Thank you for your reply of May 28, 2025, to my IFG application of January 30, 2025.
You write that no negative controls were carried out with healthy patient samples during virus cultivation or genome sequencing of measles or SARS-CoV-2 viruses, as these methods are only carried out with "pre-analyzed samples" in which the virus has already been detected by PCR or sequencing.
I have the following questions:
Scientific evidence without negative controls:
You confirm that no negative controls with healthy samples are included in genome sequencing. How can scientifically sound pathogen detection be achieved under these conditions if there is no control to safeguard against false-positive results? From a scientific perspective, the sole use of PCR methods without independent validation through controls does not constitute reliable evidence, but rather circulates a presupposed hypothesis—a classic circular argument.
Commitment to DFG Guideline 11:
According to the guidelines of the German Research Foundation (DFG), in particular Guideline 11, all methods used must be controlled to ensure valid results. How is this requirement met for virus cultivation and genome sequencing if—as you write—no negative controls are included?
I request a precise and comprehensible explanation of how the RKI specifically ensures compliance with good scientific practice in these central aspects.
Time after time we find that virology just skips that one crucial step of doing controlled procedures. Could it be that they are afraid their entire house of cards collapse?
I can only assume that you do not understand how GMP in a routine laboratory works. Educate yourself, know the quality standards and how the accriditational instutions work and you can come back to the table to discuss this issue. Conspiratorial thinking out of poor knowledge leads to nothing.
This is totally false. It is about negative samples (patients), not controls. Why would you sequence negative samples? You sequence a PCR-positive sample of patients with bad symptomatics to know the subtype of a virus for epidemiological reasons. Don't make such claims if your German is not sufficient enough for scientific claims.
To scientifically confirm the presence of a virus in a sample, proper control experiments are essential. These controls help validate that any positive results are genuinely due to the presence of the virus and not artifacts or contamination from the testing methodology itself. Both positive and negative controls should be included to ensure the reliability and reproducibility of the results.
As I said: they are sequenzing positive PCR-samples of patients, not PCR-negative patient samples. That would be total nonsense. The samples are washed and cleaned under protocolled processes and the results are always technically validated after the run with a positive and negative control and medically validated and compared to known, similar types of already sequenced stains of the agent.
The follow-up , post on Next Level.
google translate :
https://t.me/NEXTLEVEL_OnlineForum/9475/103455
Marvin Haberland
To Robert Koch Institute Details
Dear Sir or Madam,
Thank you for your reply of May 28, 2025, to my IFG application of January 30, 2025.
You write that no negative controls were carried out with healthy patient samples during virus cultivation or genome sequencing of measles or SARS-CoV-2 viruses, as these methods are only carried out with "pre-analyzed samples" in which the virus has already been detected by PCR or sequencing.
I have the following questions:
Scientific evidence without negative controls:
You confirm that no negative controls with healthy samples are included in genome sequencing. How can scientifically sound pathogen detection be achieved under these conditions if there is no control to safeguard against false-positive results? From a scientific perspective, the sole use of PCR methods without independent validation through controls does not constitute reliable evidence, but rather circulates a presupposed hypothesis—a classic circular argument.
Commitment to DFG Guideline 11:
According to the guidelines of the German Research Foundation (DFG), in particular Guideline 11, all methods used must be controlled to ensure valid results. How is this requirement met for virus cultivation and genome sequencing if—as you write—no negative controls are included?
I request a precise and comprehensible explanation of how the RKI specifically ensures compliance with good scientific practice in these central aspects.
Sincerely,
Marvin Haberland
thanks for doing this and nice to see that google translate is actually somewhat decent.
well...what a surprise...
Time after time we find that virology just skips that one crucial step of doing controlled procedures. Could it be that they are afraid their entire house of cards collapse?
What sequencing methods were used/relied upon?
This was just a general question about controls to the RKI.
Sorry, I meant to ask if we know - or German contacts can find out - what sequencing methods were used/relied upon
I can only assume that you do not understand how GMP in a routine laboratory works. Educate yourself, know the quality standards and how the accriditational instutions work and you can come back to the table to discuss this issue. Conspiratorial thinking out of poor knowledge leads to nothing.
What exactly is "Conspiratorial thinking" in this article? The RKI confirmed that no negative controls were used.
You understand the difference between a negative control and a negative sample?
This is totally false. It is about negative samples (patients), not controls. Why would you sequence negative samples? You sequence a PCR-positive sample of patients with bad symptomatics to know the subtype of a virus for epidemiological reasons. Don't make such claims if your German is not sufficient enough for scientific claims.
To scientifically confirm the presence of a virus in a sample, proper control experiments are essential. These controls help validate that any positive results are genuinely due to the presence of the virus and not artifacts or contamination from the testing methodology itself. Both positive and negative controls should be included to ensure the reliability and reproducibility of the results.
As I said: they are sequenzing positive PCR-samples of patients, not PCR-negative patient samples. That would be total nonsense. The samples are washed and cleaned under protocolled processes and the results are always technically validated after the run with a positive and negative control and medically validated and compared to known, similar types of already sequenced stains of the agent.
Sure, but to establish validity of the sequence, how can one rely on PCR testing first? That's circular reasoning.