1/124 This thread is going to examine & dissect the very specific behavioral-patterns, underlying market-architecture, fraudulent scientific methods, orthodox rituals of the vast pharma-wasp nest set around the queen wasp Christian Drosten ( @c_drosten). #wild #ride #PCRGate
2/124 We'll examine the inner circle arranged around Christian Drosten's real time #PCR-test-religion; key wasp nest stakeholders are: Olfert Landt ( @tibmolbiol), Andreas Nitsche (Tib-Molbiol, now @rki_de), @MarionKoopmans, @MackayIM, @DrTedros ( @WHO), @wef and many more.
3/124 My prior thread scratched the surface when it comes to huge 'conflicts of interest' in regards to undeniable scientific bias & staggering commercial partiality, also already tracing the international scheme-vector Berlin to Australia.
4/124
A. DISSECTING THE "DROSTEN - PAPER"(7-68)

B. TIB MOLBIOL'S & CHRISTIAN DROSTEN'S SINISTER BUSINESS-SCHEMES TO PROMOTE THEIR RT-qPCR-TEST-RELIGION (77-110)

C. CONCLUSIONS (111-120)
5/124 Important: Most of the infos here were determined by @CoronaAusschuss, 22nd Oct, Dr. Fuellmich's team & their class-action suite against Drosten. They are the true heroes of our time.
6/124 The purpose is to make the knowledge available in English-language,extend those infos with essential archive-links & my own resesarch.I'm trying to make this meta-analysis of the wasp nest accessible to as many people as possible,so they can "connect the dots" on their own.
7/124 A. DISSECTING THE "DROSTEN-PAPER"

To make it perfectly clear, the so called "Drosten-Paper" / Eurosurveillance-Upload was the ultimate initiator and serves as a dogmatic formula & primary work-horse for the currently dominating RT-qPCR-test-religion.
8/124 As mentioned in my prior thread, the Drosten-publication was published on 23rd January at Pubmed and no "conflict of interest" were declared there, neither has this fact ever been corrected until now. https://archive.is/EAIfp 
9/124 The "Drosten-paper" was also uploaded at Eurosurveillance. Addendum-section was updated on 29th July 2020,6 months after its initial release:
- Marco Kaiser's affiliation to GenExpress & Tib-Molbiol,
- Olfert Landt's CEO-role at Tib-Molbiol - added.
http://archive.is/zEdlk 
10/124 Before we peek deeper into the "conflict of interest"-sections again, lets have a look into the publication-timeline: The "Drosten-paper" was submitted 21st Jan, acctepted 22nd Jan, published on 23th Jan 2020 https://bit.ly/3dTWcvV  / https://archive.is/pXHUK 
11/124 This ultimately means that Drosten's paper was peer-reviewed within 72 hours, including review-editor corrections & recommendations. Every scientist could dream of such a smooth review-process. How is that even possible?
12/124 Possible Answer: Christian Drosten is part of the editorial board-roster of Eurosurveillance, also in 2020.
Was Drosten basically "peer-reviewing" his own senior author-publication?: https://bit.ly/2TqXBjX  / https://bit.ly/35uS81n 
13/124 Lets go back to the "Confict of Interest"-section of the Eurosurveillance upload: Marco Kaiser (TIB-Molbiol, GenExpress), Olfert Landt (TIB-Molbiol) were added on 29th July 2020, 6 months after the 1st rls.Was something still left out in regards to commercial affiliations?
14/124 Short & crisp: Yes! Senior-author Christian Drosten is also director of the department for Virology at 'Labor Berlin'; main author Victor M. Corman is "Leader of the department for 'Specialized Viral Diagnostics' ".
https://archive.is/CDEUG  / https://bit.ly/31JeivD 
15/124 'Labor Berlin' evaluates #PCR-tests and is commercially oriented within the real time #PCR-tests-realm.
The Eurosurveillance-upload only states the @ChariteBerlin-affiliation for Drosten & Corman. https://archive.is/X2AoA  / https://bit.ly/3dWVhe1 
16/124 These findings clearly indicate endless & undeniably massive "conflicts of interest" due to huge scientific biases & commercial affiliations. And we are talking about the ultimate & still undisputed work-horse of the orthodox RT-qPCR-test- #religion here.
17/124 "Anomaly I":Drosten's #PCR-protocol in regards to #SARSCoV2 was submitted to the @who on 13th January-10 days prior to the official rls @ Pubmed & Eurosurveillance. https://bit.ly/3jrysjN  / https://archive.is/zmg2M  / https://bit.ly/3ktGaLr  / https://bit.ly/31Iowwm 
18/124 "Anomaly II":On 16th Jan 2020 a press-release is published at DZIF - German Center for Infectious Research: 1 week prior to the actual Pubmed submission. Yes, this is a no-go when it comes to major scientific releases. https://archive.is/WquSa  / https://bit.ly/35uOh4s 
19/124 After dissecting the formalities-trickery surrounding the Drosten-paper, we'll peek into the scientific content of the actual publication. Spoiler-Alert: đŸ…»đŸ…°đŸ†„đŸ…¶đŸ…·đŸ…°đŸ…±đŸ…»đŸ…Ž !
20/124 Tweets 23-45 compare qPCR-protocols best-practises VS Drosten's submission on 13th January at the @WHO, which was officially released 8 days later on 21st Jan (2 days prior to the PubMed rls) after one update (17th Jan, version 1.1 to 2.1). https://bit.ly/31Iowwm 
21/124 A 101-video covering the very 'creative' primers and probes that work even partially hooked:
22/124 Great simple video to understand the steps of a real time qPCR: / thx 2 @ale_battini for pointing out. He is also in the middle of dissecting the RT-qPCR-test-religion atm as far as I can observe.
23/124 #PCRtest- #protocol 101-a):The reviewed(!) paper describes PCR-primers & probes as is usual for protocols,though varying measuring-scalings're published in the publication. Nomenclatural #fail:nM (nmol/l=nano-molar/liter) is ok,nm (nano-meter) isn't. http://archive.is/zEdlk 
24/124 #PCRtest- #protocol 101-b): The Drosten-Paper describes unusual high & varying primer-concentrations.1 of the forward-primers & 3 of the reverse primers're way-off. Standard #PCR-test-protocols consist of 100 nM or up to 200 nM by default (up to 5-8x times above standard).
25/124 #PCRtest- #protocol 101-c): Wobble-bases define spots within the primer-sequences that may differ: In Drosten's paper we see W is A/T;R is G/A;M is A/C;S is G/C-6 spots in total-for such specific primers in regards to PCR-testing; this high number of variants is unusual.
26/124 The test-strategy within the @WHO-protocol ( https://bit.ly/3jrysjN ) suggests: First the E-gene, then the RdRp-gene as control, which in our case has 3 uncertainties; additional confirmatory: N-Gene.
27/124 If this would have been drawn through, we wouldn't have any positive tests at all.
28/124 This 3-step-suggestion by Drosten would minimize-out every error/uncertainty at every fold-step,until nothing is left.This also suggests that therefor in nearly all test-procedures worldwide only 2 primer-matches were used instead of all 3-as sugested in the @WHO-protocol.
29/124 It's stunning that Drosten's Table 1 shows no "Tm"-values (annealing-temperature) & no "GC%"-values (number of G and C in the sequences as %-value of total bases).We can test best-practise values through open source test-controls for all primers. https://archive.is/tnHlc 
30/124 One reverse primer has a very low GC%-value (28%).The higher the GC%-value, the higher the binding-capabilities in regards to the actual target-sequence. The annealing-temperature determines at which temperature the primer detaches from the target sequence.
31/124 That means for a target-sequence to be recognized we have to choose a temperature which is as close as possible to the actual annealing-temperature (best practise-value), for the primer not to detach again, at the same time also targeting the target-sequence only.
32/124 If the "TM"-value is very low, then the primer can bind with something unspecific & insignificant, taking only a few errors into account within the protocol-process (we have a high number of Wobble-bases here).
33/124 Good "TM"-values are crucial for evaluating the accuracy of qPCR-protocols. Best-practice: Both primers (forward and reverse) should have an almost similiar value, in best-case the exact same value.
34/124 Normal: Ranges of 40-60 % for the "GC%"-content & 55-65° C for the annealing-temperatures. In this case we'd strive for a "TM"-value of 60° C, while similarly seeking the highest possible "CG%"-value for all primers.
35/124 Maximal difference of 1° C is acceptable. We have a difference of 10° C in Drosten's qPCR-protocol, therefor his protocol is highly sensitive to errors and can't work for any final analysis.
36/124 A post-graduate would have to completely begin-over again if one would submit Drosten's values as qPCR-protocol anywhere.
37/124 Additional testing of these best-practises reveals that Drosten & Corman at least achieved fairly "ok-ish"-values for the N-gene primer pair. We see a fair "GC%"-value for both primers (reverse & forward) & 1.85° C difference between them.
38/124 The résumé of #Drosten's #qPCR- #protocol- #submission to @WHO, #Eurosurveillance & #Pubmed is nevertheless defeating: Scientifically & technically far away from peek-performance & best-practises in the field.
39/124 If we re-examine the RdRP gene forward & reverse - primers, and focus on the reverse "TM"-value only, we'll realize that the submitted WHO-protocol shows the value of 58° C, which is again 5° C more than the best-practise-value would suggest.
40/124 It seems like a wonder that any kind of amplification occures with Drosten's qPCR-protocol, submitted to WHO (13th Jan) and officially released there as recommendation on 21st January 2020: https://bit.ly/31Iowwm 
41/124 Lets peek deeper into recommended Cycles / CT-value in Drosten's protocol. We can spot an absurd 45 Cycles-value there. https://bit.ly/3jrysjN 
42/124 That would simply draw following analogy: We are not looking for the 'needle in the haystack', on the contrary, we wouldn't be able to see the haystack anymore due to stacks of needles all over the place. That is the opposite of "good laboratory practise".
43/124 You could do 45 cycles, but then you also have to define a reasonable CT-value, an analytical result at up to 45 cycles is a no-go and scientifically meaningless.
44/124 You could also do 100 cycles, does not matter, a reasonable CT-value would always define the scientific significance of the amplification-results beforehand. In all the #Drosten- #paper-submissions and official releases no reasonable CT-value is anywhere to be found.
45/124 Even the New York -Times reported for once accurately about the ongoing controverse, scientific discussion among virologists and other researchers / scientific fields of importance in regards to #SARSCoV2. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html / http://archive.is/wNQSx 
46/124 @Thomas_Binder kept screaming to no end about this gigantic #fail since the beginning of this #LARP-fantasy- #pandemic (sorry Thomas, I couldn't find the originally posted tweet by you anymore, I gave up while scrolling back to 2nd October). https://twitter.com/Bobby_Network/status/1315208715088343040
47/124 The positive test-results kept rising until up-2-date, the real excess mortality-rate was at a rate - as much as ever.
48/124 Since no proper standardization in regards to reasonable & scientifically significant cycles & corresponding "CT-value" was ever declared by any research/health-institution worldwide,we find ourselves today in the Wild West of unregulated & meaningless realtime PCR-tests.
49/124 But lets return to our glorious Drosten-paper again and lets remember back, when in September 2020 #queen- #wasp #Drosten was bragging about the #validity of his RT-qPCR-test- #religion. https://twitter.com/c_drosten/status/1309755692232904704
50/124 In plain English: "All those, who are claiming in public, our SARS-CoV-2 PCR-protocol is not validated in regards to Human Corona- and common cold-virions should bother to read the publication. Also #Wodarg and Miss #KĂ€mmerer. Table 2." https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045#html_fulltext
51/124 Wodarg does not need a big introduction: He already saved us from Drosten in 2003 & the swine-flu-scam, when Drosten was trying to span his first version 1.0 of the same scientific trickery-scheme upon us and the world.
52/124 An immense smear-campaign stacked against Wodrag is currently kept running by the huge mass-media manipulation machinery ( #MMMM).
53/124 At this point I should emphasize that most of the findings here should be credited to the outstanding research-work by Prof. Ulrike KĂ€mmerer, she is the second # hashtag Christian Drosten is referring to.
54/124 Following tweets "55-68" are also direct references from her research covering the so called "Drosten-Paper". I am merely the translating-messenger here and extending when possible with archives, my own findings /"connecting the dots". #Investigative #Artist #MarkLombardi
55/124 As suggested in Drosten's angry tweet, we return to his "Table 2" and examine it briefly. https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045#html_fulltext
56/124 At first glance we can spot in the accompanying text of "Table 2": Quote 1: "In four individual test reactions, weak initial reactivity was seen, but they were negative upon retesting with the same assay."
57/124 Quote 2: "(...), above, it was concluded that this initial reactivity was (...) most probably to handling issues."
58/124 In plain English: Christian Drosten's claim of "no false positive-tests noted" is a straight-out #lie, there were on the contrary four "false positives", which were not present when re-tested again.
59/124 This is a direct Alegre to the many reported cases of "false positives", then "negatives".
60/124 This already happens in the very first publication as we can clearly read, though #Corman & #Drosten don't clarify or specify which #virions and which (of the now 2, instead of 3 test-) #genes resulted into those false positive #probes.
61/124 Four in 'n=310' primary-tests => false positives = 1.3 %.
62/124 Second quote states "handling issues";if those can occure at a state-of-the-art #laboratory-(and those are perfectly normal for low-tier-quality tests);but if we upscale the testing-quanitity similiar to the current ravages globally, you end up in 'false positives-hell'.
63/124 Note: Torsten Engelbrecht and Viviane Fischer ("Corona Untersuchungs-Ausschuss" / Class Action Suite / team Dr. Fuellmich) sent a questionaire to @ChariteBerlin, asking, whether they could elaborate on CT-standards. https://archive.is/3VRD0  / https://bit.ly/3kwkSwJ 
64/124 The sloppy first answer by Charité Berlin: They don't know what "Cq"-value even means. We'll return to Viviane Fischer's & Torsten Engelbrecht's research a bit later.
65/124 Lets go back to #Drosten's #magic- #paper. Drosten & #Corman state in their publication intro, they obtained & guessed the right sequences through "Social Media".
66/124 But in Figure 2 we can clearly see that those primers were harmonised with the so called " #Wuhan- #sequences", which already pre-existed in an online data-base. So no magic- #socialmedia-trick to be found here, it was more merely looking up at #GISAID.
67/124 Zhu already had the 6 #Wuhan-sequences implemented in her publication: "A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China,2019", the article was published on 24th Jan, updated 29th Jan 2020. https://bit.ly/3j7wSUc 
68/124 The publication further states: "Specific primers were subsequently designed for PCR, ...".
69/124 We will not go into the whole complex of questions regarding the #GoldStandard here. @ale_battini, me & many more will post a seperate thread debunking the Zhu, Zhou, Bao-fraud - which is a beast of its own.
70/124 Spoiler 1:No real isolate exists,no properly filtered & purified virion-particle has ever been obtained.The term 'isolation' got corrupted and has no real #clinical #value/ logical scientific methodology in regards to #SARSCoV2. It's a #labpandemic. https://twitter.com/Bobby_Network/status/1319593292309422080
71/124 Rivers / Koch-postulates remain the ultimate #GoldStandard and have not been fulfilled yet in regards to #SARSCoV2.
72/124 Side-Note Spoiler 2: The computer-models2isolates-blueprints of the #Corona #Virion to be marketed as "isolate" have been patented in 2015. https://bit.ly/31MmMCi 
73/124 At this point it should be noted, that #Zhu's #laboratory designed their own real time #qPCR- #protocol. A question remains: Why did the @WHO recommend the #Drosten- #protocol to the world and not Zhu's? #NextGenerationSequencingDoesNotFulfillKochsPostulates
74/124 The pushed #narrative that Christian Drosten "rescued #China" with his real time qPCR-protocol is a myth and has been debunked. Zhu's research environment is much more advanced than Drosten's. China is using their own protocols, they don't need the queen wasp Drosten.
75/124 The @WHO has recommended solely Drosten's protocol as #GoldStandard at the beginning of this #pandemic. Why was that the case - and why not the Zhu-protocol ? ... This will be clarified in courts within the frame of the upcoming class-action suite against Drosten.
76/124 A few more test-protocols are recommended by @WHO now, but nevertheless Drosten was the first one to be promoted globally on their official side and used his authority to market the TIB-Molbiol protocol.
77/124 That brings us now to Chapter 2 of this thread:

B. TIB MOLBIOL'S & CHRISTIAN DROSTEN'S SINISTER BUSINESS-SCHEMES TO PROMOTE THEIR RT-qPCR-TEST-RELIGION
78/124 We return to Viviane Fischer's, Rubicon News' & Torsten Engelbrecht's research and start to uncover how the inner-circle of the #Drosten wasp nest works: TIB-Molbiol & friends.
79/124 The Rubikon article & journalistic milestone can be found in German-language here: https://archive.is/3VRD0 

They sent a questionare to CharitĂ© Berlin, the answers can be found here in German language: https://bit.ly/3kwkSwJ 
80/124 We start with #TIBMolbiol, they are close collaborateurs of Drosten, based in #Berlin, Olfert Landt is the CEO of the company. At the same adress many other companies are registered, they share the same small postal-box.
81/124 All those companies have commercial affiliations in the realtime #PCR-field - in one building-complex. https://bit.ly/2TqbtLh 
82/124 TIB-Molbiol has made around 16 Milion Euros in 2019, clear gain was 7 Milion Euros. The company has 40+ workers.
83/124 Olfert Landt closely works with Christian Drosten since 17 years,and even though he keeps emphasizing that they're not best friends,there seems to be a closer relationship between the two,since many successful PCR-tests were designed and sold in close collab in the past.
84/124 They "meet again by luck" in regards to #SARSCoV2 Olfert Landt claims. We follow the corresponding CNN-story, Olfert seemed to be very open in regards to press-exposure at the beginning of this #pandemic.
https://cnn.it/34wpmOE  http://archive.is/LEGN1 
85/124 Surely, one could critize me for using CNN as a source at this point, in this case we clearly could refer to other press-outlets too- reporting the same press-releases, headline & the always-same-interview-answers by Olfert Landt.
86/124 I'll nevertheless stick to CNN in this thread for iconic & #ironic reasons.
87/124 Quote: "Virologists usually wait until the genetic material of a new virus is sequenced to start working on a test. This time, Landt and his 30-strong company TIB-Molbiol got started early. By January 9 they had designed their first test kit..."
88/124 Quote: "Thousands of miles away in Berlin, German scientist Olfert Landt was already on alert. For 30 years, he had worked on diagnosing emerging diseases, including Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)."
89/124 Quote: "He wanted to make a test kit to help doctors diagnose the disease - he wanted to do it fast."
90/124 Back to Drosten: He is officially employed at Charité Berlin, used his working-hours (& tax money) there to develop his qPCR-protocol, called up his friend Olfert Landt at TIB-Molbiol to produce a prototype-test quickly.
91/124 The test is immediatly ready on 9th January and sent under Drosten's advise via TIB-Molbiol / Olfert Landt to Hong Kong diagnostic laboratory of @Roche & Taiwan Center for Disease Control on 11th January.
92/124 Drosten instantly gets comfirmation for success, patients there are tested "positive". He immediatly submits his RT-qPCR protocol to @WHO on the same day, 10 days later the publication is submitted to Pubmed & Eurosurveillance.
93/124 At the same time @ChariteBerlin renounces patent-plans, Drosten is in full control of the developments, advises his friend Olfert Landt to send out more RT-qPCR-tests to more locations worldwide precautionally (Iran, Amibia, and many more).
94/124 Since Charité Berlin does not want to control its own RT-qPCR invention and its strategic developments, the flood-gates are opened for the unregulated Wild West #PCR-market. Standardizations & regulations (CT-value / Cycles) in any way are moved forever away.
95/124 At the same time Drosten activates all his close contacts of the inner-circle, starting with Wieler of @rki_de, @MarionKoopmans, Andreas Nitsche, the Aussie-Gang & many more.
96/124 Reminder: Wieler(RKI),Andreas Nitsche (now RKI-division head,former TIB Molbiol) & Marion Koopmans (co-author of the "Drosten-paper") are all affiliated with the @WHO.Nitsche & Koopmans are referenced in Drosten's-protocol-paper. Question: Multiple "Conflicts of Interest"?
97/124 Question: Did Andreas Nitsche & Marion Koopmans influence @DrTedros & the @WHO to recommend Drosten's & Corman's real time qPCR-protocol globally (without any FDA-approval at all) for clinical diagniosticsl? Did they indirectly help Olfert Landt to earn a lot of money?
98/124 At first glance it might sound altruistic that those protocols're available to everyone via @WHO;on the other hand the contact e-mail concerning incoming questions & orders first arrived to Drosten's ears,since he was stated as primary contact in the WHO-recommendation.
99/124 Not only did Drosten & Olfert Land gain competitive advantages through relentless networking-schemes in the early phases of the #plandemic. Olfert Landt always served as main-hub for anything related to global #PCRtest-distribution.
100/124 Another question arises: Does it sound reasonable that Christian Drosten would let all the others make the millions withouth obtaining his own share through hidden economic-constructions - which are not in plain sight? This is a question to be answered in courts soon.
101/124 Real revenue of TIB-Molbiol is estimated to several three-digit million Euro-range in 2020, more than a x000 %-rise in real revenues compared to 2019 & prior years. Olfert Landt deliveres more than 60 countries through Drosten's lobbying & RochĂ©. https://archive.vn/cro0h 
102/124 Lets dig bit deeper into the Aussie- #gang -since the #COVID19- #restrictions're executed to-the-max in Australia:Nitsche is one of the Co-authors of "one of the best cited reviews in the field" by Ian M. Mackay ( @MackayIM),as well as John F. Mackay. https://www.caister.com/rtmic 
103/124 Olfert Landts connection to New Zealand is John F. Mackay. https://cnn.it/34wpmOE 
104/124 Question 1: Did Ian Maxwell Mackay connect with John F. Mackay to establish Olfert Landt's / Drosten's & Corman's qPCR-protocol & tests in Australia as primary option? https://bit.ly/3kAuUgo 
105/124 Question 2: What is Ian M. Mackay's exact affiliation to @wef? https://bit.ly/3juAD63  / https://archive.is/fqwjW 
107/124 Back to Germany: Question 4: Why did Drosten all of a sudden change his COVID-19 public-outreach strategy back in March 2020? From "not serious", he did a total flip-over to insighting fear whenever he could. Question 5: Was this strategy arranged with Olfert Landt?
109/124 Question 7: Are Drosten & Olfert Landt playing an old dishonest scheme, to which they are already used to since 2003? https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/how-pandemic-made-virologist-unlikely-cult-figure
110/124 Endnote: @CoronaAusschuss also an Historian from "Corona Doks" at their conference. He peeked deep into the promotion-process of " http://Dr.med " Christian Drosten. His findings deserve an own seperate thread too. https://archive.is/21rQn  / https://bit.ly/34xYhdJ 
111/124 C. CONCLUSIONS
(111-120)
112/124 - Drosten's paper is debunked, the major work-horse of the RT-qPCR-test-religion is flawed in every aspect, starting with publication formalities and in regards to actual scientific value, testing-accuracy, scientific methods.
113/124 - Christian Drosten's inner circle are without no-doubt: Olfert Landt, Andreas Nitsche, Marion Koopmans, Victor Corman, Ian M. Mackay, John F. Mackay, Tedros and more. Main sponsors are: RKI, WHO, WEF.
114/124 - The CDU/CSU-meeting in May 2019 had a deeper meaning. Tedros, Wieler(RKI), Drosten, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, Merkel, Spahn not only discussed "Biosafety & Vaccines"...
https://bit.ly/34vLqZy  / https://archive.is/N1jBD  /
115/124 - The Australian-gang-connection starts with Ian Maxwell Mackay's publication on "Real Time PCR in microbiology", 2007. You can find each and everyone of the inner circle in Ian M. Mackays publication.
116/124 @ale_battini - we have peek into that one, I'll send you the link I got via Researchgate. This is the second most important core of all trickery in the field. They love it to reference each other in their publications.
119/124 If you want to dive deeper into the inner-circles of @wef, @schwabfound & @WHO this thread is a must-read. https://twitter.com/elleprovocateur/status/1246853634819796997
120/124 There is a deeper connection to be found between @WEF, @WHO, @HKStrategies - they most probably are the main hidden drivers when it comes to #opinionleading & #PR / #thinktanks. We'll dive into that rabbit hole in a seperate thread. https://twitter.com/Bobby_Network/status/1312306699093643265
121/124 Addendum a): Please read into this extensive thread by @AlisonBlunt https://twitter.com/AlisonBlunt/status/1318991060148912129
122/124 Addendum b): If you want to hear it from a real expert in the field - @Kevin_McKernan https://twitter.com/Kevin_McKernan/status/1320536482298384390
123/124 Many story-lines of this giant #LARP are still left open, this is only the #TipOfTheIceberg, we'll peek into the CDC, Fauci, Ferguson & Co-biz soon.
124/124 Thank you for your super-extended attention so far! I am sorry for the super-long thread, but this #rabbithole is not graspable under 100 tweets.
Addendum-Correction 1: This Link got lost in Tweet 3/124, it's my first thread on the topic "conflicts of interest", merely scratching the surface: https://twitter.com/Bobby_Network/status/1317393113573478400
Addendum c):Tweet nr 92 / 124 & / CNN - we can read - Quote Olfert Landt: ... "But in the end we don't need money."
https://twitter.com/Bobby_Network/status/1321202573999747072
Ironic: He doesn't pay his workers well. https://bit.ly/34f0lGh 

https://twitter.com/Bobby_Network/status/1317400352082305027
Addendum d): Please excuse the typos in the long-thread.
Addendum e): ref. to Tweet 72/124:Corona-Virus-Patent-Biz is a rabbit hole:A patent "Human Beta Corona Virus Lineage" applied by Albertus Dominicus Marcellinus Erasmus Osterhaus,that's @MarionKoopmans. @patricksavalle @JurjenRolf
https://archive.is/IyIH0  / https://bit.ly/31Q8Y9S 
Addendum f)-1 This might be a smoking gun, referring to Tweet 100 / 124 in this thread. I was wondering if any hidden economic constructions exist in the background which are not in plain sight but helping Drosten to recieve a at least a fair share. https://twitter.com/Bobby_Network/status/1321203713244016644
Addendum f)-2: A german parlementary questionairy was sent to the mayor's office in Berlin in regards to Drosten & Charité Berlin procedure. Question: How many persons have been tested by Charité?
Addendum f)-3:Charité's answer:All tests of patients are done at "Labor Berlin",which is commercially oriented,it's a commercially oriented spin-off of Charité (Charité Vivantes GmbH).Drosten is the director.They state week 4 till 41 130.813 people were tested and analyzed there.
Addendum f)-4 : Here is again the tweet nr 14 / 124: https://twitter.com/Bobby_Network/status/1321191705509548033
Addendum f)-5: Question: How much Money have Charité and Prof. Drosten earned with testing so far?
Answer by Charité: Basically they say that neither Charité, nor Christian Drosten earn something with the invention of the real time qPCR-protocol, the protocol is freely available.
Addendum f)-6: Further they state that "Charité" does not gain any real revenue through testing. The revenue gained is used to compensate for costs that arise through Testing for Drosten. Further: Drosten is not personally involved in any shares of revenues.
Addendum f)-7:Contradicts with Drosten's director-function at "Labor Berlin".Either they are implying that a commercially-oriented lab in the real time qPCR-test-market is not gaining anything & "director's" never get a fair share,or they simply don't know about any bonus-shares.
Addendum f)-8: Here is Tweet number 15/124 again: https://twitter.com/Bobby_Network/status/1321191860505874432
Addendum f)-9: The parlamentary questionary to the mayor's office in Berlin was submitted by German parlamentarian Gunnar Lindemann, on 6th October 2020 (Nr. 18/25176, and answered by Christian Gaebler, Chief of the Senate's Chancellery.
Addendum f)-10: This contradiction between Drosten's role as "Professor" at the Charité in Berlin, while also being the director of "Labor Berlin" (a commercially oriented company) will be illuminated in courts by Dr. Fuellmich / @CoronaAusschuss for sure.
Addendum f)-11: Numbers: 130.813 tests in 36 weeks, and if we assume one test has a cost factor of 100 € (friendship price), then we get 13.081.300 €. If that is considerably enough to "compensate costs due to testing", will be answered soon https://bit.ly/2JfDHXu 
Addendum f)-12:
Q1:Does "Labor Berlin" test cities & villages outside of Berlin?
Q2:Charité states that no one earns something due to the protocol-invention at Charité. How does that align with TIB Molbiol's role as distributor? Is Charité lobbying for @tibmolbiol via Drosten?
Addendum h): One of the earliest research-reports in the German speaking area in regards to the topic-complex "Confict of Interest" & "Drosten-Paper" can be found here: https://bit.ly/35GNb5J 

I didn't reference from it, I'll def. look into this report. Thx for pointing out!
You can follow @Bobby_Network.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: