Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE!
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Home About Contact | ||
|
||
Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE! |
||
The Forgetful Professor Drosten, the Gold Standard, and the Drosten FanboysReviewing the Corona pandemic is and remains arduous. This is also due to the fact that the responsible actors do not want a review. 
On December 1, 2025, Professor Christian Drosten, one of the foremost “scientists,” was questioned in the German Bundestag’s Enquete Commission about his statements and guidelines regarding the PCR test at the time. Drosten appeared confused, did not understand the questions, and fumbled around to kill time (see video). Drosten was asked by Dr. Michael Nehls: Professor Drosten, in 2014 you described in Wirtschaftswoche, using the MERS coronavirus as an example, how clinically irrelevant mass testing with the extremely sensitive PCR method led to an explosion in case numbers. I quote: “Where previously terminally ill people were reported, now suddenly mild cases and people who are actually healthy are included in the statistics.” This disastrous strategy was applied to Covid in 2020: mass testing of healthy people combined with a high rate of false-positive results. For example, according to an RKI protocol from May 22, 2020, human samples that required 32 PCR cycles to yield a positive result — the so-called CT value — contained no, and I emphasize: no viable SARS-CoV-2 viruses. A CT value of 32 is therefore 100% false positive when it comes to demonstrating infectivity and thus 100% suitable for creating the illusion of an infection or infection chain. A PCR with 45 cycles is about 8,000 times more error-prone and therefore even better suited to creating the illusion of a pandemic through an explosion in case numbers — with panic, lockdowns, and genetically engineered mass vaccinations as a consequence. Hence my question: “Is it correct that in your PCR protocol, which the WHO already recommended on January 13, 2020, i.e., 10 days before its publication, as the first diagnostic tool for the novel coronavirus, this absurdly high number of 45 cycles was set as the standard without any specific reference to a clinically relevant CT value?” A simple yes or no will suffice. Professor Christian Drosten responds: That is not relevant at all. None of this is relevant. That shows… Dr. Michael Nehls intervened: This is my time, and I simply want to know, did you set 45 cycles as the target in your PCR? Professor Christian Drosten responds: 45 cycles means negative. I really cannot answer you on this, because it is all so misleading. In the embedded video, Dr. Michael Nehls shows the document he referenced in his question. This contradicts Professor Drosten himself, and it can be assumed that Drosten even lied before the Thuringian state parliament investigation committee. There, he was also asked whether he had recommended 45 cycles, which he denied. According to Dr. Michael Nehls, these 45 cycles were often used, producing massive numbers of false-positive results, which then entered the incidence statistics, which in turn justified the Corona measures. One will surely recall that measures were already imposed at an incidence of 35 positive test results per 100,000 residents in a region. As could be seen from the RKI protocols, the incidence values were arbitrarily set by politicians. It should be recalled that the WHO (World Health Organization) definition of a rare disease is 5 in 10,000 — i.e., 50 in 100,000. Measures were therefore imposed for a rare disease, and these were not even actual cases, but mostly false-positive test results. That mass testing of healthy people produces a high number of false-positive results was even noticed by then-Federal Health Minister Spahn in June 2020. In an interview with ARD, he remarked: You have to think two steps ahead! The consequence of this realization at the time was that from August 2020, holiday returnees were massively and indiscriminately tested, and the number of indiscriminate tests was greatly increased. Fundamentally, PCR tests cannot detect infections. Dr. Michael Nehls also explains this again in his video. Critics repeatedly pointed this out as early as 2020. Politicians logically ignored it, since the only apparent goal was to create the illusion of a pandemic. And that worked wonderfully. Preventing severe cases was not achievedIn another question Dr. Michael Nehls posed to Professor Christian Drosten (see video), Nehls referred to a document from the U.S. FDA, according to which the study goal “preventing severe cases” was not achieved. Among vaccinated individuals, 50% more severe disease events and deaths were observed. All Covid vaccines showed a detrimental effect. Drosten stated that he was unaware of these data.Dr. Michael Nehls asked: However, despite these problematic study results, you answered two years later on November 23, 2022, the question “How effective were the vaccines really?” in “Die Zeit” as follows, I quote you here: “One must clearly state that the vaccines absolutely and sustainably protect against severe infection and death.” Is the question: Do you consider it scientifically justifiable and a good example of public communication to speak of an absolute effect against severe cases and death based on the data? Again, a simple yes or no, please. Professor Christian Drosten replied: If I use the word “absolute” in a conversational context with, for example, a journalist in a way that the audience understands that we are talking about effectiveness of certainly 90% and above, then I consider that correct science communication. Dr. Michael Nehls intervenes: I am very sorry. This is my 5 minutes here, and I want to add a question very simply: If you make a public statement of this kind to a journalist, you cannot assume that just because the journalist is not a scientist, the public will not receive this misinformation. Since the 5-minute question time was over, Professor Drosten was no longer required to answer this question. Will regional politics respond?Will regional politicians, who imposed these “containment measures,” monitored compliance, and sanctioned violations, apologize to the citizens in any way?Certainly not! They were just “following orders”! The Drosten FanboysThere are still some die-hard Drosten fanboys in our region who do not allow any criticism of their idol. They reacted to the article “Deaths and Injuries from Vaccination and Pandemic Measures Are Acceptable Costs According to Professor Christian Drosten” with a rather confused text. Okay, if your idol spouts nonsense, it is only natural as a Drosten fan to act confused too. Wink!By the way, these guys and girls are the ones who, whenever “scientists” like Drosten contradict themselves or, for example, it turned out that the protective effect of the “vaccine” gradually tended toward zero, speak of new scientific findings. Findings such as the guidelines on 45 cycles, which existed even before the pandemic was declared, or the lack of efficacy and adverse effects of the “vaccines” observed in the approval studies, are of course ignored. Author: AI-Translation - Michael Thurm | |
|
| Other articles: |
 | Little Love for CSD in Burgenlandkreis: A Critical Look at the Facebook DebateA heated discussion about Christopher Street Day (CSD) in Burgenlandkreis has flared up in the Facebook group "die Naumburger" over the past few days.... zum Artikel |
 | CDU and AfD exclude SPD, Greens and Left from electionA decision by the election committee sparks heated debate. According to media reports, CDU and AfD jointly voted to exclude candidates from the SPD, the Greens, and the Left from p... zum Artikel |
 | The German Obedience SyndromeA short poem about the current times.... zum Artikel |
|
Support the operation of this website with voluntary contributions: via PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/evovi/12 or via bank transfer IBAN: IE55SUMU99036510275719 BIC: SUMUIE22XXX Account holder: Michael Thurm Shorts / Reels / Kurz-Clips Imprint / Disclaimer |