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…«
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.
https://evidenzdervernunft.solutions/2022/10/22/covid-19-impfstoff-ungereimtheiten-amerikanisches-roulette/
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.
Ich denke, die ein oder andere Schraube müsste bei ihm auch mal adjustiert werden…
Rolle Rückwärts: Phänomenaler Gesinnungswechsel bei Drosten nach 17 Tagen: https://reitschuster.de/post/pandemie-ende-nein-drosten-fuehlt-sich-missverstanden/
"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.berliner-zeitung.de/news/corona-virologe-christian-drosten-maske-nicht-mehr-so-effizient-li.306626
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://cormandrostenreview.com/report/
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://eurosurveillance.org/about
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://twitter.com/goddeketal/status/1613619120313962498?cxt=HHwWhMC80cyC3eQsAAAA