Thank you for your work! It is really hard to believe that this paper wasn‘t sponsert by Pfizer/Biontech! This paper has to be retracted! Otherwise it is another brick in the wall where judges building their castles with(?! Sorry for may bad english. I hope you understand what I intend to say)
There are judges who refuse the accusation with reference to these „papers“.
Danke. Es ist ein weiterer Stein im Kartenhaus, und Anwaelte, Richter, oder Gesetzesgeber koennen nicht (leicht) unterscheiden, welche Publikation zaehlt oder nicht.
How those 3 references were used in the paper is very disturbing. I’ve seen this a few times and I’m wondering if it’s meant to change search parameters and hide these references?
That is a good point. I think so, too. Those references, if mis-represented again and again, would give the impression of saying something completely different.
I think the main reaction should be, as you somehow suggested: LOL!
Some are blaming themselves to the extent possible. Therefore, it may be more helpful if the article remains in the interent for as long as possible. If in 1 5 or 15 years the authors are invited for a presentation, everybody may judge on them. Even more, as Trump/Kennedy will turn the science to the truth and soon many will realize that the modRNA and C19 stuff was a gigantic scam. Here are the last examples or better twitches of corrupt science.
Thank you for your work! It is really hard to believe that this paper wasn‘t sponsert by Pfizer/Biontech! This paper has to be retracted! Otherwise it is another brick in the wall where judges building their castles with(?! Sorry for may bad english. I hope you understand what I intend to say)
There are judges who refuse the accusation with reference to these „papers“.
Danke. Es ist ein weiterer Stein im Kartenhaus, und Anwaelte, Richter, oder Gesetzesgeber koennen nicht (leicht) unterscheiden, welche Publikation zaehlt oder nicht.
How those 3 references were used in the paper is very disturbing. I’ve seen this a few times and I’m wondering if it’s meant to change search parameters and hide these references?
That is a good point. I think so, too. Those references, if mis-represented again and again, would give the impression of saying something completely different.
Thank you very much!
I think the main reaction should be, as you somehow suggested: LOL!
Some are blaming themselves to the extent possible. Therefore, it may be more helpful if the article remains in the interent for as long as possible. If in 1 5 or 15 years the authors are invited for a presentation, everybody may judge on them. Even more, as Trump/Kennedy will turn the science to the truth and soon many will realize that the modRNA and C19 stuff was a gigantic scam. Here are the last examples or better twitches of corrupt science.
Thank you. Yes, it really is laughable, and when it all comes to light, it will be very humbling to whoever has been involved.