Read on Twitter
We have written another 60 page dissection of the Drosten PCR protocol.
This should end all of the criticism of the initial retraction request not having enough “wet-lab” proof.
20 peer reviewed papers showing catastrophic problems.
@Eurosurveillanc
https://cormandrostenreview.com/downloads
This should end all of the criticism of the initial retraction request not having enough “wet-lab” proof.
20 peer reviewed papers showing catastrophic problems.
@Eurosurveillanc
https://cormandrostenreview.com/downloads
Ironically, The origin of this quote is even debated but rightly describes the problem in society of Fake News.
It starts with Fake Science.
We will never end fake science if don’t address the lack of transparency in peer review. It must be decentralized and subject to audit.
It starts with Fake Science.
We will never end fake science if don’t address the lack of transparency in peer review. It must be decentralized and subject to audit.
The largest fatality in C19 was the public trust in science.
They have every right to be pissed.
For too long peer-review has remained ancient, ossified and secret.
It is not fit for our current world of rapid communication and transparency.
thrashing in tar pits
They have every right to be pissed.
For too long peer-review has remained ancient, ossified and secret.
It is not fit for our current world of rapid communication and transparency.
thrashing in tar pits
Post Surgisphere/Lancet & Corman/Eurosurveillence..
How do we fix this?
We stop this with market forces.
Do not submit any paper to journals that do not have transparent peer review like we see in @F1000Research
If the paper and review isn’t open access, it’s propaganda.
How do we fix this?
We stop this with market forces.
Do not submit any paper to journals that do not have transparent peer review like we see in @F1000Research
If the paper and review isn’t open access, it’s propaganda.
Many have asked our peer-review to be peer reviewed. Please do.
The reviewers comments in traditional peer review are never peer reviewed and sadly hidden from the reader.
The classic “who watches the watchers” problem is solved with transparency ...not 3rd and 4th watchmens.
The reviewers comments in traditional peer review are never peer reviewed and sadly hidden from the reader.
The classic “who watches the watchers” problem is solved with transparency ...not 3rd and 4th watchmens.
If peer-review can be short circuited in 24hours and debunking requires 3 months to review and all reviews are hidden from the public...
This asymmetric burden of proof will result in lies getting halfway around the world while truth puts its boots on.
Our document is public.
This asymmetric burden of proof will result in lies getting halfway around the world while truth puts its boots on.
Our document is public.
Since we cannot afford to gamble this document into a Anon peer review that could secretly torpedo it, we have opted to publish this in censorship free manner.
We started this process in Nov.
We have considered the communities critiques and we believe this addresses them all.
We started this process in Nov.
We have considered the communities critiques and we believe this addresses them all.
Urgency is best addressed with transparency.
@Eurosurveillanc reviews of the initial paper are not public.
We encourage both the original reviews and the re-review to deliver transparency and for the journal to step ahead of this problem and change policies for the future.
@Eurosurveillanc reviews of the initial paper are not public.
We encourage both the original reviews and the re-review to deliver transparency and for the journal to step ahead of this problem and change policies for the future.
Fully transparent Peer to Peer Peer-Review can be accomplished with blockchains and cryptocurrencies.
There are 5-7 publishers that own all scientific journals. This is a captured system and needs decentralization and transparency to regain public trust.
There are 5-7 publishers that own all scientific journals. This is a captured system and needs decentralization and transparency to regain public trust.
Another link the paper here.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10gC0muYwWEatZREUZjN8C85-Hznc9Y5b/view
@threadreaderapp unroll
@tweet_stamp stamp
@arktobitcoin thread
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10gC0muYwWEatZREUZjN8C85-Hznc9Y5b/view
@threadreaderapp unroll
@tweet_stamp stamp
@arktobitcoin thread
Its on @LBRY now as well. https://lbry.tv/Addendum---Corman-Drosten-Review-Report-by-ICSLS-11-01-2020:1
We uploaded this as a Preprint to http://OSF.io
https://osf.io/9mjy7
DOI number should be issue in 24 hours.
We uploaded this to the InterPlanetary File System (IPFS).
To retrieve use: ipfs get QmQfLxdK6qz6kf7wuQGnC5yjztVVcSvG7v1WsuGQNEAdRr
https://osf.io/9mjy7
DOI number should be issue in 24 hours.
We uploaded this to the InterPlanetary File System (IPFS).
To retrieve use: ipfs get QmQfLxdK6qz6kf7wuQGnC5yjztVVcSvG7v1WsuGQNEAdRr
Bumping this. Thank you for the reminder. This is worth some reflection. https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4425
Not only should we exclusively submit to open access, open review journals...
Boycott performing reviews for journals who do not embrace this.
Once they can’t find reviewers, their TAT will balloon and the open journals will win.
Boycott performing reviews for journals who do not embrace this.
Once they can’t find reviewers, their TAT will balloon and the open journals will win.
