If memory serves me correctly*, I learned more about the Corman-Drosten PCR and its architects later, after becoming involved in the international group PANDA.
Shortly thereafter, I read Farewell to Virology (this version: https://www.docdroid.net/UzZBoFi/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition-pdf). I THINK it was then that I first noticed that the Corman et al said that they’d assumed from “social media reports” that a rumored outbreak in Wuhan, China, was from a SARS-related coronavirus.
I mentioned it to Jonathan Engler, who pointed me to his own April 2023 “a-ha” and tweet.
Like Engler, I was shocked that scientists would base assumptions about a kind of virus involved in an alleged outbreak on rumor. I was also struck that a scientific journal didn’t require the authors to cite the reports. We later wrote about what those “reports” might have been, relying in part on investigations others had already found and hypothesized. https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/did-the-corman-drosten-protocol-rely
Whatever the sources — and regardless of whether the authors truly learned of an alleged outbreak in Wuhan from such sources — the key point for me is that they said their process began with and was guided by online rumors.
That it would take little more anonymous posts on the Internet for virologists from six countries to take unverified reports seriously enough to use it as an impetus or basis for design should concern anyone who values scientific integrity.
Epidemiologists, public health officials, and journal editors might say that social media and online reporting systems are useful (and necessary) for “detecting” outbreaks of serious diseases or “newly emergent” pathogens. By that logic, Victor Corman was clever to act on rumor — and happened to be right! *eyeroll emoji*
But what “checks” were in place to determine if he and his colleagues were wrong? And how do the virologists themselves, know that social media wasn’t used to trick them?
They don’t, and that should concern everyone who wants to make sure the same playbook can’t be used again.
*If my memory is "off" or faulty, I welcome correction.
I understand there’s an opening or two at CDC. I suggest RFK change things up: rather than continuing with the quotas of freaks, charlatans and malevolent demons, why not bring in real, capable researchers with no agenda other than a rigorous, dogged pursuit of the truth; those who will not and cannot be bamboozled by fraudulent data manipulation and fake science employed to inflict tremendous harm on people for profit, power and sheer sadistic delight in evil. Why not bring Jessica Hockett on board? If what CDC seeks is the truth, I have seen no one demonstrably better qualified by their high quality, extensive, rigorous, thorough, determined - and wholly uncompensated - body of work than Jessica Hockett. There may well be others, but if what I have outlined is the goal - and it should be - she unquestionably fits that bill. @Wood_House76 for CDC.
With gratitude and appreciation for the underlying compliments, I think my doubts about the communicability of most diseases, opinion that the CDC and 90% of what it does is unconstitutional, and the number of times I have critiqued his claims and the claims of those who are connected to him might be barriers to employment!
Although no doubt those traits and views are seen as barriers by many in position to make such appointments, they are in fact qualifications. Sadly, too few realize that. It’s a bit like a baseball GM refusing the chance to hire Nolan Ryan because he struck out too many of their batters when he pitched against them, or Babe Ruth because he hit too many home runs playing against them. So it goes.
Personal Note/Follow-Up
I didn’t know about the Corman-Drosten protocol, its paper, and the Borger et al. critique for years. The U.S. used the CDC’s PCR test; hence, my was focus was on technologies, FDA approvals, and data patterns here — and on documenting related shenanigans in my state, e.g., https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/for-the-record-my-unpublished-solicited https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/how-the-fda-found-out-about-u-of
If memory serves me correctly*, I learned more about the Corman-Drosten PCR and its architects later, after becoming involved in the international group PANDA.
In summer 2024, I looked into how SARS-CoV-2 was named and corresponded with a virologist involved in the process. https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/the-sars-cov-2-name-game-long-read
Shortly thereafter, I read Farewell to Virology (this version: https://www.docdroid.net/UzZBoFi/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition-pdf). I THINK it was then that I first noticed that the Corman et al said that they’d assumed from “social media reports” that a rumored outbreak in Wuhan, China, was from a SARS-related coronavirus.
I mentioned it to Jonathan Engler, who pointed me to his own April 2023 “a-ha” and tweet.
Like Engler, I was shocked that scientists would base assumptions about a kind of virus involved in an alleged outbreak on rumor. I was also struck that a scientific journal didn’t require the authors to cite the reports. We later wrote about what those “reports” might have been, relying in part on investigations others had already found and hypothesized. https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/did-the-corman-drosten-protocol-rely
Whatever the sources — and regardless of whether the authors truly learned of an alleged outbreak in Wuhan from such sources — the key point for me is that they said their process began with and was guided by online rumors.
That it would take little more anonymous posts on the Internet for virologists from six countries to take unverified reports seriously enough to use it as an impetus or basis for design should concern anyone who values scientific integrity.
Epidemiologists, public health officials, and journal editors might say that social media and online reporting systems are useful (and necessary) for “detecting” outbreaks of serious diseases or “newly emergent” pathogens. By that logic, Victor Corman was clever to act on rumor — and happened to be right! *eyeroll emoji*
But what “checks” were in place to determine if he and his colleagues were wrong? And how do the virologists themselves, know that social media wasn’t used to trick them?
They don’t, and that should concern everyone who wants to make sure the same playbook can’t be used again.
*If my memory is "off" or faulty, I welcome correction.
I understand there’s an opening or two at CDC. I suggest RFK change things up: rather than continuing with the quotas of freaks, charlatans and malevolent demons, why not bring in real, capable researchers with no agenda other than a rigorous, dogged pursuit of the truth; those who will not and cannot be bamboozled by fraudulent data manipulation and fake science employed to inflict tremendous harm on people for profit, power and sheer sadistic delight in evil. Why not bring Jessica Hockett on board? If what CDC seeks is the truth, I have seen no one demonstrably better qualified by their high quality, extensive, rigorous, thorough, determined - and wholly uncompensated - body of work than Jessica Hockett. There may well be others, but if what I have outlined is the goal - and it should be - she unquestionably fits that bill. @Wood_House76 for CDC.
With gratitude and appreciation for the underlying compliments, I think my doubts about the communicability of most diseases, opinion that the CDC and 90% of what it does is unconstitutional, and the number of times I have critiqued his claims and the claims of those who are connected to him might be barriers to employment!
:)
Although no doubt those traits and views are seen as barriers by many in position to make such appointments, they are in fact qualifications. Sadly, too few realize that. It’s a bit like a baseball GM refusing the chance to hire Nolan Ryan because he struck out too many of their batters when he pitched against them, or Babe Ruth because he hit too many home runs playing against them. So it goes.