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… Image
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.
16/ 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
17/ The typesetter then comes back to the corresponding author with "Queries" (i.e. Q1-Qx). These queries usually address internal (tables, figures) and external (cited work) references as well as co-author details. All queries need to be addressed by the corresponding author.
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. ImageImage
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.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Dr. Simon ツ

Dr. Simon ツ 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

17 Jan
Did someone say "baby dromedaries"? 🥺 ImageImageImage
If they had stuck to dromedary calves, this Corman-Drosten review report would have been redundant.

Read 4 tweets
15 Jan
A very informative and evidence-based thread about on latest SARS-CoV-2 vaccines can be found here: justpaste.it/9lyb4

Complex issues are explained in simple terms. This document raises new questions regarding the safety of the respective vaccines. #UnbiasedScience
And always keep in mind: "You can’t sue Pfizer or Moderna if you have severe SARS-CoV-2 vaccine side effects. The government likely won’t compensate you for damages either."

Why is that?

Also, a compulsory vaccination would undermine any right to self-determination.
And this right is non-negotiable, especially due to insufficient evidence with respect to (1) side effects, (2) efficacies, (3) long-term effects, etc.

Recent leaked Pfizer-documents support reasonable doubts. The current public actions are irrational.

Read 4 tweets
14 Jan
The number of publications about the impact of #vitaminD on the #COVID19 pandemic is exploding. In the first 2 weeks of January alone, @Scopus recorded 29 new scientific papers addressing this topic. I'll provide you with an overview of the most cited papers. #UnbiasedScience ⬇️ Image
(1) Rhodes et al. (2021) observed a correlation between latitude and #COVID mortality rate. They state that "this supports a role for ultraviolet B acting via vitamin D synthesis". They strongly advise vitamin D deficient people to take supplements. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jo… Image
(2) Munshi et al. (2021) report that patients with a poor prognosis had a significantly lower vitamin D level and conclude that "diagnosis of vitamin D deficiency could be a helpful adjunct in assessing patients' potential of developing severe COVID-19." onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jm… Image
Read 10 tweets
14 Jan
Read the 'COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BioNTech' Rolling Review report. It looks like the mRNA vaccine has only been tested on young male rhesus monkey and rats. Severe side-effects have been observed (heavy weight loss within 24h, enlarged liver, etc.).

What are the experts saying?
Page 47: "Bodyweight (BW) and food intake: Exposure generated a slight reduction of absolute BW within 24h after 1st exposure (-6.8% to -11.3%; BNT162b2 V8) alternatively a weak body weight increase reduction [BNT162b2 v9]. No changes in food intake were observed."
Page 47: "At 100ug BNT162b2 V8 and 30ug BNT162b2 V9, the tissue at the injection site was thickened/enlarged with oedema and erythema at the end of exposure in a reversible manner. The spleen was enlarged (reversible) with up to 60% for both vaccine variants and doses."
Read 8 tweets
5 Jan
1/ I am UNDER FIRE since I have written a post on the flawed peer-review process of @c_drosten's PCR paper. I will discuss some accusations in this thread and explain why the pure peer-review process window was even shorter than 2 days.

Yesterday's tweet:
2/ First of all, I want to state that it was not my intention to set off an avalanche. I simply could not believe my eyes when I saw how quickly @c_drosten's publication got peer-reviewed and published. As a scientist, it is my right and duty to address this and raise questions.
3/ Right after the thread 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.
Read 23 tweets
1 Jan
1/ It has been reported that the number of deaths in nursing homes is remarkably high. It fits the media’s narrative to blame COVID for the high caseload. Yet, the problem is more complex and there are more factors that should be taken into consideration.
2/ Many countries have socially isolated many nursing homes in order to protect elderlies from the COVID virus. Having elderlies isolated indoors (especially during the summer) has an impact on their Vitamin D (an immunregulatory hormone!!!) blood serum level.
3/ A study from 2014 states that “Vitamin D deficiency was highly prevalent and associated with increased mortality among the elderly in Swedish nursing homes.” It can be expected that the vitamin D deficiency is even more serious this winter. eje.bioscientifica.com/view/journals/…
Read 10 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

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

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!