https://cormandrostenreview.com/addendum/

Aim of critique:

Pointing out concerns with the original manuscript and Corman PCR protocol distributed by the WHO. Many of these references were already provided by the authors of the original CD report, which are relevant to further criticisms.

Unusual peer-review process, timeframes, and multiple technical vulnerabilities of the protocol.

Additional concern: raised about the report, regarding the discussion of appropriate controls. Several studies underscore the importance of internal controls in assessing viral load and lack of such internal controls in the Corman qPCR method. These internal controls are required for normalizing swab sampling variance and are critical for interpreting viral load. They are notably absent from the PCR protocol. Several people have expressed confusion regarding the NCBI submissions provided by Corman et al. The sequences provided lack two of the target gene sequences they claimed to target. The only sequences referenced in the manuscript are x y z, and noen of these have sequences that match tehir N and E gene primers. This not only brings their validation into question, but also prevents others from reproducing the work presented by their study.

20 Scientific publications provided "wet lab" evidence of performance of the Corman PCR protocol. Of those, 17 found problems with incorrect primer design (msismaches, dimer formation, melting temperature) in the SARS-CoV-2 specific confirmatory test.
These problems include:
- Docuemtned primer dimers and false positives
- Documented poor sensitivity and false negatives
- No internal control to normalize the sample preparation variability and its impact on viral load estimation.
- Poorly documented positive controls and sequences used in the study.