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.
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.
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).
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)
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.
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.
16/ The paper then got published on 23/01/20 at 4:45pm (CET), so the typesetter did an amazing job.
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.
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.
🧵 THREAD: Exposing the Krassenstein Brothers (Again)
Let’s dive into the past statements these two have made right here on this platform. Today, I’ll show you exactly how they’ve lied, twisted the truth, and gaslighted their followers. Get your popcorn ready. 🍿
⬇️⬇️⬇️
2:/ Before rebranding as ‘political activists’ in 2017, the Krassenstein brothers ran Justin Bieber and Jonas Brothers fan accounts.
They actively sought out other fan accounts (Justin Bieber, Britney Spears, etc.) to buy, likely boosting their followings in the early days of Twitter. There’s also plenty of evidence they used follow-unfollow bots both before and after turning those teen traps into @krassenstein and @EdKrassen.
It’s no coincidence both accounts were following exactly (!!!) 506.3K people a year ago—doing that manually would take years. The grift started long before you knew their names.
3:/ Back in 2017, Ed Krassenstein suddenly popped up ranting about Trump, probably leaving his 500k Belieber teenagers scratching their heads, wondering, “Who the f**k is this dude?” The attached screenshot shows that this account was still connected to Justin Bieber fan accounts at the time. Just take a look at the suggested “You may also like” section! 😂
Now, let’s get into the hypocrisy: in one of his tweets (3rd from the bottom), he blasts 62 million Americans, calling them supporters of a “horrific, demented human being” for voting Trump. Fast forward to Biden’s presidency, where we literally had a president showing clear signs of dementia, but Ed? Silent. Not a peep accusing Biden of what he easily threw at Trump. That's the typical Krassenstein as we know them. More to come below. 👀
1/15 Exposing the Krassensteins: In the last few weeks, I’ve dove deep into the darkest corners of the internet archives to conduct an investigative dive on Ed and Brian Krassenstein. What I uncovered is truly shocking.
🧵A MEGA THREAD
2/15 Moral Hypocrisy Exposed: Let’s be clear: nobody is perfect. But when individuals who constantly play the moral authority on this platform and endlessly push liberal and woke propaganda have a past as unethical as it gets, it’s time to speak up.
Every time I expose the Krassensteins with undeniable evidence—receipts so clear they could be framed—they rush to dismiss my posts as mere conspiracy theories. It’s the same deceitful (FBI) script every time, no matter how irrefutable the proof.
To this day, they’ve never owned up to their mistakes, perversions, or even crimes. Instead, they come up with excuses so flimsy they insult our intelligence.
And this morning, Brian Krassenstein decided to threaten me with legal consequences (fun fact: his lawyer specializes in truck accidents; fitting, since this thread is going to hit them like a truck), thinking that would silence me. But all he’s done is pour gasoline on the fire.
3/15 Blackmailing Becky: In 2023, I stumbled upon a deleted tweet from Brian Krassenstein, where he attempted to blackmail a DNC member named Becky in December 2022.
When I confronted him about the tweet—clearly a private message he accidentally posted—he ridiculed me and released a video claiming he only did it to "trap conspiracy theorists."
But the idea that he would deliberately create such a post to bait conspiracy theorists is absurd. In his 'debunk' video, he doctored evidence, claiming he sent an email to himself via Google Mail as proof that it was just a trap. However, I have solid proof that his claim—and the evidence he presented—were completely faked, as shown in the video below.
To this day, he has not addressed my accusations that his so-called "debunk video" was fabricated. This strongly suggests that he did, in fact, blackmail a DNC member named Becky.
Moreover, in response to my video, I received emails from two large accounts who assured me that they, too, had been blackmailed by the Krassenstein brothers, with the blackmail carried out through their wives. If true, I hope these individuals find the courage to come forward and make these accusations public. If I can do it, so can you!
1/21: Low testosterone is more than just a health issue—it’s a societal crisis. Weak men create hard times, and low T is making men weaker than ever.
In this THREAD, I’ll show you how I naturally boosted my testosterone from 300 ng/dL to 1000 ng/dL in only 4 weeks.🧵
2/21: Low testosterone isn’t just about T levels—it also involves LH (Luteinizing Hormone) and FSH (Follicle-Stimulating Hormone), which are critical for stimulating T-production in the testes. LH signals to produce testosterone, while FSH is involved in sperm production.
3/21: A decline in these hormones can lead to depression, lack of drive, and a loss of masculine energy. It’s turning men into beta cucks, unable to defend the freedoms we cherish—just look at this year’s DNC, where the impact of low T was on full display.
There are some truly based accounts out there that do what the MSM refuses to: speak truth to power and challenge the status quo.
In a world where censorship and conformity are the norm, it's more important than ever to support voices that refuse to be silenced.
A THREAD 🧵
#1 Jeremy (@RealJermWarfare) got red-pilled while most of us were still asleep. There’s hardly a famous person who hasn’t been on his podcast, and challenging the status quo is his bread and butter. A true friend.
#2 Tara Bull (@TaraBull808) is the first @sunfluencer affiliate who helped me spread the truth about Vitamin D. She’s fiercely dedicated to exposing the facts and genuinely cares about people. Let's get her to 1M before the elections.
1/16: How did ordinary citizens commit unspeakable evil in Nazi Germany? Stanley Milgram sought to answer this in 1961. His theory? Some people commit horrific acts simply by blindly obeying authority. What he discovered will make you rethink the power of obedience.
A THREAD 🧵
2/16: Milgram designed an experiment to test this theory. He wanted to see how far people would go in obeying an authority figure, even when it meant inflicting pain on another person. The results were more disturbing than anyone could have imagined. Here’s how it all unfolded.
3/16: The experiment involved 3 roles: the experimenter (authority figure), the teacher (unsuspecting test subject), and the student (the victim). What the teacher didn’t know was that the other two were actors. The real test was to see how far he would go in following orders.