Drosten wiederbelebt. Ein neuer Podcast. Virus adjustiert sich in der Winterwelle

Wieler geht von Bord, Lauterbach erweist sich als Leichtmatrose der unter­ge­hen­den "Pandemic". Also wird Drosten noch ein­mal aus­ge­gra­ben und nach sei­nem Abschied vor einem Dreivierteljahr noch ein­mal auf das Publikum des NDR-Podcasts los­ge­las­sen. Schon die ersten Sätze bele­gen erneut sei­ne Genialität – für den Rest war­te ich auf das Skript und freue mich bereits:

»Die Pandemie zeich­net sich u.a. ja dadurch aus, daß sie auß­er­sai­so­na­le Wellen macht, daß wir also bei­spiels­wei­se so etwas wie eine Sommerwelle bekom­men von einem Virus, das eigent­lich ja in die Winterzeit gehört. Das kommt dadurch, daß das Virus sich adju­stiert…«

7 Antworten auf „Drosten wiederbelebt. Ein neuer Podcast. Virus adjustiert sich in der Winterwelle“

  1. Genau. Liegt dann wohl am Klimawandel. Und falls Sie es noch nicht mit­be­kom­men haben, die Gletscher die jetzt nur so dahin schmel­zen geben die übel­sten Krankheitserreger wie­der frei.

    Donnerwetter. Und ich habe mich vor 40 Jahren, als ich das Erstemal im Zillertal war, schon gewun­dert war­um das Schmelzwasser der Gletscher so mil­chig trüb ist.

  2. Habe mir mal die ersten 10 Minuten rein­ge­zo­gen – den­ke, die eig­nen sich pri­ma als Booster für beson­ders vom Virenwahn befal­le­ne Rechtgläubige.

    Neben dem o.e. Highlight schafft es noch die Begründung für die Beibehaltung der "Maskenpflicht" im ÖV in mei­ne Dr.osten-GaGa-Top-Ten:
    Man müs­se die trotz-allem-noch-Masken-TrägerInnen vor spöt­ti­schen und/oder mit­lei­di­gen Blicken "schüt­zen".

    Lässt sich irgend­wann auch als Argument für die dau­er­haf­te Einführung einer Aluhutpflicht recyceln.

  3. "Er füg­te an: Das bedeu­te, dass nach die­sem Winter eine so brei­te und belast­ba­re Bevölkerungsimmunität vor­lie­ge, „dass im Sommer kaum noch Virus durch­kom­men kann“."

    Das soll er im Interview Ende 2022 gesagt haben. Und nun doch wie­der anders?

    "Über die Lesart eini­ger Medien und Politiker, wonach er die Pandemie für been­det erklärt habe, sag­te er: „Ich glau­be, alle die mich bis­her kom­mu­ni­zie­ren gehört haben, wis­sen, dass ich sol­che for­schen Dinge eigent­lich nicht in der Öffentlichkeit sage.“

    Er hät­te auch sagen kön­nen: "Jeder, der mich kennt, weiß, dass ich der Prototyp eines Schwurblers bin."

    https://​www​.ber​li​ner​-zei​tung​.de/​n​e​w​s​/​c​o​r​o​n​a​-​v​i​r​o​l​o​g​e​-​c​h​r​i​s​t​i​a​n​-​d​r​o​s​t​e​n​-​m​a​s​k​e​-​n​i​c​h​t​-​m​e​h​r​-​s​o​-​e​f​f​i​z​i​e​n​t​-​l​i​.​3​0​6​626

  4. c_drosten published a paper on the Covid PCR test in the journal @eurosurveillanc...the basis for the current global agenda sagt:

    Prof. Freedom Retweeted
    Dr. Simon Goddek
    @goddeketal
    1/ Two years ago, @c_drosten
    published a paper on the Covid PCR test in the jour­nal @eurosurveillanc
    whe­re he is a mem­ber of the edi­to­ri­al board. That artic­le for­med the basis for the cur­rent glo­bal agenda.

    In this , I will explain this scan­dal of epic proportions.
    Image
    7:29 PM · Jan 12, 2023
    ·166.9K
    Views
    1,176
    Retweets
    133
    Quote Tweets
    2,322
    Likes
    Dr. Simon Goddek
    @goddeketal
    ·
    15h
    Replying to
    @goddeketal
    2/ As a for­mer Editor of a Scientific Journal, I will give you some more insights into sci­en­ti­fic peer-review pro­ce­s­ses and why frau­du­lent mani­pu­la­ti­on con­cer­ning Drosten’s PCR paper most likely took place in the Journal of publi­ca­ti­on @Eurosurveillanc
    . https://eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560–7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045
    Dr. Simon Goddek
    @goddeketal
    ·
    15h
    3/ The paper set out prin­ci­ples con­cer­ning the PCR test­ing pro­ce­du­re and is the­r­e­fo­re con­side­red cri­ti­cal­ly. An inter­na­tio­nal con­sor­ti­um of experts and sci­en­tists have cri­ti­cal­ly ana­ly­sed this men­tio­ned publi­ca­ti­on and have found seve­ral serious flaws. https://​cor​man​d​ro​sten​re​view​.com/​r​e​p​o​rt/
    Dr. Simon Goddek
    @goddeketal
    ·
    15h
    4/ These flaws, howe­ver, are main­ly but not enti­re­ly of con­ten­tu­al natu­re. Unfortunately, until now, 36 months later, the Journal and the invol­ved aut­hors fai­led to come up with coun­ter­ar­gu­ments and explanations.
    Dr. Simon Goddek
    @goddeketal
    ·
    15h
    5/ Instead, the jour­nal “deci­ded that the cri­te­ria for a retrac­tion of the artic­le have not been ful­fil­led.” What keeps me puz­zled is that they do not want to make the­se peer-review reports publicly due to pri­va­cy rea­sons, but they are always anonymous.
    https://eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560–7917.ES.2021.26.5.2102041
    Dr. Simon Goddek
    @goddeketal
    ·
    15h
    6/ In addi­ti­on to the sub­stan­ti­ve and con­cep­tu­al weak­ne­s­ses of the paper, what worries me the most is how fun­da­men­tal sci­en­ti­fic prin­ci­ples have been com­pro­mi­sed by the Journal @Eurosurveillanc
    .
    Dr. Simon Goddek
    @goddeketal
    ·
    15h
    7/ The gra­phic below shows the dura­ti­on of the Journal’s peer-review pro­cess (h/t @waukema
    ). In 2019, the avera­ge time to publi­ca­ti­on for “ori­gi­nal rese­arch papers” was 172 days, which ali­gns with my per­so­nal expe­ri­en­ces. So how is it pos­si­ble to publish a paper within hours?
    Image
    Dr. Simon Goddek
    @goddeketal
    ·
    15h
    8/ Let's take a clo­ser look at how the – pro­cess works: After wri­ting the paper, the cor­re­spon­ding aut­hor (in this case @c_drosten
    ) had to sub­mit the artic­le via a sub­mis­si­on form that looks as fol­lows. “Agreement with aut­hors” is ano­ther requi­red document.
    Image
    Dr. Simon Goddek
    @goddeketal
    ·
    15h
    9/ Christian Drosten con­se­quent­ly had to con­firm that the­re were no con­flicts of inte­rest. Yet, @c_drosten
    was not honest as seve­ral (!!!) con­flicts of inte­rest were detec­ted that even­tual­ly were cor­rec­ted under pres­su­re at the end of July 2020.
    Image
    Dr. Simon Goddek
    @goddeketal
    ·
    15h
    10/ After the paper sub­mis­si­on, the Editor-in-chief (i.e. Dr Ines Steffens) had to accept the paper for peer review. One can argue that Drosten as an edi­to­ri­al board mem­ber, might have had good rela­ti­on­ships with that lady that could have acce­le­ra­ted the pro­cess. Point taken!
    Dr. Simon Goddek
    @goddeketal
    ·
    15h
    11/ The manu­script then had to be sent to at least two exter­nal and unbi­a­sed review­ers by eit­her the Editor-in-chief or other edi­tors of the edi­to­ri­al team. I am usual­ly hap­py to find suf­fi­ci­ent peer-review­ers within 1–2 weeks (best case sce­na­rio). https://​euro​sur​veil​lan​ce​.org/​a​b​out
    Dr. Simon Goddek
    @goddeketal
    ·
    15h
    12/ Once an exter­nal peer review­er, who needs to be an expert in that field, accepts the task to review, they gene­ral­ly have 30 days to per­form the job. Reviewing a paper pro­per­ly usual­ly is not done within one day. It occurs very rare­ly that a review is com­ple­ted within days.
    Dr. Simon Goddek
    @goddeketal
    ·
    15h
    13/ Each review­er then has to rate the paper. There are usual­ly four recom­men­da­ti­ons the review­ers can give:

    1. Reject [most common]
    2. Major Revisions [com­mon]
    3. Minor Revisions [rather uncommon]
    4. Accept [extre­me­ly rare]
    Dr. Simon Goddek
    @goddeketal
    ·
    15h
    14/ After both review­ers have given their recom­men­da­ti­ons, this is what the edi­tor sees as soon as the peer review pro­cess is com­ple­te. You can see the dates on the left side, which is a good indi­ca­tor of how long a “first round” usual­ly takes.
    Image
    Dr. Simon Goddek
    @goddeketal
    ·
    15h
    15/ In the case abo­ve (exam­p­le from my for­mer Journal), both review­ers pro­po­se major revi­si­ons to the manu­script. If the edi­tor agrees with this recom­men­da­ti­on, the aut­hors recei­ve the review­ers’ comm­ents that must be addres­sed befo­re ente­ring the ite­ra­ti­on processes.
    Dr. Simon Goddek
    @goddeketal
    ·
    15h
    16/ My expe­ri­ence is as follows:
    ▶︎ Having two review­ers imme­dia­te­ly accept the manu­script is clo­se to impos­si­ble (given the metho­do­lo­gi­cal flaws, I can­not ima­gi­ne such a scenario)
    ▶︎ It usual­ly takes 2–4 review ite­ra­ti­ons until a publi­ca­ti­on can be con­side­red publishable
    Dr. Simon Goddek
    @goddeketal
    ·
    15h
    17/ Having a paper accept­ed within 24h would con­se­quent­ly mean that:
    1. The edi­tor in char­ge found experts that are wil­ling to review within hours
    2. All experts imme­dia­te­ly review­ed the manu­script and found it “per­fect as it is”
    3. The edi­tor direct­ly hand­led the review reports
    Dr. Simon Goddek
    @goddeketal
    ·
    15h
    18/ However, after accep­tance (see screen­shot exam­p­le), the paper still needs to be sent to a type­set­ter so that the manu­script is in the style (i.e. for­mat­ting, cita­ti­on style etc.) of the Journal. This usual­ly takes seve­ral days up to two weeks.
    Image
    Dr. Simon Goddek
    @goddeketal
    ·
    15h
    19/ The type­set­ter then returns to the cor­re­spon­ding aut­hor with “Queries” (i.e. Q1-Qx). These queries usual­ly address inter­nal (tables, figu­res) and exter­nal (cited work) refe­ren­ces and co-aut­hor details. All queries need to be addres­sed by the cor­re­spon­ding author.
    Dr. Simon Goddek
    @goddeketal
    ·
    15h
    20/ After addres­sing all queries, it usual­ly takes more days to make the publi­ca­ti­on available online in its final form. This who­le pro­ce­du­re from sub­mis­si­on to publi­ca­ti­on takes about six months on avera­ge, which would be in line with the journal’s usu­al paper pro­ce­s­sing times.
    Dr. Simon Goddek
    @goddeketal
    ·
    15h
    21/ Less than one day, howe­ver, smells like sci­en­ti­fic fraud and cor­rup­ti­on. By the time of sub­mis­si­on, extra­or­di­na­ry importance was no fac­tor that could explain this phe­no­me­non. This is a major sci­en­ti­fic scan­dal, and @Eurosurveillanc
    wraps its­elf in silence.
    Dr. Simon Goddek
    @goddeketal
    ·
    15h
    22/ The fact that Drosten’s pro­ce­du­re fol­lows a simi­lar script com­pared with the swi­ne flu “pan­de­mic” in 2009 (i.e. col­la­bo­ra­ti­on with Olfert Landt con­cer­ning the PCR test crea­ti­on, sca­re­mon­ge­ring etc.) lea­ves a sour aftertaste.
    ncbi​.nlm​.nih​.gov
    German virologist's race for swi­ne flu test
    Christian Drosten talks to Nature about tack­ling the thre­at of a pandemic.
    Dr. Simon Goddek
    @goddeketal
    ·
    15h
    23/ This scan­dal needs to be ful­ly cla­ri­fi­ed, espe­ci­al­ly con­cer­ning the roles of all indi­vi­du­als and par­ties invol­ved (e.g. Drosten and Steffens). I won­der why co-aut­hors such as @MarionKoopmans
    didn’t find it sus­pi­cious that their paper was lite­ral­ly available online overnight.
    Dr. Simon Goddek
    @goddeketal
    ·
    15h
    24/ As a co-aut­hor, I would imme­dia­te­ly express my con­cerns. The who­le situa­ti­on beco­mes even more obscu­re, kno­wing that Koopmans was part of a WHO panel that declared Drosten’s PCR test “gold stan­dard” one day after the paper was published, which means two days after submission.
    Dr. Simon Goddek
    @goddeketal
    ·
    15h
    25/ That paper has set off an ava­lan­che and has been cited more than 7000 times within three years. But unfort­u­n­a­te­ly, the work and its publi­ca­ti­on pro­cess do not meet any requi­re­ment of sci­en­ti­fic accu­ra­cy and for­mal correctness.
    Image
    Dr. Simon Goddek
    @goddeketal
    ·
    15h
    26/ The publi­ca­ti­on thus needs to be mark­ed as bia­sed by @Eurosurveillanc
    imme­dia­te­ly. In addi­ti­on, an inde­pen­dent com­mis­si­on needs to exami­ne the exact pro­cess and pos­si­ble fraud/corruption (back in January 2020) and come up with pos­si­ble con­se­quen­ces for all par­ties involved.
    Dr. Simon Goddek
    @goddeketal
    ·
    15h
    27/ I want to sta­te that I did not intend to set off an ava­lan­che in January 2021. I sim­ply could not belie­ve my eyes when I saw how quick­ly Drosten’s publi­ca­ti­on got peer-review­ed and published. As a sci­en­tist, it is my right and duty to address this and rai­se questions.
    Image
    Dr. Simon Goddek
    @goddeketal
    ·
    15h
    28/ Right after my first Twitter thread on that topic went viral, I was war­ned by seve­ral peo­p­le that I nee­ded to be pre­pared for “Drosten’s army” to attack me. Something I could not have ima­gi­ned, as I have never recei­ved any shits­torm on the inter­net before.
    Dr. Simon Goddek
    @goddeketal
    ·
    15h
    29/ It is hard to descri­be com­plex issues with only 280 cha­rac­ters, making misun­derstan­dings and con­flicts vir­tual­ly ine­vi­ta­ble. Over time, the per­cei­ved per­so­nal view or con­vic­tion might chan­ge due to the latest sta­te of know­ledge or vary­ing contexts.
    Dr. Simon Goddek
    @goddeketal
    ·
    15h
    30/ The sad fact is that none of the attackers was deal­ing with what I had writ­ten. Many of them were lin­ked to Drosten hims­elf, addres­sed Springer Nature direct­ly, and deman­ded my with­dra­wal as an edi­tor in the field of aqua­po­nics, as I am “hard­ly a spe­cia­list in virology”.
    Dr. Simon Goddek
    @goddeketal
    ·
    15h
    31/ However, I didn't address the topic of viro­lo­gy in my thread but sole­ly gave insights into the peer-review pro­cess. My pre­cise ana­ly­sis show­ed that the actu­al win­dow for the peer-review pro­cess was 3.5–27.5 hours, which I will ela­bo­ra­te on below. It even­tual­ly cost me my job.
    Show replies
    Show more replies
    More Tweets
    Elon Musk
    @elonmusk
    ·
    21h
    Starship launch attempt soon
    Image
    Madeyousmile
    @Thund3rB0lt
    ·
    19h
    Employee of the Month
    0:10 / 1:12
    Priscilla Presley
    @Cilla_Presley
    ·
    12h
    My bel­oved daugh­ter Lisa Marie was rus­hed to the hos­pi­tal. She is now recei­ving the best care. Please keep her and our fami­ly in your pray­ers. We feel the pray­ers from around the world, and ask for pri­va­cy during this time.
    ‑Priscilla Presley
    Image
    Benny Johnson
    @bennyjohnson
    ·
    17h
    BREAKING: Speaker McCarthy sends DC in utter PANIC after announ­cing he wants to release ALL FOOTAGE from January 6th
    Rep. Jim Jordan
    @Jim_Jordan
    ·
    19h
    Where’s the raid? 

    Where’s the pic­tures of the clas­si­fi­ed documents? 

    Where’s the spe­cial counsel?

    https://​twit​ter​.com/​g​o​d​d​e​k​e​t​a​l​/​s​t​a​t​u​s​/​1​6​1​3​6​1​9​1​2​0​3​1​3​9​6​2​4​9​8​?​c​x​t​=​H​H​w​W​h​M​C​8​0​c​y​C​3​e​Q​s​A​AAA

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert