I call BS on this "error list". First, this doesn't take into account the other tests developed around the world (China, CDC, Institut Pasteur). > The describ

I call BS on this "error list". First, this doesn't take into account the other tests developed around the world (China, CDC, Institut Pasteur). > The described concentrations lead to increased nonspecific bindings and PCR product amplifications, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus. In this "review" this hasn't been verified experimentally. The onus is on the ones doing the criticism. You still put excess primers in the reaction, because they don't need to be the limiting factor. > 2. Six unspecified wobbly positions will introduce an enormous variability in the real world laboratory implementations of this test; Has this been verified experimentally? > 3. The test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments. Therefore, the test cannot be used as a diagnostic for intact (infectious) viruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus and make inferences about the presence of an infection. This is correct in absence of symptoms. But this test is meant as a diagnostic aid in presence of symptoms or any suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The fact that the governments don't use it like that does not invalidate the test per se. > 4. A difference of 10° C with respect to the annealing temperature Tm for primer pair1 (RdRp_SARSr_F and RdRp_SARSr_R) also makes the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This was tested in silico. There is no experimental evidence provided. > 7. The PCR test contains neither a unique positive control to evaluate its specificity for SARS-CoV-2 nor a negative control to exclude the presence of other coronaviruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Other tests used in the world, including the CDC, have those controls used for validation. > 9. Most likely, the Corman-Drosten paper was not peer-reviewed making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Ad hominem. > In light of our re-examination of the test protocol to identify SARS-CoV-2 described in the Corman-Drosten paper we have identified concerning errors and inherent fallacies which render the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test useless. What about the other tests elsewhere? Are they "flawed"? The "authors" of this piece should have done like others did to uncover the poor specificity of early antibody testing: get some experimental samples, known positive and negative, and start doing experiments. Not writing a text with frankly dubious claims.