Critics Cast Doubt on Drosten the “Pusher of the PCR Protocol” Alleged Qualifications.

While we recognise many of the orchestrators of the Covid hoax along with their lackeys, one man has not had the recognition that he deserves Christian Drosten. Drosten co-authored a paper in January 2020, said to be “severely flawed” by scientists, in which he hailed the benefits of the RT PCR test which went on to provide the statistical basis for the “Pandemic.” Drosten is now chair of the virology department at the prestigious Charité university teaching hospital in Berlin – which, incidentally, hosts and organises the annual World Health Summit on behalf of the German Government recently called for media to suppress “disinformation” and said “We shouldn’t have just anybody who has some academic degree talking about the heart of the issue in the middle of a pandemic” His comments, which would be hilarious, if not so serious, have reignited the doubts as to whether Drosten had the qualifications he claimed he had almost four years ago!

An article was recently published by Robert Kogan and then republished by the Daily Sceptic, but first here is some background on Drosten.

Background

For those who cannot remember Drosten from the early days of Covid resistance, here is an excerpt from an article published by the Expose in November 2021 The Covid Lies – What Pandemic

“The RT PCR test a tool to afford the statistical basis to a pandemic and producing enough cases for the WHO Director-General  Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus to declare a public health emergency of international concern” (PHEIC) (source). At this time there it was reported that 7834, 99% of which were in China, and 170 deaths again in China, deemed to be from COVID. Amazingly by the very next day, the total number of cases had increased to 9,826.64, the growth of an imaginary virus, not isolated nor shown to be causative of any disease was to begin its reign of terror all due to the power of a PCR test.

THE CORMAN–DROSTEN PAPER

This occurred following the publication on January 23, 2020, in the scientific journal Eurosurveillance, by Dr. Christian Drosten, along with several colleagues from the Berlin Virology Institute at Charite Hospital, and also the head of a biotech company, TIB Molbiol Syntheselabor GmbH, published a study claiming to have developed the first effective test for detecting whether someone is infected with the novel coronavirus identified first only days before. The paper now referred to as the Corman Drosten paper (Eurosurveillance) also appeared on the WHO’s website on 13 and 17 January 2020 despite the authors acknowledging that they had designed the test “without having virus material available”.

A REQUEST TO RETRACT THE PAPER

An international consortium of Life Science scientists found the Corman-Drosten paper to be severely flawed with respect to its biomolecular and methodological design. Their paper “External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results” (External peer review) included a request to retract the Corman/Drosten paper, which they said the publication by “Eurosurveillance”, raises the concern whether the paper was subjected to peer-review at all.

THE FRAUD SURROUNDING THE CORNAN DROSTEN PAPER

The false positives were not the only fraudulent area surrounding the Corman/Drosten collaboration, first of all the scientists requesting the retraction were right that the paper had not been peer-reviewed at all. Drosten failed to declare that he was actually a member of the Eurosurveillance editorial board when he and his co-authors were published in the journal only two days after submission (23 January). Not only that he was holding a fraudulent doctoral title and would likely face court charges as a result (Source).

Co-authors, Chantal Reusken, also failed to declare that she was on the Eurosurveillance editorial board and TIB Molbiol. Also, CEO Olfert Landt failed to declare his conflict of interest that his company was the maker of a PCR kit based on the published assay sequences, only revealing the fact on July 29th (source). TIB Molbiol company revealed later, that they had been “supplying COVID-19 PCR test kits since early January 2020” and said that “Over the last 12 months we have delivered over 60 million tests.” (source). Simply because we ignored their fraudulent behaviour and lies and allowed them to continue.

KARY MULLIS PCR INVENTOR

The Nobel Prize-Winning  inventor of the PCR Kary Mullis stated that the PCR “doesn’t tell you that you are sick, or that the thing that you ended up with was going to hurt you or anything like that.”

Nonetheless, the entire case for the fear, the mandated measures including the mandated emergency lockdowns of businesses, schools,  and other social arenas globally was based on a test that cannot diagnose the infectious status of a human in any proven way and no consistent link has ever been found between a disease state and the PCR results. (Source).

In short, there has been a misapplication, misuse fraudulent application, call it what you will, of the PCR meaning COVID-19 is a scientifically meaningless construct that represents nothing more than a referential illusion. From the outset, the PCR was to provide the statistical basis for the “Pandemic” based on a disease invented for an agenda that benefits a tiny minority of people. there’s a huge chance you are not one of them. (source).

————————————————————

So, that’s the guy and what he himself is capable of, and we might think that after that he would have laid low following his arguably instrumental role in bringing about the crimes against humanity, but no, he is now criticising others for “disinformation!”

The following article was authored by Robert Kogon which is the pen name of a widely-published journalist covering European affairs and published on his Substack

The Dog Ate My PhD Thesis: German Critics Cast Doubt on Dr. Drosten’s Doctorate

A clip of Christian Drosten at the World Health Summit in Berlin calling for media to suppress “disinformation” went somewhat viral on X recently. “We shouldn’t have just anybody who has some academic degree talking about the heart of the issue in the middle of a pandemic,” Drosten said. In contrast to such untrustworthy ‘anybodies’, Drosten invoked “experts who are really experts”, “who are… qualified to summarise the state of knowledge”. Scientists who are “top scientists”.

Presumably, Drosten would put himself in the latter company. No mere anybody, he. He is, after all, the Chair of the virology department at the prestigious Charité university teaching hospital in Berlin – which, incidentally, hosts and organises the annual World Health Summit on behalf of the German Government – and he was, of course, the developer of the notoriously hypersensitive COVID-19 PCR-protocol which helped to create the COVID-19 pandemic via the detection of billions of ‘asymptomatic cases’.

But how many outside of Germany know that serious doubts have been raised about Drosten’s own qualifications and the validity of his own degree? To start with, as Thomas Maul has noted on Achse des Guten, one of Germany’s most influential alternative media sites, full (or ‘W3’) professors in Germany are normally supposed to have completed a kind of ‘super-PhD’ known as the Habilitation and there is no question that Drosten, despite being a full professor, has not done that.

But, more troublingly still, questions have been raised about whether he really even completed a PhD. The root of the problem is that his PhD thesis was nowhere to be found from the time of its alleged completion in 2000, 2001, 2002 or 2003 (depending on the source, for some examples in German see here) until mid-2020, when copies suddenly turned up in German National Library (DNB) branches at precisely the time that enquiring minds were starting to publicly wonder whether it even existed at all.

As can be seen in the below picture of the cover page of a copy at the DNB Leipzig branch, the call number clearly indicates that the document was first included in the catalogue in 2020: the year in which Drosten both rose to international prominence as the developer of the COVID-19 PCR and became Germany’s quasi-official Corona oracle.

According to Corona Transition, a website which was critical of Germany’s Covid response and played a key role in the controversy, the document was only included in the DNB holdings in July 2020. (The original Corona Transition site is no longer available online, but see here from the Wayback Machine.)

A since-removed video titled ‘The Question must be permitted. Where Is the Dissertation?’ was posted on YouTube in late June 2020. See the below screenshot.

Undoubtedly more to the point, by his own account, Markus Kübacher, the main protagonist in the search for Drosten’s dissertation, began making inquiries about it already in the April. (See here from Corona Transition via the Wayback Machine.) Kübacher is a chemist who accuses Drosten of committing scientific fraud – and Goethe University Frankfurt, the degree-granting institution, of aiding and abetting it.

In October 2020, the university published a statement which was evidently supposed to put the controversy to rest and which would be dutifully cited by German ‘fact-checking’ organisations in the spirit of ‘move along, nothing to see here’. But, as Maul notes, the university’s statement in fact raises more questions than it answers.

In particular, the statement says that sometime during the course of 2020, “the only remaining original copy” of Drosten’s thesis in the possession of the Goethe University faculty of medicine was examined to determine whether it was “suitable” for library use and was determined not to be so.

This was supposedly “for reasons of conservation”. But in an earlier e-mail cited by Kübacher in a July 2020 tweet, a university spokesperson explained, more precisely, that none of the copies (note the plural) originally submitted by Drosten could be used for libraries since they had suffered “water damage”, apparently due to flooding “in large parts of the university clinic a few years ago, by which the archive of the doctoral office was also affected”.

This modern-day, higher-educational version of “the dog ate my homework” got a somewhat different twist from another university official who, Kübacher reports, told him in a phone conversation that there had only ever been one copy in the university’s possession and it had been damaged by drops of water from a leaky pipe running along the ceiling of the basement in which it was kept!

In any event, the copies which turned up in the DNB branches in summer 2020 are thus not in fact copies that were in the possession of Goethe University or copies of any such copy. Rather, according to the university’s October statement, Drosten himself provided the university an additional copy still in his possession, and Drosten’s personal copy and additional copies made from it were then provided to the libraries. The university insists that Drosten’s copy is identical to the copy in the university’s possession. But it is unclear how it could know this in light of the “water damage” which supposedly made the latter unsuitable for library use.

Moreover, as Kübacher and others have noted, even supposing the document now available in the DNB system is in fact Drosten’s dissertation, it is hard to see how it could ever have been accepted as a doctoral thesis. For, as the Goethe University statement puts it, it is “based on” three previously published journal articles and these articles are all jointly authored by Drosten and multiple other authors. One of these authors is none other than the thesis director, Willi Kurt Roth. Indeed, Roth is the lead author on one of the articles.

Front matter in the DNB document, as can be seen below, cites these same three articles, indicating that they contain “excerpts” from the dissertation. This presumably means that parts of the articles, although published in English, are substantively identical to parts of the supposed thesis. How then could the latter have been accepted as proof of an independent contribution to scholarship, as is required virtually all around the world and also in Germany, as Kübacher has pointed out?

Moreover, the front matter contains further anomalies. Under the names of the committee members, including the thesis director Roth, the date of the dissertation defence (viva) is given as March 3rd 2003. But as can be seen from the cover page above, the text was supposedly completed in 2001.

Why did it take Drosten two years – or, according to Goethe University Frankfurt’s alleged timeline, at least 15 months – to defend his thesis? According to the university’s account, this too is not a problem and was merely due to the extreme excellence of the work, since a third opinion had to be gathered to confirm the summa cum laude bestowed by the first two readers. But the document is only 122 pages long. (See DNB catalogue entry here.)

Finally, Kübacher and other critics have pointed to one last oddity about the supposed date of the dissertation defense. March 22nd 2003 was a Saturday. Who defends their dissertation on a weekend?

Robert Kogon is the pen name of a widely-published journalist covering European affairs. Subscribe to his Substack and follow him on X.

Source used – Daily Sceptic