Hans Mahncke Profile picture
Feb 3 6 tweets 2 min read
Rough translation of a key section of Wiesendanger taking Drosten to the woodshed.

Drosten, who founded the Gain of Function advocacy group "Scientists for Science" in 2014 has had the entire German media to himself. Finally his lies are being called out.
archive.fo/KzjNw
Another key section. cc @R_H_Ebright
Drosten got excessively triggered by the publication of this Cicero article today, so much so that he called a renowned scientist an extremist. Of course, Drosten never offered an explanation for his fraudulent Lancet letter, which was one of the points raised by Wiesendanger.
Wiesendanger on Proximal Origin:
Wiesendanger on the furin cleavage site.
Wiesendanger on Andersen.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Hans Mahncke

Hans Mahncke 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 @HansMahncke

Jan 29
1/ Interesting supplemental filing from Durham. Horowitz must have complained that Durham publicly exposed him. But the supplemental filing does not address the crucial issues, i.e. it does not address Horowitz's lies and omissions about Sussmann, it only covers Baker's phones.
2/ Remarkably, even though the supplement is limited to Baker's phones, it is speculative on that issue. Horowitz says it's "likely" Durham was told about the phones in 2018. Durham says he does not recall being told. Be that as it may, the main issue is left totally unaddressed.
3/ Never mind what was or wasn't said in 2018. The point is that Horowitz failed to disclose his possession of the phones in Oct 2021 when Durham specifically requested any information that may be relevant to the Sussmann case (Baker is the main witness, his phones are relevant).
Read 5 tweets
Jan 11
Hi @JonnaMazet, perhaps you can tell us why Daszak got you involved as he was trying to conceal viral sequence data from Wuhan?

Perhaps you could also share why you claim the virus didn't come out of the lab? You link to Daszak's Lancet letter. Is that your evidence? Seriously?
“We may finally begin to get ahead of the curve and prevent pandemics.”

That's not quite how it worked out, is it Jonna?
ucdavis.edu/news/new-sars-…
Hey @JonnaMazet, looks like you published 15 papers together with Daszak. Some people might call that a conflict of interest.

profiles.ucsf.edu/jonna.mazet
Read 5 tweets
Dec 15, 2021
“Wuhan lab leak 'now the most likely origin of Covid', MPs told”

We’ve come a long way from “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin."

telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/1…
There are many ways we know it came out of the lab. This is probably still the best reason.
Daszak's explanation as to why he didn't have a conflict of interest is mind-bogglingly insane. Yet, instrad of taking down Daszak's fraudulent natural origins letter, the editor of the Lancet (himself a CCP stooge) spent a year negotiating with Daszak. What is going on?
Read 4 tweets
Nov 24, 2021
🤔
🤔🤔
🤔🤔🤔
Read 4 tweets
Nov 18, 2021
1/ "Framing Millian"

In today's episode of Truth over News @themarketswork and I look at how Clinton operatives used the media to frame an innocent man.

theepochtimes.com/how-one-innoce…
2/ On January 24, 2017 @SergeiMillian was falsely outed as the primary source for Steele’s dossier by @MarkMaremont of @WSJ. Maremont identified Millian as being the individual named as both source D & E in Steele’s dossier.
3/ Maremont claimed that “Some of the most explosive parts of a dossier containing unverified allegations that President Donald Trump had secret ties to Russian leaders originated from” Millian. The allegations attributed to Millian are crucial to the Steele dossier.
Read 22 tweets
Nov 15, 2021
Here are 4 unskeptical claims in just 1 article:

-you claim that Steele is respected
-you try and make it look like Republicans had something to do with the dossier
-you absolve Hillary
-you fail to tell your readers that NOTHING has been corroborated

nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/… ImageImageImageImage
More:

-you claim that questions over the dossier are "partisan attacks"
-you unskeptically repeat misinformation about GOP funding
-you mislead your readers about the fact that Steele hasn't been in Russia in decades
-you unskeptically parrot Clinton lies
nytimes.com/2017/10/24/us/… ImageImageImageImage
This one is particularly egregious:

-you again misdirect about GOP funding of the dossier
-but then you go all in on creating false innuendo about the role that Washington Free Beacon and Paul Singer might've played in creating the dossier

nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/… ImageImageImageImage
Read 6 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!

:(