Dr. Simon Goddek Profile picture
Jan 5, 2021 24 tweets 7 min read Read on X
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:
Image
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. Image
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.
4/ I am aware that it is quite hard to describe complex issues with only 280 characters, making misunderstandings and conflicts virtually inevitable. Over time, the perceived personal view or conviction might also change due to the latest state of knowledge or varying contexts.
5/ The sad fact is that none of these attackers is actually dealing with what I have written. The lawyer and former judge @drpeternagel, for instance, is already trying to discredit me since last night, reading back my tweets from several months ago.
6/ Yes, Peter. I am a supporter of vitamin D. I even publish about it. The paper might contain mistakes, but I have written it to the best of my knowledge AND it actually got peer-reviewed, which required contentual corrections. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
7/ Even if you do not agree with my view on vitamin D, @drpeternagel, I am open for fruitful discussions and exchange of knowledge. Starting a "public message" with ad hominem attacks ("self-exposer", etc.) is counterproductive and reflects low-tier communication standards.
8/ I do not even consider my view on vitamin D being biased as I helped to debunk a big scientific fraud in this field (and in favour of D3), which even involved collaborations with governmental authorities in South-East Asia. researchveracity.info/alra/
9/ Other attackers such as @MackayIM (who is linked to @c_drosten btw.) address @SpringerNature directly and demand my withdrawal as an editor in the field of aquaponics, as I am "hardly a specialist in virology".
10/ However, I did not address the topic of virology in my thread but gave insights in the peer-review process. And here, I have to admit that my statement was not very accurate. The actual window for the peer-review process was 3.5-27.5 hours, which I will elaborate below.
11/ Everything goes back to a document of the WHO, which was created (!!!) the day the Corman-Drosten paper was submitted to @Eurosurveillanc. The meta-data shows that it was created on the 21st of January 2020 at 8:30pm CET (Central European Time).
Image
Image
12/ Via the @waybackmachine everybody can download the first version of the paper that got published on the @Eurosurveillanc server. This paper cites the WHO document above (marked in green) Image
13/ The Drosten paper was officially submitted on 21/01/2020, accepted on 22/01/2020, and published on 23/01/2020. This means that, given the timestamp of the WHO paper, there is only a 3.5h theoretical time-window that the paper could have been submitted on 21/01/2020. Image
14/ As stated in my yesterday's thread, the peer-review process requires quite some time (due to iterations etc.). Given the official data we got, we can retrace how much.
15/ So the earliest moment, the paper could have been peer-reviewed and accepted is on 22/01/20 at midnight and the latest at 22/01/20 at 11:59pm (CET). The whole peer-review process thus had a time window of 3:30h-27:30h. Image
16/ The paper then got published on 23/01/20 at 4:45pm (CET), so the typesetter did an amazing job. Image
17/ Again, this is just my humble analysis of this process that I am willing to share, and I am also willing to discuss my findings critically.
18/ Theoretically speaking, the reference to the WHO document could have been modified during the typesetter's "query process", expanding the time-window by some hours.
19/ Nonetheless, the observed and reconstructed peer-review process shows - to put it mildly - considerable irregularities. Every peer-review process leads to anonymous review reports. I would be very interested to see what they state @Eurosurveillanc.
20/ And even a possible "extraordinary importance" (which was not a factor back in January 2020) is no reason to rush through the process that quickly. The publication could also have been made available as a pre-print document while undergoing a thorough peer-review process.
21/ All things considered, transparency is required in this critical case. And again: it is discourteous to shoot the messenger when criticism would be better addressed to the parties involved in these obvious irregularities. Image
This gentleman, for instance, provides excellent examples for destructive criticism (i.e. ad hominem only!).

Hallo @deVSNU - ik hoor graag wat jullie van deze thread vinden (vooral ivm Mevr. Koopmans). Alle 5 principes (Eerlijkheid, Zorgvuldigheid, Transparantie, Onafhankelijkheid en Verantwoordelijkheid) werden geschonden. Graag DM naar mij.
@pjvanerp @deVSNU En 2 keer “accept” is best zeldzaam. Nog nooit (!!!) meegemaakt. Het argument dat de paper “perfect” is geldt ook niet. Drosten heeft later toegegeven dat zijn eigen paper gebrekkig is en "replaced" moet worden.

eurosurveillance.org/content/10.280…

• • •

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!

PDF

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

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.
Image
@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.
Image
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
Mar 23
🧵 THREAD: Meet @CaulfieldTim, a Canadian law professor, who continues to defend Big Pharma by claiming that Covid vaccines cannot cause cancer, labeling those who suggest otherwise as members of a "Death Cult."

However, @EthicalSkeptic demonstrates through his analyses that Caulfield's claims are incorrect. So, why does this man mislead in such an aggressive manner? FOLLOW THE MONEY, GUYS!

The evidence in the next tweet explains why he does so. In April 2020, Caulfield received $380,000 to fight Covid misinformation, and a year later, a whopping $1,750,000.

This professor isn't interested in the facts - he's a hired gun who would say anything for a price. ⬇️⬇️⬇️Image
#2 During Covid, Caulfield notably defamed anyone questioning Big Pharma. But should a "science communicator" act this way? Isn't the essence of science to challenge our own hypotheses and explore all possible options?

What Timothy Caulfield did was equate those distrusting Big Pharma with Holocaust deniers instead. This association was made both directly and indirectly, as he frequently used the term "denier" in numerous posts—a term often linked with Holocaust denial. He also never questioned the 'vaccines' and public measures such as 'masks' and 'lockdowns'.

Under the hashtag #ScienceUpFirst, he cherry-picked data and discredited those with differing views—all in the name of science. Timothy Caulfield has acted as a digital witch-hunter for the past four years, which I'll prove in subsequent tweets. I would strongly advise @UAlberta to consider initiating disciplinary proceedings against this "anti-science aggressor" (to borrow Caulfield's own phrasing). Otherwise, the institution may soon face scrutiny for its continued association with someone who appears to be an overtly unscientific propagandist.Image
#3 Half a year ago, on August 22nd, @CaulfieldTim made a post. He claimed that Ivermectin is ineffective, despite a meta-analysis of 99 studies indicating an 85% improvement in prophylaxis with Ivermectin. He also claimed that vaccines don't cause autism, even though there are numerous indications to the contrary, and no definitive statement can be made.

He also suggests that Covid 'vaccines' don't result in infertility. However, a video from Project Veritas captures a former Pfizer employee suggesting otherwise. Furthermore, data indicates a significant drop in fertility rates in many countries, with numerous women reporting missed periods post-vaccination. Such assertions from him appear highly unscientific and intentionally misleading.Image
Read 7 tweets
Jan 30
🚨EXPOSED – Over the past four years, Prof. @devisridhar, an asset of the WEF and @gatesfoundation, has been strongly discriminating against the unvaccinated and spreading lies. Now, she's attempting to absolve herself of any blame, but that is not going to happen.

A THREAD🧵⬇️ Image
#1 Devi Sridhar is a professor & chair of Global Public Health at the University of Edinburgh and has been one of the biggest WEF-shills. She has stated that "global events such as the Covid-19 pandemic and climate change are making us all sicker", but rejects to blame the vaxx. Image
#2 Instead, she is now blaming the politicians for the policies she once demanded. The fact that she can do this in a newspaper funded by the @gatesfoundation says it all. That woman is connected to the WEF, GAVI, the Clintons, and Gates - and I have proof of it. Image
Read 15 tweets
Jan 28
🧵THREAD: Remember when they cancelled millions of cancer screening appointments, leading to a significant increase in avoidable cancer deaths, while they performed ridiculous dance routines instead?

Let me show you 25 more pieces of evidence proving that Covid was a big hoax.⬇️
#1 Remember when being symptomless was considered one of the symptoms? The lie that one could be asymptotically ill, along with fraudulent PCR tests, only made this plandemic possible. Either you are sick, or you aren't; being healthy was not a symptom of illness until 2020. Image
#2 Remember when the CCP 🇨🇳 released CCTV recordings showing people collapsing on the street like sacks of rice, catching themselves with their hands just before impact, and then shaking spasmodically? They said it was one of the Covid symptoms and nobody ever questioned it.
Read 26 tweets
Jan 27
🧵THREAD: Today, I am going to red-pill you about vegetable oils because they are toxic and will make you sick. Consequently, this is likely the most important thread you will read this week. Contrary to popular belief, the term 'vegetable oils' is somewhat misleading. These oils are named '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 sunflowers seeds.

These oils need to be 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 helps in extending the shelf life of these oils.

However, this refining process leads to the formation of trans fats. These are a type of unsaturated fat that can be detrimental to our health, particularly when consumed in high 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 an imbalance in 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 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 tell you about 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 utilized 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 can start a process called lipid peroxidation. This is where the fats in the oils react with oxygen. It's a bit like how iron rusts when it's exposed to air and moisture. In the case of these oils, lipid peroxidation leads to the creation of several byproducts, and one of them is this tricky compound called 4-HNE.

4-HNE is a problem because it's very reactive. It can easily interact with different parts of our cells, like proteins, DNA, and other fats. This can damage these cell parts, causing them to malfunction. Over time, this damage will most likely contribute to various diseases, such as heart disease, certain types of cancer, diabetes, and even brain-related diseases like Alzheimer's.

So, the connection here is that the processing of vegetable oils can lead to increased lipid peroxidation, resulting in higher levels of harmful compounds like 4-HNE in our body. That's why you should avoid vegetable oils at all cost. In the attached video clip, @TuckerGoodrich explains why the consumption of vegetable oils can lead to weight gain and negatively 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 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 similar refining process was employed, involving high heat, chemicals, and immense pressure. 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

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!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(