralizing antibody. A neutralizing antibody is one that can recognize and bind to some region (‘epitope’) of the virus, and that subsequently results in the virus either not entering or replicating in your cells. A non-neutralizing antibody is one that can bind to the virus, but for some reason, the antibody fails to neutralize the infectivity of the virus. In some viruses, if a person harbors a non-neutralizing antibody to the virus, a subsequent infection by the virus can cause that person to elicit a more severe reaction to the virus due to the presence of the non-neutralizing antibody. This is not true for all viruses, only particular ones. This is called Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE), and is a common problem with Dengue Virus, Ebola Virus, HIV, RSV, and the family of coronaviruses. In fact, this problem of ADE is a major reason why many previous vaccine trials for other coronaviruses failed. Major safety concerns were observed in animal models. If ADE occurs in an individual, their response to the virus can be worse than their response if they had never developed an antibody in the first place. This can cause a hyperinflammatory response, a cytokine storm, and a generally dysregulation of the immune system that allows the virus to cause more damage to our lungs and other organs of our body. In addition, new cell types throughout our body are now susceptible to viral infection due to the additional viral entry pathway. There are many studies that demonstrate that ADE is a persistent problem with coronaviruses in general, and in particular, with SARS-related viruses. ADE has proven to be a serious challenge with coronavirus vaccines, and this is the primary reason many of such vaccines have failed in early in-vitro or animal trials. For example, rhesus macaques who were vaccinated with the Spike protein of the SARS-CoV virus demonstrated severe acute lung injury when challenged with SARS-CoV, while monkeys who were not vaccinated did not. Similarly, mice who were immunized with one of four different SARS-CoV vaccines showed histopathological changes in the lungs with eosinophil infiltration after being challenged with

IX. There are some concerning issues with the trial designs, spelled out by Dr. Peter Doshi in the British Medical Journal. Dr. Doshi focuses on the two biggest issues. First, none of the leading vaccine candidate trials is designed to test if the vaccine can reduce severe COVID-19 symptoms, defined as: hospital admissions, ICU or death. And, second, the trials are not designed to test if the vaccine can interrupt transmission (https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/371/bmj.m4037.full.pdf). If neither of these conditions is met, the vaccine in essence performs like a therapeutic drug, except a vaccine would be taken prophylactically, even by the perfectly healthy, and more than likely carries a higher risk of injury than a therapeutic drug. If this were to be true, then therapeutic drugs would be superior to any COVID vaccine.

X. In the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine candidate, polyethylene glycol (PEG) is found in the fatty lipid nanoparticle coating around the mRNA. Seventy percent of people make antibodies to PEG and most do not know it, creating a concerning situation where many could have allergic, potentially deadly, reactions to a PEG- containing vaccine. PEG antibodies may also reduce vaccine effectiveness. Pfizer/BioNTech is also inserting an ingredient derived from a marine invertebrate, mNeonGreen, into its vaccine. The ingredient has bioluminescent qualities, making it attractive for medical imaging purposes, but it is unclear why an injected vaccine would need to have that quality. mNeonGreen has unknown antigenicity.

XI. Several vaccine candidates are expected to induce the formation of humoral antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. Syncytin-1 (see Gallaher, B., “Response to nCoV2019 Against Backdrop of Endogenous Retroviruses” - http://virological.org/t/response-to-ncov2019-against-backdrop-of-endo genous-retroviruses/396), which is derived from human endogenous retroviruses (HERV) and is responsible for the development of a placenta in mammals and humans and is therefore an essential prerequisite for a successful pregnancy, is also found in homologous form in the spike proteins of SARS viruses. There is no indication whether antibodies against spike proteins of SARS viruses would also act like anti-Syncytin-1 antibodies. However, if this were to be the case this would then also prevent the formation of a placenta which would result in vaccinated women essentially becoming infertile. To my knowledge, Pfizer/BioNTech has yet to release any samples of written materials provided to patients, so it is unclear what, if any, information regarding (potential) fertility-specific risks caused by antibodies is included.

According to section 10.4.2 of the Pfizer/BioNTech trial protocol, a woman of childbearing potential (WOCBP) is eligible to participate if she is not pregnant or breastfeeding, and is using an acceptable contraceptive method as described in the trial protocol during the intervention period (for a minimum of 28 days after the last dose of study intervention).

This means that it could take a relatively long time before a noticeable number of cases of post-vaccination infertility could be observed.

XII. It appears that Pfizer/BioNTech have not yet released any samples of written materials provided to patients, so it is unclear what, if any, instructions/information patients/subjects were given regarding ADE and PEG-related issues and (potential) fertility- or pregnancy-specific issues.

STAY URGENTLY REQUIRED
Petitioner any many EU residents/citizens will suffer irreparable harm because once the EMA approves the COVID- 19 vaccine(s) in question, both governments of EU member states and employers in the EU are most likely going to recommend them for widespread use, and hence without the EMA assuring proper safety trials of the vaccines now, the Petitioner and others will not have the opportunity to object to receiving the vaccine based on deficient clinical trials later.
Furthermore, if the vaccines are licensed without an appropriate efficacy review and without improving the accurate determination of primary endpoints, then any potential acceptance or mandate of these vaccines are likely to be based on inaccurate beliefs and data about the vaccines, namely that they will or might stop transmission of the virus from the vaccine recipient to others and/or that it will reduce severe COVID-19 disease and deaths. The trial protocols in question are not currently properly designed to determine whether either of those objectives can be met.
III. This petition is also not frivolous and is being pursued in good faith as it seeks to increase the scientific integrity and reliability of the trials of the COVID-19 vaccines.

IV. Finally, the public interest also weighs strongly in favor of the requested relief because improving the accurate determination of primary endpoints (i) will comport with the best scientific practices, (ii) increase public confidence in the efficacy of a vaccine expected to be mandated or strongly recommended for widespread use, and (iii) not doing so will have the opposite result in that it will create uncertainties regarding the efficacy of and need for the COVID-19 vaccines.

The Petitioner therefore respectfully urges that this request be granted forthwith. Respectfully submitted on my behalf and on behalf of Co-Petitioner Dr. Michael Yeadon:
__________________________________________________________

Dr. med. Wolfgang Wodarg

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.
Pieter Borger(1), Bobby Rajesh Malhotra(2) , Michael Yeadon(3) , Clare Craig(4), Kevin McKernan(5) , Klaus Steger(6) , Paul McSheehy(7) , Lidiya Angelova( Cool

, Fabio Franchi(9), Thomas Binder(10), Henrik Ullrich(11) , Makoto Ohashi(12), Stefano Scoglio(13), Marjolein Doesburg-van Kleffens(14), Dorothea Gilbert(15), Rainer Klement(16), Ruth Schruefer(17), Berber W. Pieksma(1 Cool

, Jan Bonte(19), Bruno H. Dalle Carbonare(20), Kevin P. Corbett(21), Ulrike Kämmerer(22)
ABSTRACT
In the publication entitled “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR” (Eurosurveillance 25( Cool

2020) the authors present a diagnostic workflow and RT-qPCR protocol for detection and diagnostics of 2019-nCoV (now known as SARS-CoV-2), which they claim to be validated, as well as being a robust diagnostic methodology for use in public-health laboratory settings.

In light of all the consequences resulting from this very publication for societies worldwide, a group of independent researchers performed a point-by-point review of the aforesaid publication in which 1) all components of the presented test design were cross checked, 2) the RT-qPCR protocol-recommendations were assessed w.r.t. good laboratory practice, and 3) parameters examined against relevant scientific literature covering the field.

The published RT-qPCR protocol for detection and diagnostics of 2019-nCoV and the manuscript suffer from numerous technical and scientific errors, including insufficient primer design, a problematic and insufficient RT-qPCR protocol, and the absence of an accurate test validation. Neither the presented test nor the manuscript itself fulfils the requirements for an acceptable scientific publication. Further, serious conflicts of interest of the authors are not mentioned. Finally, the very short timescale between submission and acceptance of the publication (24 hours) signifies that a systematic peer review process was either not performed here, or of problematic poor quality. We provide compelling evidence of several scientific inadequacies, errors and flaws.

Considering the scientific and methodological blemishes presented here, we are confident that the editorial board of Eurosurveillance has no other choice but to retract the publication.

CONCISE REVIEW REPORT
This paper will show numerous serious flaws in the Corman-Drosten paper, the significance of which has led to worldwide misdiagnosis of infections attributed to SARS-CoV-2 and associated with the disease COVID-19. We are confronted with stringent lockdowns which have destroyed many people’s lives and livelihoods, limited access to education and these imposed restrictions by governments around the world are a direct attack on people’s basic rights and their personal freedoms, resulting in collateral damage for entire economies on a global scale.

There are ten fatal problems with the Corman-Drosten paper which we will outline and explain in greater detail in the following sections.

The first and major issue is that the novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (in the publication named 2019-nCoV and in February 2020 named SARS-CoV-2 by an international consortium of virus experts) is based on in silico (theoretical) sequences, supplied by a laboratory in China [1], because at the time neither control material of infectious (“live”) or inactivated SARS-CoV-2 nor isolated genomic RNA of the virus was available to the authors. To date no validation has been performed by the authorship based on isolated SARS-CoV-2 viruses or full length RNA thereof. According to Corman et al.:

“We aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings without having virus material available.” [1]

The focus here should be placed upon the two stated aims: a) development and b) deployment of a diagnostic test for use in public health laboratory settings. These aims are not achievable without having any actual virus material available (e.g. for determining the infectious viral load). In any case, only a protocol with maximal accuracy can be the mandatory and primary goal in any scenario-outcome of this magnitude. Critical viral load determination is mandatory information, and it is in Christian Drosten’s group responsibility to perform these experiments and provide the crucial data.

Nevertheless these in silico sequences were used to develop a RT-PCR test methodology to identify the aforesaid virus. This model was based on the assumption that the novel virus is very similar to SARS-CoV from 2003 as both are beta-coronaviruses.

The PCR test was therefore designed using the genomic sequence of SARS-CoV as a control material for the Sarbeco component; we know this from our personal email-communication with [2] one of the co-authors of the Corman-Drosten paper. This method to model SARS-CoV-2 was described in the Corman-Drosten paper as follows:

“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 Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) is an important biomolecular technology to rapidly detect rare RNA fragments, which are known in advance. In the first step, RNA molecules present in the sample are reverse transcribed to yield cDNA. The cDNA is then amplified in the polymerase chain reaction using a specific primer pair and a thermostable DNA polymerase enzyme. The technology is highly sensitive and its detection limit is theoretically 1 molecule of cDNA. The specificity of the PCR is highly influenced by biomolecular design errors.

What is important when designing an RT-PCR Test and the quantitative RT-qPCR test described in the Corman-Drosten publication?
1. The primers and probes:
a) the concentration of primers and probes must be of optimal range
(100-200 nM)
b) must be specific to the target-gene you want to amplify
c) must have an optimal percentage of GC content relative to the total nitrogenous bases (minimum 40%, maximum 60%)
d) for virus diagnostics at least 3 primer pairs must detect 3 viral genes (preferably as far apart as possible in the viral genome)

2. The temperature at which all reactions take place:
a) DNA melting temperature (>92°)
b) DNA amplification temperature (TaqPol specific)
c) Tm; the annealing temperature (the temperature at which the primers and probes reach the target binding/detachment, not to exceed 2 ÌŠC per primer pair). Tm heavily depends on GC content of the primers

3. The number of amplification cycles (less than 35; preferably 25-30 cycles);
In case of virus detection, >35 cycles only detects signals which do not correlate with infectious virus as determined by isolation in cell culture [reviewed in 2]; if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97% [reviewed in 3]

4. Molecular biological validations; amplified PCR products must be validated either by running the products in a gel with a DNA ruler, or by direct DNA sequencing
5. Positive and negative controls should be specified to confirm/refute specific virus detection
6. There should be a Standard Operational Procedure (SOP) available
SOP unequivocally specifies the above parameters, so that all laboratories are able to set up the exact same test conditions. To have a validated universal SOP is essential, because it enables the comparison of data within and between countries.

MINOR CONCERNS WITH THE CORMAN-DROSTEN PAPER
1. In Table 1 of the Corman-Drosten paper, different abbreviations are stated – “nM” is specified, “nm” isn’t. Further in regards to correct nomenclature, nm means “nanometer” therefore nm should read nM here.

2. It is the general consensus to write genetic sequences always in the 5’-3’ direction, including the reverse primers. It is highly unusual to do alignment with reverse complementary writing of the primer sequence as the authors did in figure 2 of the Corman-Drosten paper. Here, in addition, a wobble base is marked as “y” without description of the bases the Y stands for.

3. Two misleading pitfalls in the Corman-Drosten paper are that their Table 1 does not include Tm-values (annealing-temperature values), neither does it show GC-values (number of G and C in the sequences as %-value of total bases).

MAJOR CONCERNS WITH THE CORMAN-DROSTEN PAPER
A) BACKGROUND
The authors introduce the background for their scientific work as: “The ongoing outbreak of the recently emerged novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) poses a challenge for public health laboratories as virus isolates are unavailable while there is growing evidence that the outbreak is more widespread than initially thought, and international spread through travelers does already occur”.

According to BBC News [4] and Google Statistics [5] there were 6 deaths world-wide on January 21st 2020 – the day when the manuscript was submitted. Why did the authors assume a challenge for public health laboratories while there was no substantial evidence at that time to indicate that the outbreak was more widespread than initially thought?

As an aim the authors declared to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings without having virus material available. Further, they acknowledge that “The present study demonstrates the enormous response capacity achieved through coordination of academic and public laboratories in national and European research networks.”

B) METHODS AND RESULTS
1. Primer & Probe Design
1a) Erroneous primer concentrations
Reliable and accurate PCR-test protocols are normally designed using between 100 nM and 200 nM per primer [7]. In the Corman-Drosten paper, we observe unusually high and varying primer concentrations for several primers (table 1). For the RdRp_SARSr-F and RdRp_SARSr-R primer pairs, 600 nM and 800 nM are described, respectively. Similarly, for the N_Sarbeco_F and N_Sarbeco_R primer set, they advise 600 nM and 800 nM, respectively [1].

It should be clear that these concentrations are far too high to be optimal for specific amplifications of target genes. There exists no specified reason to use these extremely high concentrations of primers in this protocol. Rather, these concentrations lead to increased unspecific binding and PCR product amplification.

Table1: Primers and probes (adapted from Corman-Drosten paper; erroneous primer concentrations are highlighted)

1b) Unspecified (“Wobbly”) primer and probe sequences
To obtain reproducible and comparable results, it is essential to distinctively define the primer pairs. In the Corman-Drosten paper we observed six unspecified positions, indicated by the letters R, W, M and S (Table 2). The letter W means that at this position there can be either an A or a T; R signifies there can be either a G or an A; M indicates that the position may either be an A or a C; the letter S indicates there can be either a G or a C on this position.

This high number of variants not only is unusual, but it also is highly confusing for laboratories. These six unspecified positions could easily result in the design of several different alternative primer sequences which do not relate to SARS-CoV-2 (2 distinct RdRp_SARSr_F primers + 8 distinct RdRp_SARS_P1 probes + 4 distinct RdRp_SARSr_R). The design variations will inevitably lead to results that are not even SARS CoV-2 related. Therefore, the confusing unspecific description in the Corman-Drosten paper is not suitable as a Standard Operational Protocol. These unspecified positions should have been designed unequivocally.

These wobbly sequences have already created a source of concern in the field and resulted in a Letter to the Editor authored by Pillonel et al. [8] regarding blatant errors in the described sequences. These errors are self-evident in the Corman et al. supplement as well.

Table 2: Primers and probes (adapted from Corman-Drosten paper; unspecified (“Wobbly”) nucleotides in the primers are highlighted)

The WHO-protocol (Figure 1), which directly derives from the Corman-Drosten paper, concludes that in order to confirm the presence of SARS-CoV-2, two control genes (the E-and the RdRp-genes) must be identified in the assay. It should be noted, that the RdPd-gene has one uncertain position (“wobbly”) in the forward-primer (R=G/A), two uncertain positions in the reverse-primer (R=G/A; S=G/C) and it has three uncertain positions in the RdRp-probe (W=A/T; R=G/A; M=A/C). So, two different forward primers, four different reverse primers, and eight distinct probes can be synthesized for the RdPd-gene. Together, there are 64 possible combinations of primers and probes!

The Corman-Drosten paper further identifies a third gene which, according to the WHO protocol, was not further validated and deemed unnecessary:

“Of note, the N gene assay also performed well but was not subjected to intensive further validation because it was slightly less sensitive.”

This was an unfortunate omission as it would be best to use all three gene PCRs as confirmatory assays, and this would have resulted in an almost sufficient virus RNA detection diagnostic tool protocol. Three confirmatory assay-steps would at least minimize-out errors & uncertainties at every fold-step in regards to “Wobbly”-spots. (Nonetheless, the protocol would still fall short of any “good laboratory practice”, when factoring in all the other design-errors).

As it stands, the N gene assay is regrettably neither proposed in the WHO-recommendation (Figure 1) as a mandatory and crucial third confirmatory step, nor is it emphasized in the Corman-Drosten paper as important optional reassurance “for a routine workflow” (Table 2).

Consequently, in nearly all test procedures worldwide, merely 2 primer matches were used instead of all three. This oversight renders the entire test-protocol useless with regards to delivering accurate test-results of real significance in an ongoing pandemic.

Figure 1: The N-Gene confirmatory-assay is neither emphasized as necessary third step in the official WHO Drosten-Corman protocol-recommendation below [8] nor is it required as a crucial step for higher test-accuracy in the Eurosurveillance publication.

1c) Erroneous GC-content (discussed in 2c, together with annealing temperature (Tm))
1d) Detection of viral genes
RT-PCR is not recommended for primary diagnostics of infection. This is why the RT-PCR Test used in clinical routine for detection of COVID-19 is not indicated for COVID-19 diagnosis on a regulatory basis.

“Clinicians need to recognize the enhanced accuracy and speed of the molecular diagnostic techniques for the diagnosis of infections, but also to understand their limitations. Laboratory results should always be interpreted in the context of the clinical presentation of the patient, and appropriate site, quality, and timing of specimen collection are required for reliable test results”. [9]

However, it may be used to help the physician’s differential diagnosis when he or she has to discriminate between different infections of the lung (Flu, Covid-19 and SARS have very similar symptoms). For a confirmative diagnosis of a specific virus, at least 3 specific primer pairs must be applied to detect 3 virus-specific genes. Preferably, these target genes should be located with the greatest distance possible in the viral genome (opposite ends included).

Although the Corman-Drosten paper describes 3 primers, these primers only cover roughly half of the virus’ genome. This is another factor that decreases specificity for detection of intact COVID-19 virus RNA and increases the quote of false positive test results.

Therefore, even if we obtain three positive signals (i.e. the three primer pairs give 3 different amplification products) in a sample, this does not prove the presence of a virus. A better primer design would have terminal primers on both ends of the viral genome. This is because the whole viral genome would be covered and three positive signals can better discriminate between a complete (and thus potentially infectious) virus and fragmented viral genomes (without infectious potency). In order to infer anything of significance about the infectivity of the virus, the Orf1 gene, which encodes the essential replicase enzyme of SARS-CoV viruses, should have been included as a target (Figure 2). The positioning of the targets in the region of the viral genome that is most heavily and variably transcribed is another weakness of the protocol.

Kim et al. demonstrate a highly variable 3’ expression of subgenomic RNA in Sars-CoV-2 [23]. These RNAs are actively monitored as signatures for asymptomatic and non-infectious patients [10]. It is highly questionable to screen a population of asymptomatic people with qPCR primers that have 6 base pairs primer-dimer on the 3 prime end of a primer (Figure 3).
Apparently the WHO recommends these primers. We tested all the wobble derivatives from the Corman-Drosten paper with Thermofisher’s primer dimer web tool [11]. The RdRp forward primer has 6bp 3prime homology with Sarbeco E Reverse. At high primer concentrations this is enough to create inaccuracies.

Of note: There is a perfect match of one of the N primers to a clinical pathogen (Pantoea), found in immuno-compromised patients. The reverse primer hits Pantoea as well but not in the same region (Figure 3).

These are severe design errors, since the test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments. The test cannot be used as a diagnostic for SARS-viruses.

Figure 2: Relative positions of amplicon targets on the SARS coronavirus and the 2019 novel coronavirus genome. ORF: open reading frame; RdRp: RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. Numbers below amplicon are genome positions according to SARS-CoV, NC_004718 [1];

Figure 3: A test with Thermofischer’s primer dimer web tool reveals that the RdRp forward primer has a 6bp 3`prime homology with Sarbeco E Reverse (left box). Another test reveals that there is a perfect match for one of the N-primers to a clinical pathogen (Pantoea) found in immuno-compromised patients (right box).

2. Reaction temperatures
2a) DNA melting temperature (>92°).
Adequately addressed in the Corman-Drosten paper.

2b) DNA amplification temperature.
Adequately addressed in the Corman-Drosten paper.

2c) Erroneous GC-contents and Tm
The annealing-temperature determines at which temperature the primer attaches/detaches from the target sequence. For an efficient and specific amplification, GC content of primers should meet a minimum of 40% and a maximum of 60% amplification. As indicated in table 3, three of the primers described in the Corman-Drosten paper are not within the normal range for GC-content. Two primers (RdRp_SARSr_F and RdRp_SARSr_R) have unusual and very low GC-values of 28%-31% for all possible variants of wobble bases, whereas primer E_Sarbeco_F has a GC-value of 34.6% (Table 3 and second panel of Table 3).

It should be noted that the GC-content largely determines the binding to its specific target due to its three hydrogen bonds in base pairing. Thus, the lower the GC-content of the primer, the lower its binding-capability to its specific target gene sequence (i.e. the gene to be detected). This means for a target-sequence to be recognized we have to choose a temperature which is as close as possible to the actual annealing-temperature (best practise-value) for the primer not to detach again, while at the same time specifically selecting the target sequence.

If the Tm-value is very low, as observed for all wobbly-variants of the RdRp reverse primers, the primers can bind non-specifically to several targets, decreasing specificity and increasing potential false positive results.

The annealing temperature (Tm) is a crucial factor for the determination of the specificity/accuracy of the qPCR procedure and essential for evaluating the accuracy of qPCR-protocols. Best-practice recommendation: Both primers (forward and reverse) should have an almost similar value, preferably the identical value.

We used the freely available primer design software Primer-BLAST [12, 25] to evaluable the best-practise values for all primers used in the Corman-Drosten paper (Table 3). We attempted to find a Tm-value of 60° C, while similarly seeking the highest possible GC%-value for all primers. A maximal Tm difference of 2° C within primer pairs was considered acceptable. Testing the primer pairs specified in the Corman-Drosten paper, we observed a difference of 10° C with respect to the annealing temperature Tm for primer pair1 (RdRp_SARSr_F and RdRp_SARSr_R). This is a very serious error and makes the protocol useless as a specific diagnostic tool.

Additional testing demonstrated that only the primer pair designed to amplify the N-gene (N_Sarbeco_F and N_Sarbeco_R) reached the adequate standard to operate in a diagnostic test, since it has a sufficient GC-content and the Tm difference between the primers (N_Sarbeco_F and N_Sarbeco_R) is 1.85° C (below the crucial maximum of 2° C difference). Importantly, this is the gene which was neither tested in the virus samples (Table 2) nor emphasized as a confirmatory test. In addition to highly variable melting temperatures and degenerate sequences in these primers, there is another factor impacting specificity of the procedure: the dNTPs (0.4uM) are 2x higher than recommended for a highly specific amplification. There is additional magnesium sulphate added to the reaction as well. This procedure combined with a low annealing temperature can create non-specific amplifications. When additional magnesium is required for qPCR, specificity of the assay should be further scrutinized.

The design errors described here are so severe that it is highly unlikely that specific amplification of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material will occur using the protocol of the Corman-Drosten paper.

Table 3: GC-content of the primers and probes (adapted from Corman-Drosten paper; aberrations from optimized GC-contents are highlighted. Second Panel shows a table-listing of all Primer-BLAST best practices values for all primers and probes used in the Corman-Drosten paper by Prof. Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer & her team

3. The number of amplification cycles
It should be noted that there is no mention anywhere in the Corman-Drosten paper of a test being positive or negative, or indeed what defines a positive or negative result. These types of virological diagnostic tests must be based on a SOP, including a validated and fixed number of PCR cycles (Ct value) after which a sample is deemed positive or negative. The maximum reasonably reliable Ct value is 30 cycles. Above a Ct of 35 cycles, rapidly increasing numbers of false positives must be expected .

PCR data evaluated as positive after a Ct value of 35 cycles are completely unreliable.

Citing Jaafar et al. 2020 [3]: “At Ct = 35, the value we used to report a positive result for PCR, <3% of cultures are positive.” In other words, there was no successful virus isolation of SARS-CoV-2 at those high Ct values.

Further, scientific studies show that only non-infectious (dead) viruses are detected with Ct values of 35 [22].

Between 30 and 35 there is a grey area, where a positive test cannot be established with certainty. This area should be excluded. Of course, one could perform 45 PCR cycles, as recommended in the Corman-Drosten WHO-protocol (Figure 4), but then you also have to define a reasonable Ct-value (which should not exceed 30). But an analytical result with a Ct value of 45 is scientifically and diagnostically absolutely meaningless (a reasonable Ct-value should not exceed 30). All this should be communicated very clearly. It is a significant mistake that the Corman-Drosten paper does not mention the maximum Ct value at which a sample can be unambiguously considered as a positive or a negative test-result. This important cycle threshold limit is also not specified in any follow-up submissions to date.

Figure 4: RT-PCR Kit recommendation in the official Corman-Drosten WHO-protocol [8]. Only a “Cycler”-value (cycles) is to be found without corresponding and scientifically reasonable Ct (Cutoff-value). This or any other cycles-value is nowhere to be found in the actual Corman-Drosten paper.

4. Biomolecular validations
To determine whether the amplified products are indeed SARS-CoV-2 genes, biomolecular validation of amplified PCR products is essential. For a diagnostic test, this validation is an absolute must.

Validation of PCR products should be performed by either running the PCR product in a 1% agarose-EtBr gel together with a size indicator (DNA ruler or DNA ladder) so that the size of the product can be estimated. The size must correspond to the calculated size of the amplification product. But it is even better to sequence the amplification product. The latter will give 100% certainty about the identity of the amplification product. Without molecular validation one can not be sure about the identity of the amplified PCR products. Considering the severe design errors described earlier, the amplified PCR products can be anything.

Also not mentioned in the Corman-Drosten paper is the case of small fragments of qPCR (around 100bp): It could be either 1,5% agarose gel or even an acrylamide gel.

The fact that these PCR products have not been validated at molecular level is another striking error of the protocol, making any test based upon it useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

5. Positive and negative controls to confirm/refute specific virus detection.
The unconfirmed assumption described in the Corman-Drosten paper is that SARS-CoV-2 is the only virus from the SARS-like beta-coronavirus group that currently causes infections in humans. The sequences on which their PCR method is based are in silico sequences, supplied by a laboratory in China [23], because at the time of development of the PCR test no control material of infectious (“live”) or inactivated SARS-CoV-2 was available to the authors. The PCR test was therefore designed using the sequence of the known SARS-CoV as a control material for the Sarbeco component (Dr. Meijer, co-author Corman-Drosten paper in an email exchange with Dr. Peter Borger) [2].

All individuals testing positive with the RT-PCR test, as described in the Corman-Drosten paper, are assumed to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 infections. There are three severe flaws in their assumption. First, a positive test for the RNA molecules described in the Corman-Drosten paper cannot be equated to “infection with a virus”. A positive RT-PCR test merely indicates the presence of viral RNA molecules. As demonstrated under point 1d (above), the Corman-Drosten test was not designed to detect the full-length virus, but only a fragment of the virus. We already concluded that this classifies the test as unsuitable as a diagnostic test
for SARS-virus infections.

Secondly and of major relevance, the functionality of the published RT-PCR Test was not demonstrated with the use of a positive control (isolated SARS-CoV-2 RNA) which is an essential scientific gold standard.

Third, the Corman-Drosten paper states:

“To show that the assays can detect other bat-associated SARS-related viruses, we used the E gene assay to test six bat-derived faecal samples available from Drexler et al. […] und Muth et al. […]. 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. This would, theoretically, ensure broad sensitivity even in case of multiple independent acquisitions of variant viruses from an animal reservoir.”

This statement demonstrates that the E gene used in RT-PCR test, as described in the Corman-Drosten paper, is not specific to SARS-CoV-2.

The E gene primers also detect a broad spectrum of other SARS viruses.
The genome of the coronavirus is the largest of all RNA viruses that infect humans and they all have a very similar molecular structure. Still, SARS-CoV1 and SARS-CoV-2 have two highly specific genetic fingerprints, which set them apart from the other coronaviruses. First, a unique fingerprint-sequence (KTFPPTEPKKDKKKK) is present in the N-protein of SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 [13,14,15]. Second, both SARS-CoV1 and SARS-CoV2 do not contain the HE protein, whereas all other coronaviruses possess this gene [13, 14]. So, in order to specifically detect a SARS-CoV1 and SARS-CoV-2 PCR product the above region in the N gene should have been chosen as the amplification target. A reliable diagnostic test should focus on this specific region in the N gene as a confirmatory test. The PCR for this N gene was not further validated nor recommended as a test gene by the Drosten-Corman paper, because of being “not so sensitive” with the SARS-CoV original probe [1].

Furthermore, the absence of the HE gene in both SARS-CoV1 and SARS-CoV-2 makes this gene the ideal negative control to exclude other coronaviruses. The Corman-Drosten paper does not contain this negative control, nor does it contain any other negative controls. The PCR test in the Corman-Drosten paper therefore contains neither a unique positive control nor a negative control to exclude the presence of other coronaviruses. This is another major design flaw which classifies the test as unsuitable for diagnosis.

6. Standard Operational Procedure (SOP) is not available
There should be a Standard Operational Procedure (SOP) available, which unequivocally specifies the above parameters, so that all laboratories are able to set up the identical same test conditions. To have a validated universal SOP is essential, because it facilitates data comparison within and between countries. It is very important to specify all primer parameters unequivocally. We note that this has not been done. Further, the Ct value to indicate when a sample should be considered positive or negative is not specified. It is also not specified when a sample is considered infected with SARS-CoV viruses. As shown above, the test cannot discern between virus and virus fragments, so the Ct value indicating positivity is crucially important. This Ct value should have been specified in the Standard Operational Procedure (SOP) and put on-line so that all laboratories carrying out this test have exactly the same boundary conditions. It points to flawed science that such an SOP does not exist. The laboratories are thus free to conduct the test as they consider appropriate, resulting in an enormous amount of variation. Laboratories all over Europe are left with a multitude of questions; which primers to order? which nucleotides to fill in the undefined places? which Tm value to choose? How many PCR cycles to run? At what Ct value is the sample positive? And when is it negative? And how many genes to test? Should all genes be tested, or just the E and RpRd gene as shown in Table 2 of the Corman-Drosten paper? Should the N gene be tested as well? And what is their negative control? What is their positive control?

The protocol as described is unfortunately very vague and erroneous in its design that one can go in dozens of different directions. There does not appear to be any standardization nor an SOP, so it is not clear how this test can be implemented.

7. Consequences of the errors described under 1-5: false positive results.

The RT-PCR test described in the Corman-Drosten paper contains so many molecular biological design errors (see 1-5) that it is not possible to obtain unambiguous results. It is inevitable that this test will generate a tremendous number of so-called “false positives”. The definition of false positives is a negative sample, which initially scores positive, but which is negative after retesting with the same test. False positives are erroneous positive test-results, i.e. negative samples that test positive. And this is indeed what is found in the Corman-Drosten paper. On page 6 of the manuscript PDF the authors demonstrate, that even under well-controlled laboratory conditions, a considerable percentage of false positives is generated with this test:

“In four individual test reactions, weak initial reactivity was seen however they were negative upon retesting with the same assay. These signals were not associated with any particular virus, and for each virus with which initial positive reactivity occurred, there were other samples that contained the same virus at a higher concentration but did not test positive. Given the results from the extensive technical qualification described above, it was concluded that this initial reactivity was not due to chemical instability of real-time PCR probes and most probably to handling issues caused by the rapid introduction of new diagnostic tests and controls during this evaluation study.” [1]

The first sentence of this excerpt is clear evidence that the PCR test described in the Corman-Drosten paper generates false positives. Even under the well-controlled conditions of the state-of-the-art Charité-laboratory, 4 out of 310 primary-tests are false positives per definition. Four negative samples initially tested positive, then were negative upon retesting. This is the classical example of a false positive. In this case the authors do not identify them as false positives, which is intellectually dishonest.

Another telltale observation in the excerpt above is that the authors explain the false positives away as “handling issues caused by the rapid introduction of new diagnostic tests”. Imagine the laboratories that have to introduce the test without all the necessary information normally described in an SOP.

8. The Corman-Drosten paper was not peer-reviewed
Before formal publication in a scholarly journal, scientific and medical articles are traditionally certified by “peer review.” In this process, the journal’s editors take advice from various experts (“referees”) who have assessed the paper and may identify weaknesses in its assumptions, methods, and conclusions. Typically a journal will only publish an article once the editors are satisfied that the authors have addressed referees’ concerns and that the data presented supports the conclusions drawn in the paper.” This process is as well described for Eurosurveillance [16].

The Corman-Drosten paper was submitted to Eurosurveillance on January 21st 2020 and accepted for publication on January 22nd 2020. On January 23rd 2020 the paper was online. On January 13th 2020 version 1-0 of the protocol was published at the official WHO website [17], updated on January 17th 2020 as document version 2-1 [18], even before the Corman-Drosten paper was published on January 23rd at Eurosurveillance.

Normally, peer review is a time-consuming process since at least two experts from the field have to critically read and comment on the submitted paper. In our opinion, this paper was not peer-reviewed. Twenty-four hours are simply not enough to carry out a thorough peer review. Our conclusion is supported by the fact that a tremendous number of very serious design flaws were found by us, which make the PCR test completely unsuitable as a diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Any molecular biologist familiar with RT-PCR design would have easily observed the grave errors present in the Corman-Drosten paper before the actual review process. We asked Eurosurveillance on October 26th 2020 to send us a copy of the peer review report. To date, we have not received this report and in a letter dated November 18th 2020, the ECDC as host for Eurosurveillance declined to provide access without providing substantial scientific reasons for their decision. On the contrary, they write that “disclosure would undermine the purpose of scientific investigations.” [24].

9. Authors as the editors
A final point is one of major concern. It turns out that two authors of the Corman-Drosten paper, Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken, are also members of the editorial board of this journal [19]. Hence there is a severe conflict of interest which strengthens suspicions that the paper was not peer-reviewed. It has the appearance that the rapid publication was possible simply because the authors were also part of the editorial board at Eurosurveillance. This practice is categorized as compromising scientific integrity.

SUMMARY CATALOGUE OF ERRORS FOUND IN THE PAPER
The Corman-Drosten paper contains the following specific errors:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 [20]; 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 [21] and the company operates in the realm of real time PCR-testing.

In light of our re-examination of the test protocol to identify SARS-CoV-2 described in the Corman-Drosten paper we have identified concerning errors and inherent fallacies which render the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test useless.
CONCLUSION
The decision as to which test protocols are published and made widely available lies squarely in the hands of Eurosurveillance. A decision to recognise the errors apparent in the Corman-Drosten paper has the benefit to greatly minimise human cost and suffering going forward.

Is it not in the best interest of Eurosurveillance to retract this paper? Our conclusion is clear. In the face of all the tremendous PCR-protocol design flaws and errors described here, we conclude: There is not much of a choice left in the framework of scientific integrity and responsibility.

REFERENCES
[1] Corman Victor M, Landt Olfert, Kaiser Marco, Molenkamp Richard, Meijer Adam, Chu Daniel KW, Bleicker Tobias, Brünink Sebastian, Schneider Julia, Schmidt Marie Luisa, Mulders Daphne GJC, Haagmans Bart L, van der Veer Bas, van den Brink Sharon, Wijsman Lisa, Goderski Gabriel, Romette Jean-Louis, Ellis Joanna, Zambon Maria, Peiris Malik, Goossens Herman, Reusken Chantal, Koopmans Marion PG, Drosten Christian. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Euro Surveill. 2020;25(3):pii=2000045. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045

[2] Email communication between Dr. Peter Borger & Dr. Adam Meijer: Supplementary Material

[3] Jafaar et al., Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction–Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures, Including 1941 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Isolates. https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1491/ 5912603

[4] BBC, January 21st 2020: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51185836;
Archive: https://archive.is/0qRmZ

[5] Google Analytics – COVID19-deaths worldwide: https://bit.ly/3fndemJ
Archive: https://archive.is/PpqEE

[6] Laboratory testing for COVID-19 Emergency Response Technical Centre, NIVD under
China CDC March 15th, 2020: http://www.chinacdc.cn/en/COVID19/202003/P020200323390321297894.pdf

[7] Real-Time PCR Handbook Life Technologies: https://www.thermofisher.com/content/dam/LifeTech/global/Forms/PDF/rea l-time-pcr-
handbook.pdf

Nolan T, Huggett J, Sanchez E.Good practice guide for the application of quantitative PCR (qPCR) First Edition 2013

[8] Trestan Pillonel et al, Letter to the editor: SARS-CoV-2 detection by real-time RT-PCR: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7268274/

[9] Kurkela, Satu, and David WG Brown. “Molecular-diagnostic techniques.” Medicine 38.10
(2009): 535-540.

[10] Wolfel et al., Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-2019
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2196-x

[11] Thermofischer Primer Dimer Web Tool: https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/brands/thermo-scientific/molec ular-biology/molecular-biology-learning-center/molecular-biology-resou rce-library/thermo-scientific-web-tools/multiple-primer-analyzer.html

Supplementary Material

[12] Primer-BLAST, NCBI – National Center for Biotechnology Information: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/tools/primer-blast/

[13] Marra MA, Steven JMJ, Caroline RA, Robert AH, Angela BW et al. (2003) Science. The
Genome sequence of the SARS-associated coronavirus. Science 300(5624): 1399-1404.

[14] Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 isolate Wuhan-Hu-1, complete
genome: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MN908947

[15] Borger P. A SARS-like Coronavirus was expected but nothing was done to be prepared. Am J Biomed Sci Res 2020. https://biomedgrid.com/pdf/AJBSR.MS.ID.001312.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341120750_A_SARS-
like_Coronavirus_was_Expected_but_nothing_was_done_to_be_Prepared;
Archive: https://archive.is/i76Hu

[16] Eurosurveillance paper evaluation / review process: https://www.eurosurveillance.org/evaluation

[17] Official recommendation of the Corman-Drosten protocol & manuscript by the WHO,published on January 13th 2020 as version 1.0 of the document:
https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/wuhan-virus-assay -
v1991527e5122341d99287a1b17c111902.pdf; archive: https://bit.ly/3m3jXVH

[18] Official WHO-recommendation for the Corman / Drosten RT-qPCR-protocol, which
directly derives from the Eurosurveillance-publication, document-version 2-1, published on
17th January 2020: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/protocol-v2-
1.pdf?sfvrsn=a9ef618c_2

[19] Eurosurveillance Editorial Board, 2020: https://www.eurosurveillance.org/upload/site-
assets/imgs/2020-09-Editorial%20Board%20PDF.pdf;
Archive: https://bit.ly/2TqXBjX

[20] Instructions For Use LightMix SarbecoV E-gene plus EAV Control, TIB-Molbiol & Roche
Molecular Solutions, January 11th 2020: https://www.roche-as.es/lm_pdf/MDx_40-0776_96_Sarbeco-E-
gene_V200204_09164154001 (1).pdf
Archive, timestamp – January 11th 2020: https://archive.is/Vulo5;
Archive: https://bit.ly/3fm9bXH

[21] Christian Drosten & Victor Corman, responsible for viral diagnostics at Labor Berlin:
https://www.laborberlin.com/fachbereiche/virologie/
Archive: https://archive.is/CDEUG

[22] Tom Jefferson, Elizabeth Spencer, Jon Brassey, Carl Heneghan Viral cultures for COVID-
19 infectivity assessment. Systematic review. Systematic review doi:
https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.04.20167932 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.04.20167932v4

[23] Kim et al.,The Architecture of SARS-CoV-2 Transcriptome:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867420304062

[24] ECDC reply to Dr. Peter Borger, 18th November 2020:
Supplementary Material

[25] Prof. Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer & team, survey & Primer-BLAST table:
Supplementary Material

Additional literature:

Description RT-PCR RKI Germany, on page 10 of this link:
https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/Gesundheitsmonitoring/Gesundheitsbericht erstattung/GBE
DownloadsJ/JoHM_S5_2020_Studienprotokoll_CORONA_MONITORING_lokal.pdf?_ _blob=p
ublicationFile

Author’s Affiliations:
1) Dr. Pieter Borger (MSc, PhD), Molecular Genetics, W+W Research Associate, Lörrach, Germany
2) 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
3) Dr. Michael Yeadon BSs(Hons) Biochem Tox U Surrey, PhD Pharmacology U Surrey. Managing Director, Yeadon Consulting Ltd, former Pfizer Chief Scientist, United Kingdom
4) Dr. Clare Craig MA, (Cantab) BM, BCh (Oxon), FRCPath, United Kingdom
5) 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
6) Prof. Dr. Klaus Steger, Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Andrology, Molecular Andrology, Biomedical Research Center of the Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany
7) Dr. Paul McSheehy (BSc, PhD), Biochemist & Industry Pharmacologist, Loerrach, Germany
Cool

Dr. Lidiya Angelova, MSc in Biology, Ph

TonyGosling · Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2021 12:30 am Post subject:

Why popping a pill for every emotional problem is madness: Antidepressants and antipsychotics are now doled out in their millions... but an expert argues they can make your condition WORSE
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9661469/JAMES-DAVIES-poppin g-pill-emotional-problem-madness.html

By JAMES DAVIES FOR THE DAILY MAIL

PUBLISHED: 22:22, 7 June 2021 | UPDATED: 07:24, 8 June 2021

Medicine has progressed at an astonishing rate over the past 40 years. If, in the late 1970s, a child had contracted leukaemia, their chances of survival would have been around 20 per cent — today it would be 80 per cent.

Similar impressive rates of improvement can be found in almost every other area of medicine. With one exception: mental health.

In this area, not only have clinical outcomes broadly flatlined but, according to some measures, they have actually got worse.

And this is despite tens of billions of pounds having been spent on psychiatric research in the past two decades; despite £18 billion being spent on mental health services annually in the NHS; and despite nearly a quarter of the entire UK adult population now being prescribed a psychiatric drug each year.

Public conversations around mental health have proliferated. This, of course, is a good thing. But it is clearly insufficient in making things better.

Research published in the British Journal of General Practice back in 1998 found that patients prescribed antidepressants stopped getting better after three months, while a group who didn¿t receive the drugs continued to improve +2
Research published in the British Journal of General Practice back in 1998 found that patients prescribed antidepressants stopped getting better after three months, while a group who didn’t receive the drugs continued to improve

According to the NHS’s Independent Mental Health Taskforce (set up to create a national strategy for improving mental health services), mental health outcomes have worsened in recent years, as have rates of suicide. And there has been no reduction at all in the prevalence of mental disorders since the 1980s.

Why? Is this all just down to sparse resources, or is there something more ominous about our approach to mental health?

The answer lies in something I, as a fledgling psychotherapist, had not expected to encounter when I started working in the NHS in the early 2000s. I soon realised that the vast majority of people who’d been diagnosed and prescribed psychiatric medication were not mentally ill or dysfunctional in any substantiated or medical sense.

Rather, they were people experiencing the inevitably painful human consequences of being engulfed by life’s difficulties or severe misfortunes. Far from being pathological, they were having sane yet painful reactions to factors such as poverty, trauma, family breakdown, social discrimination, abuse and so forth.

My first placement, in 2004, was at a small family-centre charity on a council estate. Most of the people I saw were living with very difficult situations, yet the human and social causes of their suffering went largely ignored.

Emotion labelled as 'mental illness'
Instead, after a seven-minute consultation with a GP, they ended up being prescribed psychiatric medication (antidepressants, tranquillisers), which they took for extended periods, while nearly every one of them had been given a psychiatric label, usually that of a depressive or anxiety disorder.

After 12 months, I moved to an NHS clinic in a more affluent area, serving a mostly white, middle-class and well-educated clientele. Here, once again, most people had been prescribed medication and given labels — anxiety, depression and, sometimes, more severe diagnoses: bipolar, personality or psychotic disorder.

But here, too, I never met anyone I felt comfortable calling mentally ill. Instead, there were relationship problems, sexual problems, unhappiness at work, low self-esteem, bereavement and loneliness.

But these understandable yet painful experiences had been recast as symptoms of a specific psychiatric disorder, to which a specific psychiatric drug was then matched.

In the UK, our attachment to psychiatric drugs appears to be stronger than ever. We are now witnessing long-term prescribing for milder and moderate problems ¿ for the kinds of mental health issue managed by GPs +2
In the UK, our attachment to psychiatric drugs appears to be stronger than ever. We are now witnessing long-term prescribing for milder and moderate problems — for the kinds of mental health issue managed by GPs

Harms of chemical 'imbalance theory'
This is the typical response to anyone who opens up about their mental distress today: completely overlooking harmful social, political and work environments and, instead, relying on drug interventions which may do more harm than good in the long run. I often wondered: How did we get here?

Mental suffering is blamed on faulty minds and brains — the so-called chemical imbalances — despite there being no known tests or other kind of physical examination that can prove this or verify any diagnosis.

What’s more, recent research has shown that believing mental illness is rooted in biological abnormalities can have an adverse impact on someone’s recovery.

For example, people diagnosed with depression who believe their problems are due to chemical imbalances experience greater pessimism about their recovery, as well as more depressive symptoms after their treatment has ended (according to a Harvard study published in 2020).

I say this not to shame anyone who takes medication for their real distress. There may be some rational use for psychiatric drugs, particularly in the short term, for the most severe forms of distress.

Nor do I mean to diminish the often overwhelming effects of suffering, nor to deny that those affected deserve care and support — quite the opposite.

But since I moved from clinical practice into research (in 2014, I co-founded the Council for Evidence-based Psychiatry, which advises the All Parliamentary Group for Prescribed Drug Dependence), my work with others has shown, among other things, the great difficulty many people have in coming off medications such as antidepressants.

And the problems run deeper, with over-diagnosis and overtreatment of mental distress that is driven by a medical model — which in turn is driven by drug manufacturers.

The truth is that since the 1990s, the pharmaceutical industry has significantly shaped psychiatric research, training and practice through financial sponsorship. It has funded many influential mental health charities, patient groups and heads of psychiatry departments.

Furthermore, the industry has paid for, commissioned, designed and conducted nearly all the clinical trials into psychiatric drugs.

Even the two questionnaires that have been widely used in the NHS to help doctors determine if a person has depression or anxiety — the PHQ-9 questionnaire and the GAD-7 questionnaire respectively — were originally developed by Pfizer, which, incidentally, makes two of the most prescribed anti-anxiety and antidepressant drugs in the UK: Effexor and Zoloft.

Faster recovery without the pills
It is little wonder that the over-medicalisation — and subsequent medicating — of emotional distress has proliferated.

Yet in nations where antidepressant prescriptions have doubled in the past 20 years (including the UK, U.S., Australia, Iceland and Canada), we have also witnessed the doubling of people claiming disability payments due to mental health problems, as the work of Robert Whitaker, a U.S. researcher (and the author of Mad In America, a book on psychiatric treatment) has shown.

This is the opposite of what you would expect if the drugs were working — and it can’t simply be put down to an increase in awareness of mental health conditions. If psychiatric medications were effective long-term treatments, then an increase in diagnosis and treatment shouldn’t lead to a rise in disability.

There is a large body of evidence that could explain the link — that psychiatric drugs appear to worsen long-term outcomes.

For example, a large 2017 study into long-term antidepressant use assessed the progress of 3,300 patients over nine years. It showed that medicated patients had significantly more severe symptoms after nine years than those who had stopped treatment.

In fact, even people who received no treatment at all did better than those who received medication over the long term.

It is far from the first finding of this nature. Research published in the British Journal of General Practice back in 1998 found that patients prescribed antidepressants stopped getting better after three months, while a group who didn’t receive the drugs continued to improve.

In 2007, the most comprehensive study of long-term psychiatric drug use at that time was published in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease.

It followed a large cohort of patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, asking how they were doing five, ten and 15 years after their first diagnosis and course of antipsychotic treatment.

RELATED ARTICLES
Previous
1
Next

Radical new treatment involving a sonic blast could benefit...

A drug cure for kidney cancer and a jab to ward off ovarian...
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
Share
Medications can shrink the brain
After four-and-a-half years, 39 per cent of those who had stopped their medication had fully recovered, compared with only six per cent of those who had continued taking their medication.

After ten years, that gap had widened further. In fact, the longer people stayed on the drugs, the worse their outcomes on every measure, including anxiety, cognitive function and capacity to work.

More recently, in 2019, researchers at Zurich University of Applied Sciences found that in the long term, antidepressants might increase the risk of re-hospitalisation in patients diagnosed with both depression and bipolar.

As they stated: ‘Our findings, therefore, challenge the alleged long-term benefit of antidepressants and raise the possibility that, in the long run, antidepressants may do more harm than good.’

Most unnervingly, there is evidence that long-term use of psychiatric drugs can change the brain, which may explain the increased risk of relapse or worsening symptoms described in other studies.

For example, in 2011, one of the foremost neuroscientists in the U.S., Professor Nancy Andreasen, led a team exploring long-term drug use. MRI scans revealed that long-term use of certain anti-psychotics was ‘associated with smaller brain tissue volumes’.

Crucially, this degeneration was not a symptom of the disease, as previously thought, but an outcome of long-term psychiatric drug use.

And although the study looked at people being treated for schizophrenia specifically, the researchers noted that anti- psychotics are increasingly used for other conditions (such as bipolar and depression).

This is just a small sample of the evidence. It suggests that our drug-heavy approach may at least partly explain why mental health outcomes are falling far behind other areas of healthcare, especially since the long-term use of psychiatric drugs is associated with an increase in a whole host of other problems such as weight gain, risk of neurodegenerative diseases such as dementia, and sexual dysfunction.

Yet in the UK, our attachment to psychiatric drugs appears to be stronger than ever. We are now witnessing long-term prescribing for milder and moderate problems — for the kinds of mental health issue managed by GPs.

Today, about 4.4 million people in England have been taking antidepressants for longer than two years.

One reason why people seem unable to come off medications such as antidepressants is widespread misunderstanding about the withdrawal effects, which have been assumed — incorrectly — to be mild and short-lived, resolving in a week or two.

In fact, we now know that many people experience severe symptoms — such as increased anxiety, trouble sleeping and even suicidal thoughts — for months and beyond when they try to stop their medication.

Truth about the CBT success story
The main type of mental health therapy offered on the NHS — Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) — has been heralded as a big success, with nearly ten million people treated since its inception in 2006.

It is claimed that almost half of people recover as part of their IAPT treatment, which generally involves up to six sessions of CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy, which is largely about changing people’s perspectives; helping them adapt better to the circumstances in which they found themselves).

It was built on the promise that it was a quick, cost-effective way to get people back to work. Yet underneath the impressive headline figures, there is evidence that IAPT is, in fact, failing hundreds of thousands of patients annually.

In 2010, Dr Michael Scott, a clinical psychologist at the University of Manchester, noticed something odd when he was assessing IAPT patients.

Alongside his work as an academic and clinician, Dr Scott acted as an expert witness for the courts — where he heard time and again that people’s IAPT treatment had not helped.

He decided to conduct his own — admittedly small — review. Looking at 65 cases of those who had passed through IAPT services, he found that whatever the condition being treated, only about 16 per cent of people could be said to be recovering — an outcome seriously at odds with the results reported by IAPT.

Why? It turns out that IAPT only includes patients who complete the course of treatment in its results. This means that a full half of all IAPT patients — those who don’t turn up or drop out — are simply not factored into the success rates.

And when you include those who drop out of treatment — as the University of Chester’s Centre for Psychological Therapies did in a 2013 study — the number recovering plummets to about 23 per cent.

In other words, only around two in ten people recover as a result of IAPT — woefully below the nearly five in ten reported.

In fact, this is also no more effective than no treatment at all, when you consider that a large review of data by Australian researchers in 2012 showed that 23 per cent of people spontaneously overcame their symptoms of depression within three months, without receiving treatment.

The origins of this myth can be traced to a decision by a committee at a 1996 symposium, funded by the drug company Eli Lilly.

This myth made its way into clinical guidelines internationally, despite no real corroborating research. As it took root, doctors who encountered more severe or protracted withdrawal would assume that their patients were relapsing and the drugs would often be reinstated.

This may partly explain why, since the guidelines on withdrawal were issued in 2004, the length of time the average person in the UK spends on an antidepressant has doubled.

In 2018, a review I conducted along with Professor John Read, a clinical psychologist at the University of East London, finally helped to debunk the withdrawal myth.

Our study showed that withdrawal affected more than half of antidepressant users, with up to half of those reporting it as severe — and that a significant proportion experienced withdrawal for many weeks, months or more. This research and other studies led to the UK’s guidelines being revised — as well as to a U-turn by the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

Of course, many people take psychiatric drugs simply because there are so few alternatives. In England last year, 7.4 million adults were prescribed an antidepressant in the NHS, while just over a million were referred for a psychological therapy.

Could Covid change our approach?
This isn’t because people prefer the drugs. Research shows that the majority of people consulting a GP for help would prefer a talking therapy or some form of social support. Even when people do receive some form of counselling, the results are often unsatisfactory (see box above).

This matters now more than ever. In a post-Covid world, there is every chance that the psychological aftershocks of the pandemic will be reframed as rising ‘mental illness’, with psychiatric prescriptions further rising in response.

In April 2020, with lockdown already taking its toll, the Royal College of Psychiatrists warned of a coming ‘tsunami of mental illness’.

By July, the Office for National Statistics reported that ‘rates of depression’ had doubled in four months, while the London School of Economics concluded that, by the end of the year, the nation as a whole had pretty much reached the threshold for psychiatric illness.

But what was being medicalised as a ‘mental illness epidemic’ did not look like illness at all.

Data emerging during the 2021 lockdown showed that the worst-affected people were women with small children, the ill, the bereaved, those losing their jobs, and young people aged between 18 and 24.

At the root of this distress were not misfiring brain chemicals or a genetic predisposition to mental illness, but the obvious social stressors to which these groups were exposed.

In this sense, Covid may yet prove an opportunity to re-evaluate and tackle the bigger problems that underpin our nation’s apparently declining mental health.

When YouGov undertook the largest survey into the national outlook, only nine per cent of people reported wanting life to return to ‘normal’ after the pandemic.

Many of them were relieved to be temporarily away from jobs they disliked or found dissatisfying. Others found unsought-for opportunities to spend more time with family, to deepen connections, to read, to reflect, to walk and to exercise.

Covid, then, has changed our sense of what matters most and least in life. And it has transfigured our understanding of what makes us tick, what brings us down — and what is really necessary to raise us up.

James Davies is a reader in medical anthropology and mental health at the University of Roehampton. He is a qualified psychotherapist and co-founder of the Council for Evidence-based Psychiatry.

Adapted from Sedated: How Modern Capitalism Created The Mental Health Crisis, by James Davies (Atlantic Books, £18.99). © James Davies 2021. To order a copy for £16.90 (offer valid to 30/6/21; UK P&P free), visit www.mailshop.co.uk/books

Read more:
www.mailshop.co.uk/books
Share or comment on this article: JAMES DAVIES: Why popping a pill for every emotional problem is madness

item8 · Trustworthy Freedom Fighter Joined: 24 Nov 2009 Posts: 974

https://www.bitchute.com/video/RgVLpAcMfPCG/

The Awakening Interviews Dr. Mike Yeadon

https://www.bitchute.com/video/JZMpG31NRljC/

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny Goes Full Truth With Explosive Based Fact Spew On Stew Peters Show

Two very well qualified and experienced professionals in the medical and pharmacutical fields totally trash the covid19 pandamic hoax and warn against taking the poison jab.

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> General	All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1