Content uploaded by Pieter Borger
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Pieter Borger on Sep 29, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Response to Andreas Beyer ´s article „Borger & Kämmerer, Corona & qPCR, Pseudoscience &
Conspiracy Theory Revisited - an Analytical Essay.“
P. Borger, MSc, PhD
When an article—or essay—commences with several unsubstantiated statements it should
be read with caution, because we might not be dealing with a scientific paper. Rather, such
articles are written for personal goals or gains, or simply to stir up public opinion. The article
by Dr Andreas Beyer1, indisputably the most vocal defender of Drosten´s PCR test in
Germany, is no exception. Beyer wrote his essay as a response to our scientific criticism on
the Corman-Drosten- RTPCR test,2 which was submitted November 2020 to Eurosurveillance
(who rejected it in February 2021 without disclosing the reviewer´s comments).
Interestingly, Beyer mentions he is grateful to Victor Corman for helpful comments, so we
may regard this essay as a more or less „official reply“ to our criticism. The first sentence of
Beyer´s article reads:
„By the end of 2019, a novel corona virus, SARS-CoV-2, was transmitted from animals to
humans in China and quickly spread out from there over the globe.“
There are three statement of faith in this opening sentence, which are all entirely
unsubstantiated.
First, there is n o evidence that the Corona virus, SARS-CoV-2, emerged by the end of 2019.
Several papers demonstrate immunity against SARS-CoV-2, either in the form of antibodies
or by T cell reactivity in probands not exposed to the virus.3,4,5 Further, genetic comparisons
with additional corona viruses demonstrate that the virus must have emerged concurrently
with the SARS-CoV virus, which we know of since 2003.6
Second, Beyer´s statement that we are dealing with „a novel Coronavirus“ is mainstream
opinion propagated without evidence. The fact of the matter is that the symptoms
associated with SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2, the syndromes of SARS and Covid-19, cannot
be distinguished from each other.7 Based on symptoms only, a pulmonologist would not
be able to tell whether a patient is infected with SARS-CoV-1 or with SARS-CoV-2. In
addition, several studies strongly suggest that SARS-CoV-2 is very closely related to the SARS-
CoV virus of 2003.8-11 Genetic analyses indicated that the virus of 2003 was not a
recombination of known viruses, but a novel virus that emerged suddenly in China. Unlike
most other coronaviruses, the SARS-CoV strain of 2003 did not contain the HE protein9,10.
The HE protein is also not found in the genome of SARS-CoV-2. Further, a short lysine-rich
region (KTFPPTEPKKDKKKKTDEAQ) in the N-protein was reported to be unique to SARS-CoV
of 200310. Intriguingly, an almost identical sequence (KTFPPTEPKKDKKKKADETQ) is present
in the N-protein of SARS-CoV211. Both characteristics strongly indicate that we are not
dealing with a novel Coronavirus, but with a variant of the same virus of 2003.
Third, the statement that the virus was transmitted from animals to humans is without
scientific evidence. Although coronaviruses are found in bats, pangolins, and members of the
feline family (cats), there is no evidence to demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 arose in one of
these animals and subsequently infected humans. The unique genetic features of SARS-CoV-
2, such as the furine cleavage site in the S-protein, cannot be detected in any of the animal-
bound corona viruses12. In addition, SARS-CoV-2 also does not show signs of recombination
with other known corona viruses—further refuting Beyer´s third statement of faith.
Despite the fact that we have repeatedly directed Dr Beyer to the addendum13, which we
added to our criticism in January 2021 and which addresses his comments, he continuesly
and repeatedly asked for a refutation of his essay. For the uninformed readers, who read
Beyer´s essay, it may thus seem we did not address Beyer´s points of critique.
We do not deny that Beyer's essay contains a number of interesting (theoretical) comments,
neither do we ignore his points of concern. They have all had our attention and we
addressed them extensively in the addendum13. This addendum also contains empirically
obtained data from over a dozen laboratories and research groups showing critical
shortcomings and pitfalls present in the design of the PCR test as described in the Corman-
Drosten paper. Therefore, these points need not be repeated here, we gladly refer Beyer
(again) to the addendum.
In addition, we would like to point out again that several ICLSS-supporting laboratories have
now thoroughly tested the RTPCR test. In this respect, the data from Dr Sin Lee's laboratory
are particularly important.14,15 He demonstrated that the fluorescence signal generated in
RT-qPCR is not a reliable surrogate marker for the DNA sequence of a target template. When
complex clinical specimens are tested for diagnostic purposes, DNA/DNA hybridization does
not always involve two fully matched sequences. Lee´s results of the nested RTPCR
amplification followed by Sanger sequencing assay showed that 30-50% of the RT-qPCR-
positive samples are false positives.14,15 We have similar (unpublished) data from other
laboratory.
Lee´s most recent work emphasized that the technologies depending on probe hybridization,
in particular RT-qPCR, cannot accurately and specifically identify the RNA sequences that
comprise the genetic material of the virus, especially of a virus with frequently emerging
sequence variants. The claim that RT-qPCR tests can distinguish between the original virus
and novel variants, even if they differ by only a single nucleotide change, is not evidence-
based and beyond scientfic realism.14 Lee´s findings are in complete agreement with and
support our RTPCR critique.2
Reading the summary of his essay, I wondered whether Beyer is intellectually dishonest. The
title is even misleading, because his „analytical essay“ does not contain analytical data.
Clearly he is not working within an objective empirical scientific framework. In Germany, Dr
Beyer, who did not publish in peer reviewed scientific journals since 2005, is a self-
proclaimed defender of science, in particular when it comes tot the defence of the
Darwinian worldview. As the author of the book „Darwin Revisited“,16 which summarizes the
shortcomings of the (Neo)Darwinian tenets and formulates an alternative to explain organic
change, I strongly disagree with Beyer´s opinions. This fact alone already led to a vivid email
exchange, in which my scepticism regarding Darwinian evolution was Beyer´s main concern.
The PCR test never was a topic of discussion.
Could it be that Beyer attacked our ICLSS group, because he identified me and another
coathor as staunch opponents of the Darwinian narrative—the most tested and failed
hypothesis to explain the origin of species? If so, his attack may be explained by an inability
to differentiate between operational and historical science—a deficit which I have observed
by several members of the Darwinian community. In contrast to historical science,
operational science can be tested and falsified through empirical experimentation.
It should be noted, that, although our ICLSS group mainly argued from PCR theory, the
arguments that we put forward as critique can be subjected to laboratory testing and thus
qualify as empirical science. Indeed, we currently have ample laboratory evidence that the
PCR test generates a huge number of false positives, even in samples provided by reference
laboratories.14,15
Taken together, the laboratory data provide compelling evidence against Beyer´s claims that
our „PCR critique is not scientifically founded“. When scientific criticism of a paper that was
not peer-reviewed, is regarded as conspiracy, as Beyer does, it is obvious that there is
something severely wrong with his understanding of science. His outcry to colleagues to
„please spread this essay for at least a little bit of counterbalance“ emphasizes his anti-
science attitude. Beyer seems to think that science and knowledge progress by democratic
voting or that scientific truths are determined by defending and spreading mainstream
opinions. It is hard to believe that Corman, who apparently read and commented on Beyer's
essay, did not notice the anti-science attitude expressed in it.
The history of science shows that following the mainstream has always been a science
stopper, and consensus science, i.e. the collective opinion of a community of scientist, was
always wrong. Group thinking and copying main stream opinions is anti-science. That science
nevertheless progressed was because of paradigm shifts induced by individuals and out-of-
the-box thinking.
Science commits suicide when it adopts (political) creeds, ideologies, dogmas and group
thinking. Science can only move forward through free debate and scrutiny of dubious
science by critical thinkers. And the only way to move science forward is by experimentation
and empirical evidence. In contrast to scientific work performed by our supporters, Beyers
essay does not fullfil any of these criteria. It needs no further attention. Emperical science
refuted his theoretical musings.
References:
1. Beyer A. Borger & Kämmerer, Corona & qPCR, Pseudoscience & Conspiracy Theory
Revisited - an Analytical Essay.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351286220_Borger_Kammerer_Corona_
qPCR_Pseudoscience_Conspiracy_Theory_Revisited_-_an_Analytical_Essay_-
[accessed Sep 28 2021].
2. https://cormandrostenreview.com/
3. https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30610-3
4. https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.abd3871
5. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2598-9
6. Personal communication with ICLSS supporting geneticists
7. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341120750_A_SARS-
like_Coronavirus_was_Expected_but_nothing_was_done_to_be_Prepared
8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5389864/
9. Collier L, Oxford J (2006) Human Virology, Oxford University Press :75.
10. 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.
11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MN90894712.
12. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-020-0184-0
13. https://cormandrostenreview.com/addendum/
14. https://researchinfotext.com/article-details/qPCR-is-not-PCR-Just-as-a-
Straightjacket-is-not-a-Jacketthe-Truth-Revealed-by-SARS-CoV-2-False-Positive-Test-
Results
15. http://www.dnalymetest.com/images/IJGeriatRehabLee_on_SARSCoV2_test.pdf
16. https://www.amazon.de/Darwin-Revisited-understand-biology-
century/dp/6202315113
