COVID “CASE”DEMIC: Thread Chronicles The Year’s History Of The Propaganda & Fraud

January 21, 2021 in News by RBN Staff

 

Source: Thread Reader | Dr. Simon ツ

 

1/ One year of destroyed economies, social isolation & deep social splits calls for an anniversary ⬇️thread ⬇️ to celebrate the RT-qPCR manuscript by Christian Drosten (@c_drosten) & Victor Corman (@vmcorman), submitted on 21st Jan 2020 to @Eurosurveillanc. #UnbiasedScience
2/ Before this very publication, virologists were neither treated like superstars, nor were they considered icons or half-gods. In 2009, Drosten almost succeeded in installing the false premise virology could supersede holistic medical sciences as discussed in this thread. 

3/ Drosten is a virologist. He neither has any background in epidemiology, nor has he ever worked in the civil service. He also doesn’t have a background in public health. Yet he and his colleagues affect our daily lives to the level of whom to meet up or how to flush the toilet.

4/ Before January 2020, Drosten and Corman were common virologists at Charité Berlin, whenever they were not involved in economic implications (bit.ly/3nT0OWs). Other than that, they looked at coronaviruses in dromedary calves in the Middle East or Africa. 😍 #cuteImageImageImage

5/ Finally in Jan 2020, the published paper laid the theoretical grounds for the current pandemic, the RT-qPCR mass testing-religion, for which he was awarded his second German Federal Cross of Merit (he received the first one in 2005 for developing the SARS-CoV PCR test).

 

6/ The manuscript was rushed through every approving authority at @Eurosurveillanc. Prior to the submission, it was already sent to @WHO with the prospect of being approved in any case. Big-data analyst @waukema visualised this phenomenon at @tableaupublic tabsoft.co/3isZs3p
7/ Being part of the editorial board at @Eurosurveillanc has been advantageous for @c_drosten & @c_reusken to reach the one-day-peer-review ‘milestone’, even though they might have been excluded from the process. So far, providing the process protocol is being refused.ImageImage
8/ I addressed this peer review process issue in a dedicated thread (bit.ly/35T2JUG), which led to controversial discussions & accumulated in an interview by @naomirwolf, in which I further explain the pitfalls for science in this particular case.

9/ It is also remarkable that Drosten has not been into sophisticated Twitter campaigning since 2016. His first substantial tweet since his rediscovery of Twitter (with 770 followers) was on Jan 23 2020, when he promoted his one-day-wonder publication. Coincidence or PR-campaign?Image

10/ On 9 Jan 2020 Drosten’s #overconfidence reached a new high by complaining that the correspondence to @NEJM did not cite his freshly published paper. Instead, the authors chose to refer to his protocol-design pre-release on @WHO.int (13th Jan 2020).

Image

11/ Drosten aimed for an RT-qPCR protocol design, which could serve as a “robust diagnostic methodology”. However, the protocol-design and its factual scientific precision somewhat resemble Russian roulette (concerning false positives; see below). cormandrostenreview.com/addendum/

12/ Back in 2009, Drosten already followed a similar approach when he created a PCR test for the swine flu (H1N1). Regarding the question of why it is crucial to do so much testing if the strain is mild, he answered: “Because we remember the 1918 outbreak.”

13/ As mentioned in the introduction tweets, PCR testing (in 2009) already caused a pseudo-epidemic that was stopped by @wodarg and 13 other European parliamentarians as reported by the following @nature-article:

14/ The @nature-paper also states that “it is disturbing that a rogue politician […] can create such mischief for the @WHO and drug industry, despite virtually no evidence of wrongdoing. @wodarg was the prime mover behind the fake pandemic outcry.“

15/ Despite his track-record and great merit, @wodarg is heavily discredited by German media and fact-checking blogs such as @Volksverpetzer (i.e. the German low-tier version of @snopes).

16/ In 2014, @c_drosten gave a striking interview for the German business magazine @wiwo. His statements back then are in contradiction with comments he made in 2020. Let’s take a closer look at what he said in this particular interview. wiwo.de/technologie/fo…
17/ The statement below addresses the PCR testing method. He explained that the technique is hypersensitive and is not suitable for pathogen testing. He said that if a pathogen “slips along” the nasal mucosa of a nurse, she’d consequently be considered a “(false) case”.Image
18/ He continued to remark that, by applying this PCR method, people who are actually very healthy or only have mild symptoms became part of the officially reported statistics. In the case of MERS infections in Saudi Arabia, he ironically also blamed the media for fear-mongering. 
19/ In the following section, @c_drosten criticised that the Saudi authorities did not solely focus on the “real cases”. He heavily questioned whether hospital staff with “no or only mild symptoms” could potentially carry the virus or even transmit it to other people.Image
20/ He further clarified that “‘our body is constantly being attacked by viruses and bacteria and that they are usually fending off in the mucous membrane, e.g. nose, throat. The immune defence only creates antibodies against pathogens that really affect our body.”Image

21/ It is true, as #Drosten points out that someone was/is truly infected if there are antibodies. He states that ‘such an antibody test would facilitate distinguishing between cases of scientific interest and cases of medical relevance.’ Keep this in mind!!

22/ The strange thing about his statements is that he and the @WHO are currently claiming precisely the opposite concerning #COVID-19. Why this sudden change of mind? Maybe we should go back in time to get to the bottom of this matter.

23/ In May 2019, Drosten took part at a conference of the ruling German party @cducsubt on ‘strengthening global health’. The guest list is conspicuous, taking the 2020 events into account.Image

24/ In my opinion, it is quite remarkable to invite a virologist (with 700 followers on Twitter) who was prevented from causing a “fake pandemic” (sic! @nature) to such an exquisite and influential group.

25/ To be fair, we do not know why he was invited and what actually happened behind closed doors. What we know is that @c_drosten fueled the pandemic several months later by writing that particular paper and doing exactly what he heavily criticised in his 2014 @wiwo-interview. 

26/ Summed up:

@c_drosten in 2014: no asymptomatic testing, people with mild symptoms are most likely no spreaders, PCR tests deceptive, use antibody tests if necessary, do not add PCR-positives to the reported statistics.

@c_drosten in 2020:

 

27/ What happens when antigen tests are used instead of PCR tests can be seen in the case of #Austria, where antigen mass tests are performed since January 11th 2021 (bit.ly/2MaqgcB). It’s definitely time to stop this PCR-madness.ImageImage

28/ It is also worth mentioning that #COVID was not characterised as a #pandemic until March 11th, almost two months after the Corman-Drosten paper passed peer-review in a record-breaking time.

29/ The person who declared #COVID a pandemic is @DrTedros, the Ethiopian director of the @WHO who is accused of genocidal crimes.

30/ The measures above leads to a casedemic as shown in the case of Austria and as explained by @robinmonotti.

31/ All of us must remain vigilant, to ensure that our fundamental rights continue to be guaranteed. These rights cover #freedom of assembly, #privacy, #data protection, physical #integrity, freedom of self-determination etc.Image
32/ I also consider scientific integrity in danger. Political pressure and pressure from media prevent objective debates & critiques on the measures. Broadcasting talkshows intentionally omit opinion diversity (i.e. medial pluralism), while shaping opinions and framing positions. 

33/ The currently observed conformity between politics and media excludes critics from participation in the discourse, as shown in an article written by @saschalobo from Aug 2020: critics are demonised and marked as anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists.

34/ Another recent example is the following article of the Dutch magazine @FTM_nl on PCR testing, where facts were omitted, critics were discredited, and, to cap it all, the article refers to the biased fact-checker and convicted chess cheater @pjvanerp.

35/ For those who are interested in how unethical journalistic practices have been applied here, should take their time to read the following thread by @hommel_b. It is in Dutch, but luckily Twitter offers the “Translate Tweet” feature.

Unroll available on Thread Reader
36/ It’s the duty of the media to report about the current events objectively. The press codex specifies the need for critical journalistic research. It’s crucial for a society that journalists examine a subject from several angles instead of acting like the Ministry of Truth.Image

37/ And what does our flagship virologist @c_drosten think about the principles of balanced media coverage? Exactly – absolutely nothing! 😶 He even demands a vigorous information campaign to propagate #zerocovid.

38/ Knowledge is power – and you can use the resulting intelligence to further improve society. Share your knowledge and stay informed by following me here on Twitter or joining our #UnbiasedScience-Telegram channel:

• • •

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

No Comments »