How Scientific Fraud took the World Hostage

Drosten’s test is the pest.

Dr. Simon

Sep 24 2022

In January 2021, I wrote two Twitter threads on the peer-review procedure of Christian Drosten’s scientific publication about the Covid PCR test that formed the basis for the current political agenda. As an Editor of a Scientific Journal, I will give you some more insights into scientific peer-review processes and why fraudulent manipulation concerning Drosten’s PCR paper most likely took place in the Journal of publication “Eurosurveillance”.

Corman-Drosten PCR Paper

The scientific publication from Corman et al., with Christian Drosten as the corresponding author, set out principles concerning 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. These flaws, however, are mainly but not entirely of contentual nature. Unfortunately, until now, 30 months later, the Journal and the involved authors failed to come up with counterarguments and explanations. In addition to substantive and conceptual weaknesses, what worries me the most is how fundamental scientific principles have been compromised by the Journal “Eurosurveillance”.

The graphic below 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 aligns with my personal experiences. So why is a publication within such a period possible?

Figure 1. Amount of days the review processes took at the Journal Eurosurveillance shows one extreme outlier – Drosten’s PCR test publication.

The Peer-Review Process

After writing the paper, the corresponding author (in this case Christian Drosten, who is also part of the Journal’s Editorial Board) had to submit the article via a submission form that looks as follows. “Agreement with authors” is another required document.

Figure 2. This is what it looks like to submit a paper. This screenshot shows the files that need to be attached, with more data to be requested from the (corresponding) author(s).

Christian Drosten consequently had to confirm that there were no conflicts of interest. Yet, Drosten was not honest as several (!!!) conflicts of interest were detected that eventually were corrected under pressure at the end of July 2020.

Figure 3. Scholars that submit their papers to Eurosurveillance need to declare that there are no conflicts of interest. Drosten lied here.

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 Drosten as an editorial board member, might have had good relationships with that lady that could have accelerated the process. Point taken! The paper then had to be sent to at least two external and unbiased reviewers by either the Editor-in-chief or other editors of the editorial team that can be found here. I am usually happy to find sufficient peer-reviewers within 1-2 weeks (best case scenario).

Once an external peer reviewer, who needs to be an expert in that field, accepts the task to review, they generally have 30 days to perform the job. Reviewing a paper properly usually is not done within one day. It occurs very rarely that a review is completed within days. Each reviewer then has to rate the paper. There are usually four recommendations the reviewers can give:

  1. Reject [most common]
  2. Major Revisions [common]
  3. Minor Revisions [rather uncommon]
  4. Accept [very rare]

After both reviewers have given their recommendations, this is what the editor sees.

Figure 4. An editor sees this as soon as the peer review process is complete. You can see the dates on the left side, which is a good indicator of how long a “first round” usually takes.

In the case above (example from my Journal), both reviewers propose major revisions to the manuscript. If the editor agrees with this recommendation, the authors receive the reviewers’ comments that must be addressed before entering the iteration processes. 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 until a publication is considered publishable.

This means that having a paper accepted within less than two 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 directly handled the review reports.

However, after acceptance (see a screenshot example below), the paper still needs to be sent to a typesetter so that the manuscript is in style (i.e. formatting, citation style etc.) of the Journal. This usually takes several days up to two weeks.

Figure 5. It usually takes several iterations until the editor accepts the submitted paper.

The typesetter then returns to the corresponding author with “Queries” (i.e. Q1-Qx). These queries usually address internal (tables, figures) and external (cited work) references and co-author details. All queries need to be addressed by the corresponding author. After addressing all of these queries, it usually takes more days to make the publication available online in its final form. This whole procedure from submission to publication takes about six months on average, which is in line with the Journal’s usual paper processing times, as shown above. Less than 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 Eurosurveillance wraps itself in silence.

The fact that Drosten’s procedure follows a similar script compared with the swine flu “pandemic” in 2009 (i.e. collaboration with Olfert Landt concerning the PCR test creation, scaremongering etc.) leaves a sour aftertaste. The addressed scandal needs to be fully clarified, especially concerning the roles of all individuals and parties involved (especially, Drosten and Ines Steffens). I wonder why co-authors such as Marion Koopmans 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. The whole situation becomes even more obscure, knowing that Marion Koopmans is part of a WHO panel that declared Drosten’s PCR test “gold standard” one day after the paper was published, which means two days after the paper was submitted.

That paper has set off an avalanche and has been cited more than 4600 times within 1.5 years. But unfortunately, the work and its publication process do not meet any requirement of scientific accuracy and formal correctness.

Figure 6. Christian Drosten’s Google Scholar account shows how much he profits from the viral crisis. His citation skyrocketed. The highlighted publication is that one that passed peer review within one day.

The publication thus needs to be marked as biased by Eurosurveillance 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. All Eurosurveillance has done so far was an internal and intransparent check, and they stated that they had not found any flaws, which is a lie. 

Ad-Hominem Attacks instead of Objective Debates

First, I want to state that I did not intend to set off an avalanche in January 2021. I simply could not believe my eyes when I saw how quickly Drosten’s publication got peer-reviewed and published. As a scientist, it is my right and duty to address this and raise questions.

Figure 7. The published document shows the dates when the paper was submitted, accepted and published.

Right after my first Twitter thread on that topic 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. It is hard to describe complex issues with only 280 characters, making misunderstandings and conflicts virtually inevitable. Over time, the perceived personal view or conviction might change due to the latest state of knowledge or varying contexts.

The sad fact is that none of the attackers was dealing with what I had written. Many of them were linked to Drosten himself, addressed Springer Nature directly, and demanded my withdrawal as an editor in the field of aquaponics, as I am “hardly a specialist in virology”. However, I did not address the topic of virology in my thread but solely gave insights into the peer-review process.


The Time for Silence is Over

A unified pushback against the globalist agenda

It’s finally here, the Global Walkout begins September 4th at 8pm London time and continue every weeks. Next step 4th June 2023.

One step at a time, hand in hand, we are walking out from the globalist society they are trying to enslave us into

ANYONE can participate
ANYWHERE in the world

JOIN or read about it here –

The third step is to unsubscribe from all mainstream media outlets. Delete the apps from your phone, laptop, and tablet and unfollow all of their social media and YouTube channels. Try to avoid mainstream media for at least one week, even if the headline is intriguing.

In the same time why not removing all the big tech tracking/spying/social credit system around you: (Youtube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Tik Tok, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Whatsapp, Zoom, Linkedln, Snapchat, Tumblr, Pinterest, Reddit, Myspace, etc.)

The fourth step of the global walkout is to move as many accounts as you can to a union or local bank.

If you like our work please consider to donate :


If you are looking for solutions (lawyer, form, gathering, action, antidote, treatments, maybe this could help you:

If you want to fight back better:

Find the others:

Spike Protein Protocol 

Glutathione (most important for body detoxification) or better
NAC = N-Acetyl-Cysteine 600-750mg (causes the body to produce glutathione itself)
Astaxantin 5mg (also improves vision)
vitamin D3
Milk thistle (also liver and stomach protection)
Melatonin 1mg to 10mg (against 5G)
Alternatively CDS/CDL and zeolite

Dr. Zelenko’s Protocol contains Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), Zinc, Vitamin D3, and Quercetin.

How to find the truth :

Search engine:,, Searx (choose the server that you want) or

Facebook style: or


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: