"Bobby you goddamn mthrfckr, I'm reporting your account to Twitter now. This thread is racist!"

Ok, sorry, you are right.

https://twitter.com/Bobby_Network/status/1471958918305918979

[Thx 2 Nikita Visuals & R 79 4 pointing out]

Meme-Remix by Nikita Visuals

That was my letter to the "organizer" Miriam Stein today: Okay, case closed, Miriam Stein makes the Ballweg. Dear Miriam, no, you are not the extended arm of the police, and you don't have the right to tell people to leave Pariser Platz when they are there exercising their fundamental right to freedom of assembly. You have already cancelled your demo, moreover, you are no longer responsible for what happened at Pariser Platz. If you still act here as a hobby police spokesperson, I must unfortunately doubt your credibility, and will no longer follow any further demo call from you. We don't need you "actor national heroes" for our demos - and please learn better acting. 👋

Part 1 of 3 - Reiner Fuellmich's Primary Goal is to Gatekeep the PCR Realm - especially the Irregularities concerning the Corman Drosten Protocol:

The 5 primary points coming from Fuellmich's mouth directly that instantly guarantee court case failure & rejection at any court worldwide.

Actual goal: Crash'N'Burn + Big Fail.

1. Fuellmich: "It is called Drosten-PCR worldwide"

Answer: ❌ false.

2. Fuellmich: "It's the gold standard for everything qPCR / SARS-CoV 2-related."

Answer: ❌ false.

3. Fuellmich: "Fauci asked Charité for Drosten primers

Answer:❌ false.
CDC had their own primers.

4. Fuellmich: "Drosten invented something in silico and it was almost pure fantasy!"

Answer: ❌ false.
He had received the consensus genome much earlier - either fragmented or end-2-end, sequenced by Dr. Zhang and then later forwarded by Eddie C Holmes to the Virologists-Community (online).

Drosten aligned SARs1 with the consensus genome from China - which he had received for sure some days earlier, that's how he determined matching primers for a first rather sloppy prototype - which in hindsight didn't work out anyway because 2 genes within the protocol were faulty in the first place.

5. Fuellmich: "Drosten has defined a too high Cut-off value."

Answer: ❌ false.
Drosten solely defined "45x" as PCR Cycles in the WHO doc, but no Cut-off had been defined (which is called earlier).

With this shitty line of arguments every court will insta-dismiss any actual court case or in other words: Fuellmich is doomed to fail a priori due to Gatekeeping & deliberate Sabotage of the scientific arguments.

In truth Fuellmich has still no clue about the Science he is trying to gatekeep, after almost 2 years he hasn't still managed to fix his alleged "facts" or adjust his Science Lingo for the cause (he still mixes up almost every aspect involved).

Part 2:

https://news.1rj.ru/str/bobbynetwork/1008

Part 3:

https://news.1rj.ru/str/bobbynetwork/1009

Part 2 of 3: Questions and arguments that would be relevant at any court - concerning the Corman Drosten PCR Protocol:

⇢ Why and how did Drosten obtain a possible consensus genome so early (WIV4) ? How did he get the genome data of SARS-CoV-2 when for the time being, the Chinese Communist Party did not give Dr. Zhang permission to publish the complete genome until January 10, 2021 - before that, there was a ban on any virus info active. And if Drosten had received only fragments, how many had he received? And which genome regions? How could he bypass the CCP order here?

⇢ How could a Slovenian lab claim to have "extensively tested" the Charité primers in a wet lab-setting as early as January 17, 2020 ?

That would imply that the Slovenians had already received a PCR protocol prototype around mid-December 2019 even, already including matching SARS CoV-2 Charité primers. How does this all add-up when you consider Christmas vacations, New Year's Eve, etc.

According to the Slovenian Lab, the TIB Molbiol- kit with the Charité primers already had a sales permit for international markets, which isn't handed out immediately within a short timeframe usually. International selling permits take some time.

https://osf.io/9mjy7/

https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/JCM.00599-20?permanently=true

"After extensive evaluation, our laboratory implemented LightMix-based SARS-CoV-2 testing on 17 January 2020."

⇢ Why was the Drosten protocol listed for weeks as the only PCR protocol for SARS CoV-2 that had received an exclusive and unique recommendation on the WHO website, but no other protocol. Fact is: a) China never used the Drosten protocol at all, and b) WHO received a much more sophisticated PCR protocol at almost the same time from the world renowned Zhu Lab. Zhu was able to determine their PCR protocol quality from their own derived isolate, the primers were much more accurate (compared to Drosten's in-silico-only protocol), and the peer reviewed publication also explicitly states that it was submitted to WHO. Nevertheless, Drosten's protocol was for weeks the only one listed on the WHO homepage. In other words: Drosten received here a worldwide market advantage together with TIB Molbiol and Roché.

⇢ Why did Charité not insist on a patent for the Corman Drosten protocol? Why was the protocol design simply handed over without any conditions for Drosten and in direct consequence Olfert Landt (TIB Molbiol). Without insisting on quality standards (a patent application would have ensured this). Charité thus also waived all revenues and thus "gave away American tax money used for this purpose" to a private company (TIB Molbiol).

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2001017

Part 1:

https://news.1rj.ru/str/bobbynetwork/1006

Part 3:

https://news.1rj.ru/str/bobbynetwork/1009