Dr. Simon Goddek Profile picture
Jan 4, 2021 24 tweets 7 min read Read on X
1/ I am an editor of a @SpringerNature journal and I will give you some more insights into scientific peer-review processes and why fraudulent manipulation with respect to @c_drosten's PCR paper most likely took place at the journal of publication @Eurosurveillanc. (A THREAD) Image
2/ As mentioned above, the number of days the "Corman-Drosten paper" (see link) spent in the peer-review process is TWO. Backers of the authors often come up with possible explanations, which I will debunk in this thread. eurosurveillance.org/content/10.280…
3/ The paper set out principles with respect to the PCR testing procedure and is therefore considered critically. An international consortium of experts & scientists have critically analysed this mentioned publication and have found several serious flaws. cormandrostenreview.com/report/
4/ These flaws, however, are mainly but not entirely of contentual nature. Unfortunately, until now, both the journal and the involved authors failed to come up with counterarguments and explanations.
5/ In addition to substantive and conceptual weaknesses, the thing that worries me the most is how fundamental scientific principles have been compromised by @Eurosurveillanc.
6/ The attached graphic (provided by @waukema) shows the duration of the journal's peer-review process. In 2019, the average time to publication for "original research papers" was 172 days, which is in line with my personal experiences. So why are 2 days literally impossible? Image
7/ After completion of writing the paper, the corresponding author (in this case @c_drosten; who by the way is also part of the journal's editorial board) had to submit the paper via a submission form that looks as follows. "Agreement with authors" is another required document. Image
8/ The corresponding author (i.e. @c_drosten) had to confirm that there were no conflicts of interest. Yet, Drosten was not honest as several (!!!) conflicts of interests have been detected that eventually were corrected under pressure end of July 2020: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
9/ 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 @c_drosten as a member of the editorial board might have good relationships to that lady that could have accelerated the process. Point taken!
10/ The paper then had to be sent to at least 2 external reviewers by either the Editor-in-chief or other editors of the editorial team that can be found here. I am usually happy if I find sufficient peer-reviewers within 1-2 weeks (best case scenario). eurosurveillance.org/about
11/ Once an external peer reviewer (who needs to be an expert in that field) accepts the task to review, he/she generally has 30 days to perform the work. Reviewing a paper properly usually is not done within one day. It occurs very rarely that a review is completed within days.
12/ This is what the editor sees as soon as he/she gets the reviewed manuscript back. There are usually 4 recommendations the reviewers can give: (a) Reject [most common], (b) Major Revisions [common], (c) Minor Revisions [rather uncommon], (d) Accept [very rare]. Image
13/ In the case above (example from my journal), both reviewers propose major revisions of the manuscript. If the editor agrees with this recommendation, the authors receive the reviewers' comments that then have to be addressed before entering iteration processes.
14/ My personal experience is as follows:
- Having two reviewers immediately accept the manuscript is close to impossible. (given the methodological flaws of the Corman-Drosten paper I simply cannot imagine such a scenario)
- It usually takes 2-4 review iterations.
15/ Having a paper accepted within 2 days would thus mean:
(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 immediately handled the review reports.
18/ After addressing all queries it usually takes some more days until the publication is made available online in its final form. This whole procedure takes around 6 months on average, which is in line with @waukema's analysis above.
19/ TWO (!!!) days, 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.
20/ Given the fact that @c_drosten's procedure follows a similar script compared with the swine flu "pandemic" in 2009 (i.e. collaboration with Olfert Landt with respect to the PCR test creation, scaremongering etc.) leaves a bad aftertaste. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
21/ The addressed scandal needs to be fully clarified, especially with respect to the roles of all of the individuals and parties involved (especially, @c_drosten and Ines Steffens).
22/ I am also wondering why co-authors such as @MarionKoopmans didn't find it suspicious that their (!!!) paper was literally accepted and available online overnight. As a co-author and serious scientist, I would immediately express my concerns.
23/ That paper has set off an avalanche and has been cited almost 3000 times within 1 year. Unfortunately, the work and its publication process do not meet any requirement of scientific accuracy and formal correctness.
24/ 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.
UPDATE: new alarming insights into the peer-review process.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Dr. Simon Goddek

Dr. Simon Goddek Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @goddeketal

Jun 6
In his new propaganda piece, @hiltzikm whines that the pharma shill and dentist denier @PeterHotez, who compared the unvaccinated to terrorists, is facing well-deserved criticism. It’s outrageous that the @latimes published this shameful article.

A THREAD 🧵 ⬇️ Image
#2 "It is not surprising that @hiltzikm defends Hotez, as he has incited hatred against the unvaccinated in a Goebbels-like manner.

In his opinion piece (), he said that 'those who have deliberately flouted sober medical advice by refusing a vaccine known to reduce the risk of serious disease from the virus, including the risk to others, and end up in the hospital or the grave can be viewed as receiving their just deserts.'

I find his attitude unworthy of a Pulitzer Prize winner, especially since current data shows that those who have not been vaccinated or were skeptical from the beginning were ultimately proven right.

The 'vaccines' never prevented severe illness, hospitalization, or death. On the contrary, the more often people are 'vaccinated,' the higher the probability of an early demise.

This once again shows that journalism has failed and that a dialogue on equal footing is essential for a functioning democracy.

People like him, on the other hand, are the personification of the danger to peaceful coexistence. We - those who have been discriminated against by him and his peers for three years - will never forget what they have done to us in the name of 'science.' No amnesty!"bit.ly/3nuR5etImage
@hiltzikm #3 The real question is why the @latimes is behaving like ‘Der Stürmer,’ giving a platform to such misanthropes and agitators, and even defending a proven liar like Hotez. This video is undeniable proof that he is not speaking the truth.
Read 6 tweets
May 28
🧵THREAD: Today I am going to red-pill you about dangerous vegetable oils, which are found in almost all processed foods. Consequently, this is likely the most important thread you will read this week. Contrary to popular belief, the term 'vegetable oils' is misleading. These oils are called 'vegetable' not because they come from vegetables in the traditional sense, but because they are derived from plant sources. This includes seeds such as cottonseeds, soybeans, and sunflower seeds.

These oils need to be heavily refined to remove various toxins and natural impurities, which can be harmful or affect the taste and stability of the oil. The refining process also extends the shelf life of these oils.

However, this refining process creates trans fats, a type of unsaturated fat that is detrimental to our health, especially when consumed in large amounts.

Trans fats, along with a high omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acid ratio found in these oils, disrupt our body's metabolic processes. They contribute to inflammation and imbalance cytokine production, which are crucial in our body's immune response and healing processes.

Long-term consumption of these fats is linked to various health hazards, including an increased risk of heart disease, stroke, and other chronic conditions.

To provide a comparison, I've included olive oil in the graphic. Unlike these refined oils, olive oil, especially extra virgin olive oil, is less processed and contains healthy fats. It has a more balanced omega-6 to omega-3 ratio and doesn't contain trans fats, making it a much better choice for your health.

In the posts below, I will delve into the history of vegetable oils and explain the mechanisms that make these seed oils extremely harmful.Image
#2 Did you know that vegetable oils such as soybean, sunflower, and corn oil are commonly used in cooking and processed foods? These oils are high in omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs). While omega-6 fats are necessary for our health, having too much of them, especially from processed vegetable oils, is problematic, to say the least.

When vegetable oils are processed and heated, such as during cooking or manufacturing, it initiates a process called lipid peroxidation. This is where the fats in the oils react with oxygen, similar to how iron rusts when exposed to air and moisture. In the case of these oils, lipid peroxidation leads to the creation of several harmful byproducts, including a particularly nasty compound called 4-HNE.

4-HNE is a major issue because it's highly reactive. It can easily interact with various parts of our cells, like proteins, DNA, and other fats, causing them to malfunction. Over time, this damage significantly contributes to a range of diseases, such as heart disease, certain types of cancer, diabetes, and even brain-related diseases like Alzheimer's.

So, the bottom line is that the processing of vegetable oils leads to increased lipid peroxidation, resulting in higher levels of harmful compounds like 4-HNE in our bodies. That's why you should avoid vegetable oils at all costs. In the attached video clip, @TuckerGoodrich explains why the consumption of vegetable oils can lead to weight gain and severely impact your health.
#3 The prevalence of vegetable oils in processed foods is staggering due to their cost-effectiveness. But how often do you take a moment to read the small print on the back of a product? Here's a simple rule: whenever you spot "vegetable oil" in the ingredients, RUN FOR YOUR LIFE.

💡 Now, let's delve into the history of why vegetable oils became so prevalent a century ago. Back in 1900, an entirely different story was unfolding across the ocean. The German army was actively seeking a synthetic lubricant for diesel engines used in submarines. In 1902, the German chemist Wilhelm Normann achieved a groundbreaking milestone by successfully solidifying vegetable oils. At the same time, the United States was grappling with a surplus of cotton production, leading to a dilemma on how to utilize the waste streams, especially the seeds. Instead of discarding them, someone had the brilliant idea to extract oil from these seeds. However, there was a significant hurdle to overcome – the presence of a toxin called gossypol within the cotton seeds.

🔥 To rid the oil of toxins like gossypol found in cotton seeds, a refining process involving high heat, chemicals, and immense pressure was employed. Yet, this process had its own set of problems. Exposure to high heat during refining made the oil prone to oxidation, leading to the accumulation of free radicals, which harm cells and contribute to illness and aging, as explained in a previous post.

🕰️ Around 1920, this product was transformed into something you might recognize today as 'Crisco,' an abbreviation for Crystalized Cottonseed Oil. But eventually, soybean oil emerged as a cheaper alternative. Remember, in the world of business, profits often take precedence over people's health.

Watch the whole video about ‘The $100 Billion Dollar Ingredient Making Your Food Toxic’ here:
Read 5 tweets
May 19

WITHOUT CHEATING, try to match the following 25 misanthropic quotes to their respective authors.

You can find the answers in the second last tweet from below. Then post how many you got right (e.g. 13/25).

1. “For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death.”
2. “The vaccines that saved us from COVID are now being used to help beat Cancer.”
Read 29 tweets
May 9
I always knew that @piersmorgan wasn’t the brightest star in the sky, but I didn’t expect him to be so braindead as to get an AstraZeneca booster in April ’24 and still mock vaccine critics. Time to expose that beta cuck.

🧵THREAD ⬇️⬇️⬇️ Image
#2 When you scroll through Piers’ timeline over the last 3 years, you find nothing but hatred and scorn for critics of the plandemic. Occasionally, he has claimed to regret his tweets, but I don’t believe him. In this thread, you’ll find a best of his discriminations here on @X. Image
@X #3 How mentally deranged must one be to post such an incoherent tweet? He’d probably volunteer to get chipped too. Image
Read 8 tweets
May 2
🇧🇷 For this tweet alone, @oatila should be sued into personal bankruptcy. This Brazilian influencer has not only promoted vaccines for four years and spread lies about Ivermectin and Vitamin D, but he even received money from Pfizer for it.

To my Brazilian followers: are you aware of any lawsuit against this corrupt scientist, or must I take it upon myself?Image
@oatila This is just one example of @oatila's content. This Instagram post, in which he falsely claims that the mRNA only stays in the muscle and that our body gets rid of the mRNA within a few days, was sponsored by Pfizer.
@oatila In this post, also sponsored by Pfizer, @oatila claims that there are side effects in only 1 out of 1 million people & that anyone who says otherwise is spreading fake news. In fact, these vaccines have increased excess mortality & cancer rates worldwide, likely killing millions.
Read 8 tweets
Mar 29
🧵THREAD: Let's start the day with something positive: it's not the mRNA vaccines that cause increasing cancer and heart attack rates.

Thanks to our dedicated investigative mainstream media journalists, the reasons for them have finally been revealed.

Here are my TOP 20. 🍿⬇️Image
#1 DRUGS – The German newspaper @bzberlin is onto something very hot. The reason for the more than doubled heart problems among young Berliners is drug use, even though it has been continuously declining since the year 2000.Image
#2 GARDENING – The British BBC journalist and former health reporter for @TheSun, @terria_williams, reported that gardening increases the risk of a 'killer heart disease'. With this trash article, she probably recommended herself for the BBC.Image
Read 22 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!