Thread by @VBruttel

The Origin of SARS-CoV-2 goes to court...

The case

Drosten ./. Wiesendanger

What can or cannot be said in scientific debates according to GERMAN LAW 👨‍⚖️

a 🧵

#SARSCoV2 #GainOfFunction #CovidOrigin
1/x

Brief background:
Prof. Wiesendanger is a leading scientist in Nanostructure and Solid State Physics and published a detailed study in which he analyzed contrasting circumstantial evidence and publications by virologists about the origin of SARS2:
archyworldys.com/dispute-over-c…
2/x

Prof. Drosten @c_drosten is the most prominent virologist in the 🇩🇪 public debate about SARS2 virology and origin.He gave >100 podcast-interviews:
ndr.de/nachrichten/in…
And, IMO (gotta be careful these days), always was a strong proponent of risky gain of function research.
3/x

Prof. Drosten also signed a Lancet statement which "strongly condemned conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin".
Competing interests were initially not mentioned in this statement, and the lead author thought COVID could come from a lab.
4/x

Additionally, Prof. Droste gave other interviews regarding the origin of SARS2.
I wrote a brief fact check in 🇩🇪 to one of them to give you an idea of what he usually said (and didn't say) in such interviews:

5/x

In February 2022, the newspaper @cicero_online published an interview in which Prof. Wiesendanger strongly criticized that many virologists condemned the lab hypothesis as a conspiracy theory without providing robust evidence.
He and Cicero were then sued by Prof. Drosten.
6/x

@cicero_online took the article offline to avoid the lawsuit.
cicero.de/kultur/coronav…
7/x

Prof. Wiesendanger went to court.
In the first recourse, the judge decided that it was adequate to state that @c_drosten spread "untruths" and ran a "disinformation campaign".
archyworldys.com/dispute-over-c…
However, the use of other terms was not allowed.
In detail, those were:
8/x

a) the public was "knowingly mislead"
IMO it wasn't completely clear if "some virologists" or "specifically Drosten" were meant here.
Fact is: loads of evidence suggests that virologists published the exact opposite of what they really believed.
9/x

b) "the restriction that SARS2 must have come from nature occured without any evidence".
The judge argued "(Wiesendanger) can't proof that there was absolutely no basis for assuming a natural origin".
My opinion: this is a dangerous and incorrect verdict!
10/x

Labels such as a conspiracy theory/only plausible origin require EXTREMELY STRONG evidence!
No virologist ever provided this evidence!
Some GoF-virologists gut feelings are "absolutely no scientific basis" for rejecting a sound hypothesis!
We MUST remain free to say this!
11/x

Wiesendanger didn't say it's absolutely impossible SARS2 may have originated in nature.
Wiesendanger said there was no scientific basis (=not enough evidence) for rejecting the lab origin hypothesis!
IMO the judge simply didn't understand this very important difference!
12/x

c) "Scientists-for-Science wanted to keep virological research free of restrictions"
scientistsforscience.org was founded by virologists including Ron Fouchier and Yoshihiro Kawaoka, who "generated pandemic nightmares from the lab" (H5N1) according to a newspaper for doctors.
13/x

This group was founded when Gain of Function research was restricted in the US.
They clearly supported dangerous research.
They state that "research on dangerous pathogens can be safe" and more staff is better than "limiting the types of experiments".
14/x

My opinion: they clearly wanted to keep virological experiments free of restrictions as discussed by the Obama Administration at that time. Obviously "not free of any restrictions" such as safety measures. But any scientist knew that "additional" restricitions were meant.
15/x

My opinion: the judges are splitting hairs here.
Those virologists, including Prof. Drosten, clearly wanted to prevent further/new restrictions on extremely dangerous GoF research.
Evidence clearly suggests that such research killed 20 million people:
stopgof.com/english/sars-c…
16/x

My conclusion:
I do not agree with these rulings.
Virologists behaved very unscientifically and insulted others as conspiracy theorists.
These statements were a response.
They were taken out of their scientific/historic context.
It must remain possible to adress misconduct.
17/x

Such rulings are dangerous.
They could impair an honest debate.
Which is needed to push for a proper investigation.
Only this will lead to adequate restrictions on GOFROC, which could safe billions of lifes.
Just pretending everything is well (#DontLookUp) could be
THE END
18/18

link to Prof. Wiesendangers study on SARS2 origin: researchgate.net/publication/35…