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)
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?
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.
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].
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.
... they never asked real questions.
... they never pushed back.
... they never held anyone accountable.
Instead of exposing contradictions, journalists became cheerleaders for lies.
Instead of protecting democracy, they demolished it.
Instead of questioning "the science," they enforced it like a religion.
They canceled real scientists.
They smeared truth-tellers as "COVID deniers" and "anti-vaxxers."
They pushed millions into taking shots that cost billions of life years worldwide.
And to this day, there has been no apology. No accountability. The liars still work, and the people who told the truth got fired.
Every journalist who pushed these lies, every journalist who shamed, discriminated, and canceled, must be held accountable.
This cannot go unpunished.
Not after what they did to the world.
By the way:
Throughout all the lies, censorship, and gaslighting, there were a few voices who stood strong.
Those citizen journalists, medical doctors, and scientists asked the hard questions when it was dangerous to do so.
They got smeared, silenced, and attacked — but they were right.
They deserve to be vindicated.
If you're looking for people worth listening to, the accounts below never wavered when it mattered most:
TaraBull (@TaraBull808): A prominent voice on X, known for her commentary on current events and corporate practices.
Mindy Robinson (@iheartmindy): Independent journalist, hidden history enthusiast, and host of "Conspiracy Truths" on America Happens.
Marc Friedrich (@marcfriedrich7): Economist, 7-time bestselling author, and financial consultant focusing on gold, Bitcoin, and silver.
Dr. Sam Bailey (@SamBaileyREAL): New Zealand doctor and medical researcher known for questioning the virus narrative.
Why does the @CommunityNotes employee @_jaybaxter_ mass-block conservatives while allowing pharma-backed manipulators to abuse the system and threaten non-socialist voices?
I GOT ALL THE RECEIPTS. Let's dive in. 🧵👇
2/ Meet Ryan T. (formerly @rt7683), the man behind the @CommunityNotes account 'Enterprising Desert Raven.' He's actively silencing conservative voices by issuing direct threats. But who’s enabling this censorship from inside X? Keep reading...
3/ First of all, how do we know Ryan is behind 'Enterprising Desert Raven'? Well, he bragged about it while threatening @TRHLofficial, flaunting his Community Notes power. Yet he's untouchable. How is this even possible?
🧵THREAD: Pope Francis has died at 88. In 15–20 days, the conclave will elect his successor. Here are the top 12 contenders.
Who do you want to see sitting on the throne of St. Peter?
#1 Angelo Bagnasco 🇮🇹 — A staunch conservative, Bagnasco has compared same-sex unions to incest and pedophilia. He defends clerical celibacy and opposes abortion and euthanasia. His vision: a Church rooted firmly in tradition and moral clarity.
#2 Matteo Zuppi 🇮🇹 — Zuppi, Archbishop of Bologna and President of the Italian Bishops' Conference, emphasizes that celibacy doesn't equate to a lack of affection, advocating for a loving and inclusive priesthood. Zuppi has also supported dialogue with LGBTQ+ individuals.
They fooled the world, crashed economies, censored truth, and rewrote science overnight.
Here's exactly how they turned fear, lies, and propaganda into the greatest power grab of our time.
⬇️ A THREAD ⬇️
1. Staged Wuhan Panic: China kicked off the scare with choreographed "collapse in the street" videos. People dramatically keeling over in Wuhan, something never seen elsewhere. Even WHO called these collapses "atypical." It was pure psy-op theater to ignite global fear.
2. Bogus PCR cases: A phony testing regime built the “casedemic.” The German cirologist @c_drosten introduced a PCR test that can’t diagnose infection – cranked to excessive cycle thresholds so it flagged mostly false positives. Millions of healthy people were branded “dangerous COVID cases,” juicing the numbers to justify lockdowns.
#1 While the world locked down, the REAL pandemic exploded: OBESITY.
They shut gyms, pushed fast food, and kept you indoors, all while demonizing sunlight, exercise, and fresh air.
It’s time to expose the health crisis THEY don’t want you to notice.
A MIND-BLOWING THREAD 🧵👇
#2 Obesity isn’t a first-world anomaly; it’s everywhere. Over 1 billion people worldwide are now classified as obese – and close to 3 billion are overweight. By 2022, 1 in 8 people on the planet were living with obesity. This explosion has been steady and unrelenting.
#3 Obesity directly causes about 3.7 million deaths per year, making it one of the top global killers, way more than the Covid sniffles. Yet we never saw daily news tickers counting obesity deaths. But why?
Ladies and gentlemen, meet German mainstream journalist @larsweisbrod—defender of math, enemy of nuance.
@larsweisbrod LMAO! It's even getting better. 😂
@larsweisbrod LOL! These are the same people who told us masks would stop a 'virus,' the jab was 100% safe and effective, biological sex is a social construct, and that questioning any of it makes you a far-right extremist.