…because the virologists who designed the PCR protocol almost certainly won’t.
Jessica Hockett PhD & Dr Jonathan Engler
The living authors of the Corman-Drosten Review Report1 — a critique of Corman et al.’s PCR paper — need to confront a key, now-obvious omission from their analysis: the virologists’ acknowledgment that their RT-PCR protocol began with and was directed by rumors of a SARS-related coronavirus causing an outbreak of mysterious pneumonia in Wuhan, China. (Shown below.)
The 22 scientists involved in producing the critique of the Eurosurveillance paper were assembled by Pieter Borger and Bobby Malhotra in autumn of 2020. The group uploaded 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 to ResearchGate in late November 2020.
Genesis of the Review Report
Bobby Malholtra’s account of how the Review report was written, as told to Aya Velasquez in a January 2021 interview,2 follows:
Bobby Malhotra: When Corona kicked off last year in January [2020], many labs got into a kind of race for scientific supremacy in this field. In my Research Center I was assigned to a SARS-CoV-2 task force. My job was to identify the so-called “spike protein” of the Corona virus and to put it under the microscope. The way artists are, we always do a little more than is actually required! For example, using my 3-D program, I filled gaps, i.e. empty spaces in the sequences. To do this, you compare them with other molecular data from the RCSB database, and where something is missing, you piece it together to create a “fuller” picture of the spike protein.
At this point, I started asking the lab staff critical questions about the methodology, questions about so-called gap-filling and alignments. They did not give much away. In retrospect, I now know that they simply did not want to admit to me that it was their daily bread to “experiment” with these gaps in the code during in-silico production.
Aya Velasquez: What does “in silico production” mean?
Malhotra: It’s the theoretical fabrication of viral fragments and protein parts. To me, the whole thing suddenly seemed fishy. Added to this was the problem of primary patient isolates. The laboratory was busy isolating and sequencing 1000 Austrian samples. In the process more and more mutations came to light. I wondered how there could suddenly be so many mutations in a single regional cluster. It was quite unrealistic. The day came when I was informed that my employment contract would not be renewed. (4th quarter 2020).
On a day when I was very angry, I created a mega thread on Twitter with 124 tweets.
In the German Corona Committee Session No. 22, Prof. Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer had explained the problem of the Drosten PCR tests. I linked this with my knowledge and tried to explain it for the beginner on Twitter – a mixture of corruption, bioinformatics and the PCR problem. This thread then pretty much hit home.
This is how I came across Dr Pieter Borger, who at the same time was posting on ResearchGate (editor’s note: a science publishing platform). At some point he wrote to me and asked: Mr Malhotra, do you want to join me, I want to write a retraction request for the Drosten paper? I had to tell him that I was not a classical scientist, but a digital artist and a self-taught bioinformatician. He was astonished that I was able to converse with him at all. I then told him the same story that I am telling you.
After a meeting with Pieter Borger and Professor Ulrike Kämmerer, quite quickly things became fairly clear. We went our different ways, enquired around our scientific circles and gathered a total of 22 scientists. After we had submitted the results of this team to Eurosurveillance, the question arose: What do we do now? Do we wait and watch the whole thing vanish into thin air? I then decided to make a website out of it (https://cormandrostenreview.com). This is how the whole discussion about the PCR tests was brought to the attention of the public.
The “theoretical fabrication of viral fragments and protein parts” and the “gap filling” that Malhotra described resemble the processes involved in photographic upscaling.3 Results appear reasonably authoritative but, in actuality, are inferences presented as truth.
Malholtra’s October 2020 “mega thread” (essentially a rough draft of the critique that followed a month later) flagged the “social media sourcing,” citing a Science piece that said lead author Victor Corman began combing bat coronavirus sequences for common regions right after seeing “the first rumors about a coronavirus in China online.”4
Asking the Authors
Bobby Malhotra
After discovering Malhotra’s thread, Jessica asked him why the observation didn’t make the cut for the formal critique:
@bobby_network Hi. I just learned about this thread last week and have a few questions related to the above post (65/124).
Jonathan Engler and I have written about the “social media” statement and recently updated the article with information that was new to us.
You correctly observed in the 27 October 2020 tweet that the C-D paper states that “social media reports announcing the detection of a SARS-like virus” were relied upon to search a database.
The
March[Correction: April] 2020 article in Science* (your left image) says Corman began a search “after seeing the first rumors about a coronavirus in China online” and tried to “guess [what] a new SARS-like coronavirus might look like, in order to create a test.”“Rumors about a coronavirus” and “social media reports announcing the detection of a SARS-like virus” aren’t quite the same thing…the latter being more specific. The word “detection” also indicates some kind of testing had been done and they had been made aware of it when they “searched” by 1 Jan 2020 (left image below).5
Questions:
1) How do you read these statements in 2025?
2) Unlike your thread — which is essentially a draft of the C-D critique — the published critique doesn’t say anything about or express concerns about the C-D authors saying they conducted a search based on social media reports. Was there any discussion among critique authors about whether to address that?6
,
Malholtra did not reply.
Pieter Borger
Pieter Borger, lead and corresponding author on the critique, is also on X. Jessica posed similar questions to him:
Hi @BorgerPieter. May I ask you a question about the Corman Drosten Review? I notice that the criticisms did not include mention of Corman et al saying they assumed it was a SARS virus based on social media reports.
This is a notable oversight in any event but especially so because Mr. Malhotra highlighted it in his thread. https://x.com/Bobby_Network/status/1321188173913927680
Do you recall if there was discussion among yourselves regarding whether to address that in the critique?
Borger replied,
We only discussed the design of the method, and the unscientific review Process, not assumptions on media reports.
Jessica thanked Borger for his response and pushed further:
Although the C-D authors mentioned being directed by social media reports in the Results section of the paper, the entire process was guided by the assumption that a SARS-related coronavirus was involved in an outbreak.
The Methods would have been different were it not supposed to be a SARS-CoV, correct? That’s certainly the case on the sequencing front. What if the rumor was that “it” was a new/pandemic strain of influenza?
[Colleagues] and I have written some articles about this [here and here].
I would be grateful for your feedback/reaction — as a matter of historical context and record, if nothing else, even if you strongly disagree with us.
See also questions I posed to Drosten today…with material related to things Marion Koopmans and Ron Fouchier said. I think the library metaphor works. See what you think! 🙂 https://x.com/Wood_House76/status/1958858039831736767
Borger has not responded again.
Michael Yeadon
Earlier this year, Michael Yeadon, another scientist on the critique, reacted to questions about whether he had noticed the social media mention and what he thought about it now.Something went wrong
Yeadon said he was “embarrassed to have to admit” he didn’t remember that part of that paper and wondered whether the effort served other purposes:
“To the best of my recollection, I recall poring over the methods and results sections, in order to decide if I was content that the proffered critique was reasonable, thus to agree to have my name on the paper demolishing the original methods paper. Seen from years away from this event, I’m unsure if I’ve been played.”
Yeadon later acknowledged that the focus on the technical aspects legitimized the ostensibly novel SARS sequences:
“…by critiquing the method, we semi validated that not only might there have been something new circulating but, had the method been developed properly, it could be clinically useful. None of which is true.”
Jessica’s exchanges with two other contributors — Clare Craig (here) and Lidiya Angelova (here) — did not involve directly asking for their insights about the exclusion.
Why It Still Matters
We were both “late” in noticing the social-media mention in Corman et al.’s paper. Having been deeply engaged in examining the technical and practical aspects of PCR and other tests during the COVID era (each of us in different ways) we remember the uphill battles. In 2020, counter-narrative victories were rightly and necessarily centered on things like exposing flaws in the first PCR protocol blessed by the WHO, rather than considering the question of whether there was actually anything novel in circulation at all.
At the same time, we are sensitive to how ‘halo effects’ can stave off legitimate criticism and hinder important inquiries. Bobby Malhotra’s Twitter thread shows that at least one Review contributor noticed the social media sourcing and made valid observations that should have been addressed. Some may accept lead author Pieter Borger’s rationale for leaving it out; we do not. However, we’re far less concerned about a past that cannot be changed than we are about resistance toward confronting uncomfortable questions now, five years later.
The relevance of the reference to social-media sourcing in the Corman–Drosten Review matters not only for what the omission of its mention says about the critique, but also for what it reveals about the protocol itself.
Corman et al openly stated that their development began with social-media reports of a SARS-related outbreak in Wuhan. Those reports (whatever they actually were)7 directed Charité staff to a particular “section” of an existing catalogue. In other words, the starting assumption shaped the design.
Had the rumor been about an influenza strain, the methods and results would have been different. Hypothetically, WHO would have “brought together” a different set of virologists to publish a different “blueprint.”8 But as it was, the foundation of the Corman–Drosten protocol rested not on confirmed biological evidence but on unsourced online chatter. One of the most consequential scientific protocols of the COVID-19 Event was explicitly steered by conjecture and presumption.
Yes, it was riddled with technical flaws. But isn’t the first and most disturbing flaw that a German virologist (Victor Corman) reportedly acted on a “social media” post – probably a “tweet”? The PCR architects assumed a SARS-like virus, designed a method that would “find” one, and then presented those results as confirmation. That’s a circularity problem, if nothing else.9
And how would Corman, his Charité colleagues, or Marion Koopmans at Erasmus (who likewise said she learned of the outbreak via social media)10 know if they were wrong? How would they know they hadn’t fooled themselves, or been deliberately misled?
Needed: Fresh Eyes
Borger et al missed the chance to call the bluff on the “social media science” that helped create the illusion of a sudden-spreading pathogen. It’s hard to look back at the collection of contributors and not wonder whether a few realized that the sourcing posed a serious challenge to the official narrative, yet avoided it due to professional or financial interest.
More charitably, like most of us, perhaps the authors truly believed at the time (even if some don’t now) that there was a novel SARS-related virus transmitting from person to person or in the air, and couldn’t yet fathom that such a shaky foundation could underlie a world-upending event.
To hold that view and thus overlook the implications of the social media sourcing in late 2020 could be considered a ‘fog of war’ mistake. To ignore it now, in mid-2025, would be to sidestep how science, policy, and speculation became intertwined and all-but-guaranteed catastrophic consequences.
If disease-surveillance systems are so fragile and “trigger-happy” that they can be activated by (literal) Chinese whispers, posterity remains perpetually at risk of a repeat performance. For that reason alone, each of the authors of the Corman–Drosten Review should revisit the Eurosurveillance paper, alongside everything they’ve learned since their retraction request was rejected, with fresh eyes.
Notes & References
- Per an archived version of the report website: This extensive review report has been officially submitted to [the] Eurosurveillance editorial board on 27th November 2020 via their submission-portal, enclosed to this review report is a retraction request letter, signed by all the main & co-authors. First and last listed names are the first and second main authors. All names in between are co-authors. Hence, this response to what is often called “the Corman-Drosten protocol” could be thought of as “the Borger-Kämmerer response”. ↩︎
- Velázquez, A. (2021, September 8). “We are in the middle of an information war.” (Interview with B. R. Malhotra). Velázquez Press. ↩︎
- Engler, J. Hockett, J. & Neil, M. (2025, August 19). “Filling in the gaps: The connection between photographic upscaling, genetic sequencing, and the ‘finding’ of SARS-CoV-2.” Sanity Unleashed. ↩︎
- We don’t speak German, but as far as we call tell from her presentation slides, Dr. Kämmerer did not address the social media sourcing in her July 2020 presentation to the Corona Ausschuss; therefore, we attribute Malhotra with the observation. ↩︎
- Jessica erred here in thinking that “detection” would necessarily mean “tested and found ↩︎
- X applied a “sensitive content” warning to the post. ↩︎
- Candidates presented in Hockett, J., & Engler, J. (2025, February 19). “Did the Corman-Drosten Protocol ‘rely on social media reports’ to seek (& then find) SARS-CoV-2?” Wood House 76.
↩︎ - Post excerpt: “By 9-12 January, WHO had published its first set of comprehensive guidance for countries, and on 13 January, we brought together partners to publish the blueprint of the first SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test.” World Health Organization (@WHO). December 31, 2024. https://x.com/WHO/status/1873769167154799068 ↩︎
- One described in Engler, J., & Hockett, J. (2025, March 12). “Novelty and immunity: Why were we so blind to the obvious?” Sanity Unleashed. ↩︎
- In this 27 March 2020 video program, Koopmans says, “The start was as unusual as everything that followed: I heard it through social media and a newspaper.” ↩︎
24 May 2026: This addendum records additional observations that I, Jessica Hockett, made during the drafting of the article but chose not to include for lack of fit with the article’s focus:
1) Authors Clare Craig and Bruno H. Dalle Carbonara do not appear in the Contributions list (below).
2) One set of initials in the Contributions list, RvV, doesn’t match the initials of any authors but may be Rogier van Vliet, who appears in some versions/listings of the Corman-Drosten Review Group.
When I asked one of the Review Report’s copy editors, Howard Steen, about the mismatch and missing information last year, he said he wasn’t sure what accounted for the differences.
PB: Planned and conducted the analyses and research, conceptualising the manuscript.
BRM: Planned and conducted the research, conceptualising the figures and manuscript.
MY: Proofreading the analyses and research.
KMcK: Conducted the analyses and research, conceptualized the manuscript.
KS: Conducted the analyses and research.
PMcS: Proofreading the analyses and research.
LA: Proofreading the analyses and research.
FF: Proofreading the analyses and research.
TB: Proofreading the analyses and research.
HU: Proofreading the analyses and research.
MO: Proofreading the analyses and research.
SS: Proofreading the analyses and research.
MDvK: Proofreading the analyses and research.
DG: Proofreading the analyses and research.
RJK: Proofreading the analyses and research.
RS: Proofreading the analyses and research, and the manuscript.
BWK: Proofreading the analyses and research.
RvV: Proofreading the analyses and research.
JB: Proofreading the analyses and research.
KC: Proofreading the analyses and research.
UK: Planned and conducted the analyses and research, conceptualising the manuscript.
18 June 2026: I (Jessica Hockett) recently became aware of a January 2025 article that mentions the Corman-Drosten Review Report, written by German historian Uwe Alschner, about questions that American biologist Jonathan Couey raised about the Review Report on an episode of Couey’s GigaOhm Biological broadcast. I wasn’t aware of Alschner’s article or Couey’s questions when I co-authored “It’s time for all living authors of the Corman-Drosten Review Report to confront ‘social media science’”.
An exchange in the comments between Howard Steen and Uwe Alschner is preserved below.
Myself and two colleagues helped in a small way with preparation of the final published version of the CD Review Report by proof reading and making suggestions in the layout of the argumentation. But since then things have moved on.
We know for quite a while now that the 2020 Corona event was never about science or protecting ‘health’.
It was about control and getting people to take unsafe toxic injections.
Part of the illusion to create a reason for the injections was the construction of a fake contagion event.
For that the fake PCR test was required to deliver ‘cases’.
That is all we need to know about the PCR test and the Corman Drosten Review Report already explains how the test was useless.
I think it is of no utility to try to understand how this report came about. How can this help us moving forward? One of the original authors is now dead and Bobby Malhotra who brought this team together and then allowed its website to fall into disuse, is to all intents and purposes no longer active or engaged in any of this.
We now know for sure from the analysis of excess mortality that nothing was ‘spreading’, so there was no mass contagion event. The pattern of mortality indicates there was no pathogen, only deaths caused by injection, medical malpractice, isolation and denial of proper care.
People can talk about lab leak viruses as much as they like, but there is no detectable mortality to account for this theory because ‘nothing was spreading’.
But to know exactly how this illusion was staged is important. This was done partly via the PCR test, but enough is already known about this.
More important in my view is the unsolved question of how they engineered these improbable and unique mass casualty ‘trigger events’ in a few key places like Bergamo, NYC, London etc. The reported mortality numbers defy rational explanation. Jessica Hockett & Jonathan Engler have published extensively about this.
I view what happened in 2020 as a political event involving global deep state actors and the military. In that respect it is similar to 9-11.
Showing how the illusion was created in as much detail as possible is key to exposing the lie of a ‘pandemic’.
I respectfully disagree.
The reason those questions are important is that, as Dr. Couey points out, those „experts“ should have immediately understood the problem of „background“ for any assessment of or debates about PCR.
As a disturbing number of those are engaging in ad-hominem attacks against Couey until this day, effectively clearing the way for guys like Dr. Malone to hammer into large parts of both dissidents and mainstream observers that „this time they screwed us, but THE BIG ONE is yet to come“. ‚Lab Leak‘ serves that purpose to enforce a believe in the „unmet need of countermeasures“.
That is why attacks on Couey by guys like McKernan, or silence by the rest off of authors, are so disturbing.
Thanks,
All I can say about the problem of ‘background’ is that I don’t recall it being discussed back then but I came into this group some time after its formation , & more towards the finalisation of its conclusions.
What I would say additionally, is that the membership of this large group of 22 was quite diverse and therefore encompassed a rage of viewpoints from the more critical of the whole of virology to the more conventional, from people who were truly independent scientists to others who were somehow ‘invested’ in the game or the prevailing academic view of the ‘science’. I remember thinking at the time that it was something of an achievement that a group like this could even manage to agree on the conclusions that it did, the main one being that the test as designed could not reliably detect the target ‘sequence’. So it was useless as a measure of ‘spread’ and should never have been published. Much in the process of getting to that agreement probably has to be attributed to the tireless work at that time of ‘Bobby’ Malhotra, leader of the group.
But we anyway know now that there is no evidence for ‘spread’ from the mortality data so surely that is the most promising way of attacking the ‘pandemic preparedness industrial complex’ with its supporters like Dr Malone.
I cannot see how the original members of the CD report could be so easily brought together again to explain their reasoning about what J Couey and others possibly very reasonably believe was an omission in the original report. This is not in any way to dismiss the question, only to say that it might prove be very difficult to find an answer.
The ones who could be contacted when Bobby suddenly and unexpectedly allowed the website to go down could not agree how to save the site.
If I recall correctly, only about half of the original members entered the discussion about this.
My apologies if am missing something here, which I may be, but how exactly would this information help defeat the nonsensical and humanity threatening activities of the pandemic preparedness industry?
I feel the best defense would be to bring more people up to speed with the real science showing there’s no evidence that spread of respiratory viruses occurs and to challenge the whole basis that a ‘pandemic’ occurred or can occur in future. I am fairly sure that Mike Yeadon would say the same.
Finally, in case this may be of some use, my group saved a copy of the Review Report containing all the original comments on our server:
http://enformtk.u-aizu.ac.jp/cormandrostenreview.com/index.html%3Fp=1.html
I am happy for anyone to disagree with me, and even happier if they can provide me with a reason to change my mind. It has changed already a lot throughout this whole dystopia five years.
Leave a Reply