Discover more from Aya Velázquez
The Corman Drosten paper is a scientific scandal
Anonymous interview with a scientist & journal editor on the Drosten scandal and corruption in science.
Berlin, January 11, 2020 | He is a renowned scientist and aware of the explosive nature of the topic. Therefore, he speaks anonymously with Democratic Resistance about the Corman-Drosten-Koopmans scandal, corruption in science and his field of expertise Vitamin D3. The interview appeared in the 33rd issue of Democratic Resistance. www.demokratischerwiderstand.de
Dr. M, you have been involved in a scientific meta-analysis of vitamin D3. In your estimation, is there a correlation between the severity of COVID-19- courses and vitamin D3?
Yes, definitely. There is clearly such a trend. In some Nordic countries, Iceland and Norway, for example, milk is fortified with D3. In countries where a lot of fish is eaten, in particular cod oil, people have significantly higher D3 levels and less severe covid cases, for example in Norway. There is also now a solid body of studies on vitamin D levels in or with covid decedents. The data are quite clear: a high blood serum vitamin D level effectively prevents the severe course of covid 19 disease. In fact, given the current state of studies, one can only advise that in the fight against covid-19, all people should be systematically brought to high vitamin D3 levels. Unfortunately, the WHO, the EU and national health ministries insist that there is no health risk above 20ng/ml. This is unfortunately not true! Sufficient would probably be a blood serum value of at least 35-40ng/ml, optimally 60 ng/ml or possibly even higher. At high dosages, without further supplements, the often mentioned problem of decalcification arises: this means that with a lot of D3 and little K2, calcium escapes from the bones into the bloodstream. This can lead to calcification of the arteries, which in turn can lead to kidney stones. But if you supplement D3 with K2 or eat green leafy vegetables - especially kale - the calcium stays in the bones. Then you can have a D3 level of 100nl/ml without any problems. Magnesium supplements are also a useful supplement, since magnesium is needed for the enzymatic activity around vitamin D. People with high D3 levels have a strong immune system overall, as D3 has immunoregulatory effects.
Do you think that this valuable information is withheld by official media precisely because there is hardly any money to be made from administering a vitamin?
Yes, and I even go one step further and claim that there is a lobbying association that tries to prevent people from having high D3 levels. It is the same lobbying association that is currently trying to ban CBD oil (medicinal extract of the cannabis plant without intoxicating THC, editor's note) again in Europe. It will probably be dismissed as a conspiracy if I say it's the pharmaceutical lobby. But it is remarkable that exactly such legislative proposals are now reappearing in the EU Parliament. It is all very strange.
But if the data are so clearly in favor of vitamin D, how do these powerful cartels still manage to declare the evidence to be fake science?
They don't. It's just not being addressed. All the studies that come to the conclusion that a high D3 level is beneficial - there is actually not much said against it. Sometimes they say that too high is not good because of the decalcification mentioned earlier - but that would be easily solved with the addition of K2. The knowledge that already exists about D3 is simply not discussed. Lauterbach took a shot at it once, saying the study evidence on D3 was "quite weak." Hundreds of comments under his tweet refuted his statement - but of course he then no longer addressed these arguments. It is then simply hushed up about it. I therefore accuse him of bias. He knows full well that D3 works, there are so many studies on it. There is even a whole D3 Wiki, a Wikipedia only about D3. Both sides are illuminated there, completely rationally. Studies that claimed "With D3 0% mortality!", we ourselves debunked there single-handedly. There is no objective truth, not even in studies. However, currents like around Lauterbach or Drosten know quite well that there are better solutions. Nevertheless, they push for vaccination and isolation - for unproven, rather serious measures that potentially only make things worse.
Do you think someone like Karl Lauterbach seriously has perspective? My impression is rather that his obsessiveness conveys the current zeitgeist, and he enjoys the media attention.
Karl Lauterbach is highly selective in his choice of studies. If he really, as he likes to claim, reads new studies every evening - for example at Science Direct or GoogleScholar, for keywords like "corona mortality rate", corona mortality rate - then he gets there a whole selection of studies displayed, which he could read. I assume in the positive, he also reads different studies, open-ended. But for the public presentation, he selectively chooses the ones that fit his narrative.
Let's move on to the players. What do you think is the driving force of the people who are riding us into this mess right now. Is it greed? The pursuit of power, fleeting fame?
Dr. Drosten is an asset in my eyes. He was promoting the large-scale use of PCR testing long before Corona, along with his old friend and colleague Olfert Landt. The same playbook was applied to swine flu back then. Now he has tried it again. Back then, medical colleague Wodarg managed to debunk it just in time. This time it worked. But even then, as a "greenhorn" (newcomer to the field, editor's note), he achieved a lot for the pharmaceutical industry; remember the bulk purchase of Pandemrix vaccines in 2010, a large part of which had to be destroyed afterwards when the evidence of narcolepsy cases as a side effect increased. Even then, there was a playbook, a kind of script behind it.
If you now add the fact that he chairs the editorial board of the European Surveillance Center, it starts to get critical. By the way, he works there closely with Marion Koopmans - the "Dutch version" of Dr. Drosten, so to speak. Colleagues and I have had various arguments with her on Twitter, but she only ever responds with personal attacks and never addresses arguments. Can she also quite badly, because this peer review process of the Corman-Drosten paper, on which Koopmans is co-author, was completely incorrect, a pure farce.
What went wrong with this paper?
The paper's peer review process took two days. All other scientific publications at Eurosurveillance have taken weeks and months to get published, 172 days on average. Only one made it within 2 days: the Corman-Drosten paper. And it's completely flawed, too. The reviewers should have seen what was going wrong.
Colleagues of mine have reviewed the paper. They sent a comment to Eurosurveillance and said you have to retract the paper. Now it's already taking several months to review that comment, to take that offline - that's very strange! The review is still going on.
How should a publication process in such a scientific journal actually work?
I review scientific publications myself. In general, I think the peer review process works like this: A paper comes in. Then the responsible editor looks for peer reviewers, two or three in general, but at least two. They have to accept the review attempt. That generally takes a couple of days. Everything is anonymous, which means they don't see who it's from, they're not allowed to know. After that, they generally have 30 days to read the paper and write a review report, It always depends on the journal. Then a comment comes back - the paper is usually never accepted directly, there is usually another minor or major review that follows. After that, the authors have time to look at the comments, address each comment individually, revise the paper, then it goes back again, and in the rarest case it is then accepted immediately. In most cases there are another round or two, so a major review. All in all, we are actually talking about a peer review procedure that regularly takes between four and six months.
How do you justify that when such an extensive process is suddenly shortened to one day and a paper is virtually "waved through"?
Yes, not at all! This is a scientific scandal.
Who, besides Drosten, are the co-authors?
There are many, including Victor Corman, Olfert Landt, Marion Koopmans, and Marco Kaiser. If you look at the meta-data of the PDF, you can see Drosten wrote it. He is also the corresponding author, which means he sent it in. In the case of Olfert Landt, it is problematic that he profits with his company TIP Molbiol, but was not named in conflicts of interest, nor were Corman and Drosten, both of whom have a stake in the private Labor Berlin GmbH and also indirectly earn money from these tests. Marco Kaiser also profits through his work at GenExpress GmbH, a private test manufacturer, and his connections to Olfert Landt. None of this was listed under conflicts of interest. For that alone, the paper should actually be retracted. Drosten is a profiteer, Lauterbach, Koopmans, Kaiser, they are all profiteers. Drosten and Chantal Reusken, two authors of the paper, also chair the editorial board of Eurosurveillance. It also brings Drosten a lot of new research funding. To what extent he benefits privately via Landt and Co. I don't know.
You don't think that fighting this pandemic is about our health?
How can it be that around 10,000 children are starving to death every day and nobody is doing anything about it? Jeff Bezos could eliminate world hunger for the next 10 years immediately with a fraction of his fortune, but of course that is not wanted. Some deaths are wanted, they are accepted, with them one can make money: be it the diabetes patients, be it the cancer patients. But avoidable deaths, with which no money can be made, such as hunger, violence, extreme poverty or malnutrition - nothing is done with them, because no money can be made with them. These deaths are then okay. The other dead, on the other hand, are not. Those that ultimately represent a cow for Big Pharma to milk, giving governments around the world even more power to control people. George Orwell was right, unfortunately. It's just sad that when you refer to George Orwell these days, it's already another conspiracy theory - whereas everything he wrote is increasingly being implemented and hasn't been a conspiracy theory for a long time.