They think legit scientists are stupid, too.

Highlight reel-

REAL scientists examine the (non-)science behind the "Official", Corman-Drosten et al Report-

External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific

...at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results.

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 fulfills 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,...