Professor Christian Drosten is back. And he’s back in his signature style: supporting the public narrative, however dubious it may be.
Drosten already had swine flu in 2009[1] Millions of victims predicted[2]. In the end, the swine flu season was the mildest flu season in a number of years.
Then came the “corona pandemic”, in which he also predicted mountains of deaths. This time it wasn’t just the prediction.
Rather, he created a PCR “test” with the help of which traffic deaths, murder victims, age-related deaths, etc. could also be converted into “corona deaths”: Mr. Drosten’s corona PCR test: More errors than tests?
Almost simultaneously, he constructed “studies” that proved what he wanted to prove in a narratively faithful manner, for example about “contagious children”: Drosten study on contagious children grossly wrong?
No wonder that when discussing whether SARS-CoV-2 might not have a natural origin and could be a laboratory product, Drosten vehemently defended the thesis of natural origin and still defends it to this day.
The big back and forth
At the beginning of 2020, “science” agreed that SARS-CoV-2 had to be of natural origin. Because there was supposedly a transmission from bats to humans in the Wuhan market, which marked the start of the “pandemic”.
Professor Montagnier already contradicted in April 2020[3] this assumption, which was already treated as scientific dogma at that point in time. Montagnier had found that fragments of the HI virus, the alleged cause of AIDS, could be found in SARS-CoV-2.
How likely is it that such fragments are the result of an evolutionary process? And how likely is it that these suspicious sequences were specifically incorporated in the laboratory via “Gain of Function” (GoF)? Montagnier’s comment on this:
“This virus may have eluded its developers. The most reasonable hypothesis is that they wanted to make an HIV vaccine using a coronavirus that could, in principle, be attenuated so that it would not cause disease, and onto which they integrated parts of the genome of the AIDS virus. The whole thing served to produce an AIDS vaccine. That’s the work of a sorcerer’s apprentice.”
Montagnier seemed to have been right that SARS-CoV-2 came from the laboratory. His mistake, however, seems to be that this is a deliberately weakened virus. The opposite seems to have been intended. Nor was it about developing an AIDS vaccine.
But there was already a prominent representative of the laboratory hypothesis very early on, against which the mainstream scientists fought tooth and nail.
Then, in early 2022, emails surfaced[4] showed that in January/February 2020 Anthony Fauci had done everything possible to suppress the hypothesis of the laboratory origin of SARS-CoV-2. And the name Drosten was involved here.
By the way: If you are interested in such information, then be sure to request my free practice newsletter:
More on the chronology of this “conspiracy theory” in an article by Boris Reitschuster[5]:
“27. January 2020: Anthony Fauci learns that the NIAID has co-funded controversial research projects (gain of function) on and with coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
-
- January 2020: Kristian Andersen comes across a document describing gain-of-function research with coronaviruses at the WIV. Jeremy Farrar requests to speak to Fauci.
-
- January 2020: Private conversation between Fauci and Andersen. Four virologists, including three authors of the “proximal origin” article – Andersen, Holmes and Garry – state that the virus “does not conform to the expectations of evolutionary theory.” In other words, they have doubts about a natural origin.
-
- February 2020: Farrar hosts the ominous conference call between virologists from around the world and the NIH at Fauci’s request. The participants included, among others Christian Drosten (emphasis mine). According to the affidavit dated March 2, 2022, Drosten wants to have left this conference call before it ended.
-
- February 2020: The virologists exchange thoughts on the possible origin of the virus. Some of them are of the opinion that SARS-CoV-2 could come from the laboratory. Garry argued that a comparison to RaGT13 (SARS-like beta coronavirus) argued against a natural origin. Other participants in the conference call expressed concerns about the research on coronaviruses in the WIV, which was carried out there under BSL2 conditions. Farrar stressed the importance of releasing something quickly to counter “lurid” speculation about a possible laboratory origin.
-
- February 2020: A draft is circulated giving a 60/40 probability for the laboratory theory. Andersen derides supporters of this thesis as “crackpot” (English expression for “nuts”) and affirms that the virus is “consistent with natural evolution”.
-
- February 2020: Peter Daszak asks drosten to sign an open letter intended to refute the laboratory theory and which was published in the specialist magazine “Lancet” on February 19, 2020.
-
- February 2020: drosten writes an e-mail to the participants of the conference call. In it, the Charité virologist asks, among other things: “Can someone help me with a question: Didn’t we come together to attack a certain theory and, if we can, to refute it? […] Are we working on debunking our own conspiracy theory?”
-
- February 2020: Publication of the open letter in “Lancet”. Next to drosten Signatories include Daszak, Farrar and around two dozen other scientists. A footnote refers to the “proximal origin article” that was to be published in Nature a few weeks later. Explosive: According to his affidavit, Drosten only found out about the existence of this article when it was published.
-
- March 2020: Andersen thanks Farrar, Collins, and Fauci for their “advice and guidance.”
-
- April 2020: Fauci told reporters that COVID-19 was “entirely consistent with the leap of a species from animals to humans.”
-
- August 2020: NIAID extends financial support to Andersen’s lab.
-
- June 2021: Collins, Fauci, Andersen and Garry appeal to a researcher to reconsider a preprint of previous SARS-CoV-2 sequences that the NIH erroneously released from its database holdings. Andersen suggested deleting it from the NIH server.
-
- March 2022: drosten gives in the course of the legal dispute with Roland Wiesendanger[6] an affidavit before the district court of Hamburg. In it, the virologist admits his participation in the conference call, but claims he did not know anything about the existence of the “proximal origin article” before it was published. In addition, he claims to have had no interest in “steering suspicion about the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in a specific direction”.
No interest in directing suspicion about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 in a certain direction? Not even this cute claim seems to correspond to the truth. Then:
Drosten’s latest efforts to eliminate suspicion
Ever since the sparrows began to whistle from the roofs[7]that SARS-CoV-2 is almost 100% unlikely to be a natural product, the question naturally arises as to why something like this was produced in the laboratory and then unleashed on mankind?
And it begs the question, why did Fauci and his cronies go to such lengths to suppress the laboratory hypothesis? Only one explanation makes sense here: These are forbidden, criminal GoF experiments whose existence should never have been made public.
But just at this point in time, Drosten is doing exactly what he has been proven to do best: spreading strange hypotheses that shine because all facts are ignored.
That brings us back to the swine flu, the explanations about the “corona pandemic”, the strange PCR “tests”, his children’s “studies” etc. Now he wants to help Fauci and Co. with strange hypotheses again?
Like a defiant toddler, he wants to see that the laboratory hypothesis is wrong and that SARS-CoV-2 is not a GoF product, but that the virus developed in nature through mutation and jumped from animals to humans.
So from bats to humans after all?
No, this time it will be even more colourful. The bats are out, raccoon dogs are now in. The “Salzburger Nachrichten” gives the German “top virologist” the necessary platform[8].
For now are supposed to “Previously unknown Chinese data discovered by a Chinese wholesale market” which is considered the source of the first “corona outbreak”.
And the genetic analyzes of swabs taken from the market stalls at the beginning of the “pandemic” would only recently have been entered into the GISAID database and analyzed.
So data suddenly appeared here that comes from three-year-old samples, but has only recently been published in GISAID and for Drosten immediately has the character of proof for the hypothesis of the “animal-to-human transition”:
“The preliminary result strongly underpins my assumption that it originated in raccoon dogs or other carnivores (flesh eaters) such as civet cats, which has been expressed since the beginning of the pandemic.”
Also interesting is his claim that since the beginning of the “pandemic” he had considered raccoon dogs and vibrating cats, but not bats, as vectors to humans. I’m hearing his “raccoon dog hypothesis” for the first time today. Often something new?
The “Salzburger Nachrichten” then quotes other “virus experts” who tried to suppress a laboratory theory with their hands and feet three years ago. These names appear in the transcript cited above as masterminds of this effort: Andersen, Holmes, etc.
This raccoon dog story almost looks like a continuation of the 2020 effort, except the gentlemen “experts” don’t seem to realize how ridiculous their latest effort looks.
Boris Reitschuster: Drosten went to the dogs[9]
The contribution by a guest author by Boris Reitschuster on this topic shows how ridiculous Drosten is with his claims. Because the samples that were taken in early 2020 did not come from raccoon dogs, but from the surfaces of cages and transport boxes.
This fact only allows the suspicion that the origin of SARS-CoV-2 are animal cages (very original, right?). Or can it be ruled out with certainty that the genetic material can in no case come from sources other than the raccoon dogs? This would have required keeping the cages in a sterile environment, which is difficult to do in a market.
Then, in February 2022, a publication by a former director of the Chinese CDC surfaced showing that the gene traces found came from infected humans and not from animals.
On top of that. Because the recently published data in GISAID was deleted after just a few days on the grounds that the data showed “nothing new”. Did the Chinese overlook the raccoon dogs here? Or do they not believe in a “cage-to-human transmission” as a new way of covering up the laboratory origin of SARS-CoV-2?
Conclusion
Drosten has remained true to himself. He continues to propagate hypotheses that can cause a stir, not because they are valid, but because, like all others before them, they are as stupid as ever. He seems to live under the belief that everyone will buy his all-too-blatant lies.
By the way: If you are interested in such information, then you should definitely request my free practice newsletter “Independent. Naturally. clear edge.” to:
Sources:
This post was created on March 23, 2023.
Featured image: imago images – Christian Ditsch