Collapse of the fake consensus on Covid-19 origins

Reposted from Dr. Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.

Posted on May 23, 2021 by curryja 

by Judith Curry

The concerning saga of the creation, enforcement and collapse of a ‘consensus’ on Covid-19 origins.

The Covid-19 virus first appeared in Wuhan, China, where there is a laboratory that conducts research on bat coronaviruses. However from the beginning, the possibility that this virus accidentally escaped from the lab was dismissed quite forcefully by prominent virologists.

The ‘consensus’ that Covid-19 had an entirely natural origin was established by two op-eds in early 2020 – The Lancet in February and Nature Medicine in March. The Lancet op-ed stated, “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that Covid-19 does not have a natural origin.”

In May 2021, science reporter Nicholas Wade published a lengthy article in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists stating that the Lancet letter had been organized and drafted by Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York. Daszak’s organization funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. If the Covid-19 virus had escaped from research that he funded, Daszak would be potentially culpable.  Daszak had corralled other scientists with similar professional interests into making a declaration to the effect that anyone who mentions the obvious possibility that the pandemic might have a connection to the research in the Wuhan Lab could only be doing so with bad intentions.

The enormous gap between the actual state of knowledge in early 2020 and the confidence displayed in the two op-eds should have been obvious to anyone in the field of virology, or for that matter anyone with critical faculties. There were scientists from adjacent fields who said as much.

However, the pronouncements in these op-eds effectively shut down inquiry. The pre-emptive declaration of scientific consensus was highly successful in garnering media enforcement of public opinion.  The so-called ‘fact checkers’ of PolitiFact used these op-eds to shut down any discussion of the lab leak hypothesis. Articles in the mainstream press repeatedly stated that a consensus of experts had ruled lab escape out of the question or extremely unlikely. 

Invocation of ‘conspiracy theory’ has become a reflex for arresting criticism. Analysis by Matthew Crawford shows how the political environment caused the magic words ‘conspiracy theory’ to trigger a wider epistemic immune reaction in high-prestige opinion.  Crawford provides the following political frame for these events.  Since Donald Trump publicly floated the idea that Covid-19 may have had its origin in a Chinese lab, it became a point of conviction for all those who believe in science that such a hypothesis could only be a conspiracy theory, probably rooted in ‘Sinophobia’.  The ‘conspiracy theory’ of the lab leak hypothesis has been juxtaposed with reporting on anti-Asian hate crimes, thereby subsuming an urgent scientific question to a Trump-era morality play.

Publication of Nicholas Wade’s story on May 2 triggered a cascade of defections.  Crawford describes the defections as “not simply from a consensus that no longer holds, but from a fake consensus that is no longer enforceable.”  On 14 May, 18 scientists signed a letter in the journal Science with the title “Investigate the origins of COVID-19”.  In an interview with the New York Times, an organizer of the letter stated, “Anybody who’s making statements with a high level of certainty about this is just outstripping what’s possible to do with the available evidence.”

Politifact has just withdrawn its Wuhan-Lab theory ‘fact check.’ [link]

What is concerning about this episode is not so much that a consensus has been overturned, but that a fake consensus was so easily enforced for year.  This occurred during a key period when understanding the origins of the virus had implications for how it could best be fought.  Scientists who understood that there was a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the origins of the virus did not speak up.  Probity came from knowledgeable individuals that were outside of the field of virology.

Matthew Crawford states, ” Regardless of how the question of the virus’s origins is ultimately decided, we need to understand how the political drama surrounding the science played out if we are to learn anything from this pandemic and reduce the likelihood of future ones.”

Research cartels and consensus enforcement

Crawford argues that the scientists who were signatories to the two letters may have been acting as a classic research cartel.

In 2004, Henry Bauer formulated the idea of research cartels and knowledge monopolies, in context of the institutionalization of science that becomes subordinate to corporate or government values.

A key element of knowledge monopolies and research cartels is stifling of skepticism, premature canonization of preferred hypotheses and consensus enforcement, in the interests of financial or political objectives.  With the help of uncritical mass media, this effectively results in near censorship of minority views. Since corporate and government scientific organizations also control the funding of research, by denying funds for unorthodox work they function as research cartels as well as knowledge monopolies.  

Wade notes that in today’s universities, challenging the consensus can be very costly. Careers can be destroyed for stepping out of line. Any virologist who challenges the community’s declared view risks having his next grant application turned down by the panel of fellow virologists that advises the government grant distribution agency.

The IPCC and the ‘climate-industrial-government complex’ is a clear example of a knowledge monopoly and research cartel.  

However, I don’t think that the fake consensus surrounding the Covid-19 origins reflects a research cartel.  What I see is a group of scientists appealing to their own authority in protecting their personal interests.  The question is why The Lancet and Nature Medicine published these op-eds.  It is noted that Daszak had an obvious conflict of interest re the op-ed, but this conflict was not stated.  Apparently there are no adverse consequences for not accurately stating your conflicts of interest in journal publications.

Daszak et al. presumably have some influence over which research gets funded, and this may have prevented other virologists with less influence from speaking out.  However, the fact that these op-eds successfully defined a ‘consensus’ for a year has more to do with Trump derangement syndrome and the desire not to appear Sinophobic. The media is arguably the most culpable for a complete absence of vigorously investigative science journalism, prior to Wade’s article.  Note that Wade’s article was published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and as far as I can tell has not been picked up by major media outlets.

What does all this mean for institutionalized climate science?  Well the IPCC, along with supporting governments and industries, is much more entrenched as a knowledge monopoly and research cartel.  But the Covid origins example illuminates the social, political and careerist motivations that are in play in attempts to prematurely canonize and enforce a scientific consensus. 

In closing, a recent essay by Mike Hulme is insightful.

<begin quote>

Climategate was a controversy because it appeared that climate scientists were undermining the idea of a ‘well-ordered science’, or what Naomi Oreskes has written about as ‘the conditions necessary to reach a fair and open consensus’. We can discuss the extent to which this ‘appearance’ was real or manufactured, but my point is this: Climategate became a crisis because so much was being staked – by both ends of the political spectrum – on science providing the direction and justification for political action (or inaction).  It was a crisis because of the undermining of the probity of the science upon which, it was believed or at least claimed, all sensible climate policy depended.  Most notably, this included the prominent environmental commentator George Monbiot.

Climate skepticism has broader roots than this.  Mistrust in science is always bound up with other things – politics, culture, ethics, the law.  Skepticism often arises from observing how science and expert judgement is being mobilized in debates that are essential political – in other words, climate sceptics are suspicious about how the different interests and values of public actors concerning climate change are being resolved. 

Skepticism therefore points to the problem of legitimation; it is the problem of how science – how experts – relate, or are perceived to relate, to democracy.  The problem is one of when and how to “open up” public debate and when and how to “close it down”, to use Andy Stirling’s metaphor.  And this requires us to recognize that how one ‘closes down’ depends on political culture: Russia, China, USA and Germany all do it very differently.

To stand in here, I use the case of climate scientist Michael Mann and his militarist vocabulary.  The German theorist Carl von Clausewitz characterized war as “an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfil our will.”  This is not a good way to think about climate politics in a democracy.  In wars there are winners and losers.  Sides are taken and the solution is conquering and defeating the enemy. 

As John Besley at Michigan State University asks, “Do we want people to see scientists as angry, embattled, frustrated people … or rather people who are doing [their] best to solve problems to make the world better?”  The danger with the combative climate militancy espoused by Mann is that it ends up being a destructive form of advocacy.

<end quote>

4.9 68 votes
Article Rating
290 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nick Schroeder
May 24, 2021 6:08 am

“However, the pronouncements in these op-eds effectively shut down inquiry.”

WOW!! Does THAT have a familiar ring to it! 

beng135
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
May 24, 2021 9:44 am

And then like many other issues, the screaming of “conspiracy theory!!!” is a blanket SOP to shut down & ridicle anyone that questions the party/marxist meme. Plenty of parallels in so-called climate science too.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  beng135
May 24, 2021 12:25 pm

The damnable thing about using the “conspiracy theory” gambit is that often it’s used to cover up a real conspiracy. It was obvious from the beginning that they were trying to cover up something. I’m thinking particularly about ‘climategate’ which was so obviously a conspiracy once one read the emails.

Lee L
Reply to  Rory Forbes
May 24, 2021 2:11 pm

Formation and operation of a political party or any political action involves people who truly are conspiring to bring about their desired outcome. It isn’t theoretical it is everyday conspiracy and it is embedded in our social systems and government. This is rarely recognized but you are right Rory Forbes. There is a ‘gambit’ with some political actions being painted as something distinct while the true meaning of conspiracy is never referenced.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Lee L
May 24, 2021 3:07 pm

Somehow, in this circumstance, I take no solace from being right. Recent events have alerted me to the fact that the Republicans seem naive to this and bent on trying to conduct the business of producing beneficial legislation; whereas the Democrats use any means and every advantage to simply maintain power. I think they believe that their ‘moral superiority’ [sic] will automatically create a better society. Odd reasoning!

Reply to  Rory Forbes
May 25, 2021 2:52 am

Classic one was 911 – the CIA were getting a lot of pressure because their own operatives starting saying they had missed warnings that could have prevented it. The next week the media was filled to the brim with conspiracy theories and everyone ignored the CIA cockup. Now wasn’t that very convenient!

Suddenly anyone genuinely questioning the CIA – was being linked to mad cap idiots (who suddenly seemed to have huge resources to publicise their totally bizarre conspiracy theories).

Thylacine
Reply to  beng135
May 27, 2021 6:54 am

People should be less concerned about “conspiracy theories” than they are about “instant consensus.” We should be calling out “Instant consensus!” whenever the mainstream misleadia and politicians try to bamboozle us with something they can’t possibly know to be true.

Mr. Lee
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
May 24, 2021 10:53 am

The media is clearly orchestrated by some powers, because no matter how ridiculous the narrative, they all repeat it as “truth”. Sometimes the false narrative sticks and becomes “history” (climate change, Floyd was strangled) and sometimes it doesn’t, in which case it goes down the memory hole (russia russia russia).

I would question any major historical narrative created since the 60’s. Because it seems we only have the narratives that stuck, with only the weakest of vetting.

n.n
Reply to  Mr. Lee
May 24, 2021 12:12 pm

Handmade tales.

Reply to  Nick Schroeder
May 24, 2021 5:15 pm

And so it begins…  Told you so, months ago.
I think the mRNA vaccines will ultimately kill more than the Covid-19 illness, especially among under 65’s.
The Covid-19 injections for teens and young adults are high risk, no reward. Criminal negligence!

CDC INVESTIGATING HEART INFLAMMATION IN COVID-19 VACCINATED TEENS, YOUNG ADULTS
By Jack Phillips
May 23, 2021 Updated: May 23, 2021
https://www.theepochtimes.com/cdc-investigating-heart-inflammation-in-covid-19-vaccinated-teens-young-adults_3826981.html
[excerpt]

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says it’s investigating reports of heart inflammation in teenagers and young adults who have received the Covid-19 virus vaccine.

Noting that there have been “relatively few” reports of “mild” cases of myocarditis, the agency said that its COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group should investigate and communicate the findings to vaccine recipients.

The agency said that vaccines using the mRNA technology—from pharmaceutical companies Pfizer and Moderna—appear to be causing the issue. Vaccines using mRNA, which are relatively uncommon, use messenger ribonucleic acid (RNA) to create a protein that prompts an immune response within an individual, while Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine instead uses an adenovirus that was rendered unable to replicate.

The reports of myocarditis have been mostly in adolescents and young adults—and are more likely to occur in males. The symptoms also show up after the second dose, about four days after vaccination, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices said in a statement dated May 17.
____________________________________________

betapug
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
May 25, 2021 7:49 am

Reports are not rates.
“… rates of myocarditis reports in the window following COVID-19 vaccination have not differed from expected baseline rates.” CDC May 17 

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
May 26, 2021 2:14 am

DOCTORS, PARENTS SUE HHS OVER COVID-19 VACCINE EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION IN CHILDREN UNDER 16
By Li Hai, May 25, 2021 Updated: May 25, 2021
https://www.theepochtimes.com/doctors-parents-sue-hhs-over-covid-19-vaccine-emergency-use-authorization-in-children-under-16_3830115.html

A number of doctors and parents have sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and its secretary, Xavier Becerra, in a federal court, seeking to prevent the expansion of the emergency use authorization (EUA) of COVID-19 vaccines from including children under 16 years old.

Paul C
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
May 26, 2021 6:09 am

Of even greater concern is that all the Wuhan coronavirus “vaccines” used appear to fit the definition of leaky vaccines in that they do not prevent infection or transmission of the virus, but simply reduce disease severity. The big risk from that is that mutations of the virus in vaccinated people can be more virulent without dying out by being lethal to the host, and the infectious vaccinated may infect the unvaccinated (children) with a more deadly strain.

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/leaky-vaccines-can-produce-stronger-versions-of-viruses-072715

Whilst it may just be coincidence, it has been noted that many of the variants currently raising concern arose from areas where the vaccine trials took place.

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
May 26, 2021 10:02 am

Nobel Prize winner: Mass COVID vaccination an ‘unacceptable mistake’ that is ‘creating the variants’
In every country, ‘the curve of vaccination is followed by the curve of deaths,’ the famous virologist said.
Wed May 19,
2021 – 6:59 pm EST
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/nobel-prize-winner-mass-covid-vaccination-an-unacceptable-mistake-that-is-creating-the-variants

French virologist and Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier called mass vaccination against the coronavirus during the pandemic “unthinkable” and a historical blunder that is “creating the variants” and leading to deaths from the disease.
 
My own year-long opinion is that the Covid-19 “vaccines” are high-risk treatments that should not be given to the low-risk population, especially children and young adults. That was clearly true up to ~1Dec2020 before the variants appeared – the risk of death in Alberta for under-65’s was 1 in 300,000.
 
I have not researched the variants. The death toll from the Covid-19 injections is quite high, officially more than 4000 in the USA – reportedly more than the deaths
from all previous vaccine injections in USA history. In the past, such a deadly vaccine would have been withdrawn by now.
 
I can see more than one possible conclusion from the data provided in the above article – more study required:
1.  As suggested by Dr Montagnier – the vaccinations are causing the variants to occur and thus increased deaths – “survival of the fittest”..
2.  The vaccinations are causing the deaths directly, and do not significantly cause
the variants.
3.  The “second wave” is primarily seasonal; winter flu season is the primary cause.
4.  The second wave and variants were caused by the sanitizing, masking and
distancing, which enabled the Covid-19 virus to survive through the summer and
gave it the time and gradient to mutate into the variants – again,
“survival of the fittest”.

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
May 26, 2021 2:27 pm

More humor:
The $10 per hour “fact-checkers” at Youtube disagreed with the Nobel Prize winner.
comment image

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
May 26, 2021 8:02 pm

WHY ARE MEDIA IGNORING DATA SHOWING MASSIVE COVID-19 VACCINE DEATH SPIKE?
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/05/why_are_media_ignoring_data_showing_massive_covid19_vaccine_death_spike.html
By John Cleer, May 17, 2021
 
If these were any other vaccines, they would already be off the market.

In fact, they would have been pulled a long time ago.  Usually, a new drug is withdrawn after 50 deaths, which isn’t typical because the FDA has a strict approval process.  The COVID-19 vaccines have been exempted from it, instead being temporarily “authorized” for emergency use.

These vaccines have coincided with 3,544 American deaths and 12,619 serious injuries as of April 23, according to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reports System database (VAERS, republished “as is” in user-friendly format here).  The flu vaccines by comparison are linked to 20–30 death reports a year, according to Dr. Peter McCullough, and those 20–30 death reports come with considerably more vaccines administered.

This is precisely the kind of thing FDA approval is supposed to prevent.

Jean Marc Benoit MD
@JeanmarcBenoit Apr 1
This ugly graph has generated quite a discussion. It is contended that 2021 is up because we vaccinated a lot more people in 2021. How could this contention be proven or disproven?

Deaths in Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), since its start in 1990. 2021 is off the charts

     https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ex3iZn7XIAAar3k?format=png&name=small

https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D8;jsessionid=A7B76EB21A1BF3DE815952580BAF

Dr. McCullough estimated the flu shot at 195 million people annually, while 153 million have currently received COVID vaccinations.  The disparity between these two vaccine groups is staggering.

Instead of treating this data seriously, institutions like the NIH are pushing to fast-track FDA approval and give the vaccines to younger and younger children.  Regulators lowered the minimum age for the Pfizer vaccine from 16 to 12 on Monday, and shots for that age group could begin as soon as Thursday.  Pfizer is currently experimenting on 144 young children in three age brackets: 5 to 11 years, 2 to 4 years, and six months to 2 years.  The results will be available in September.  The vaccine is already mandatory at many colleges (and only for students), and you can bet they’ll make it a precondition for your little ones to continue attending school.

How long until it isn’t optional, for you or your children?

Thirty-five hundred reports is 70 times the normal threshold for pulling a drug from the market.  Although this is raw data, previous VAERS studies have shown that only 1–10% of vaccine-related deaths are reported to VAERS — or less.  This would put the likely real death count in the U.S. at tens to hundreds of thousands.

Inexplicably, Dr. Fauci was able to look at those data and say, “obviously the safety looks really, really good in well over 140 million people having been vaccinated.”  How can he look at the VAERS data in good faith and say the safety looks good?

The updated number of published death reports as of April 30 is 3,837.  That’s 300 reports in a week, and those are just the reports: per the studies that show that VAERS underreports deaths, we’re on pace for an estimated half a million COVID vaccine deaths by the end of the month.  It’s remarkable that the press isn’t covering this.

They are indeed doing the opposite, insisting that VAERS data are meaningless.  They say VAERS reports are unverified, which is always true with raw data, and anyone can make them, so we don’t know that 3,544 deaths have happened.

What they leave out is the correlation between death reports and deaths has already been studied, and one report on VAERS correlates with 10–100 deaths.  They also leave out the sheer volume of reports.  What they don’t leave out is their customary appeal to authority: listen to the doctors.

Dr. McCullough is vice chief of medicine at Baylor University Medical Center and the most cited American medical doctor on COVID-19 at the National Library of Medicine.  He dedicated his career to COVID when the pandemic began, focusing on outpatient treatment, on which he testified to Congress early in the pandemic.  He says the death reports come from medical professionals, and the CDC’s investigation into them could only have been falsified.

Having “chaired and participated in dozens of safety monitoring boards and sat on those committees,” Dr. McCullough refutes the CDC’s March announcement that there were no vaccine-related deaths: “It is impossible for unnamed regulatory doctors without any experience with COVID-19 to opine that none of the deaths were related to the vaccine” in so short a period of time.  It would take “many months” to complete an investigation.

Meanwhile, more people would die.  This may be why a drug is taken off the market after excessive death reports, before investigating or proving causation.

The CDC has collected VAERS data for 31 years, and while anyone can make a VAERS report, the database is intended to compile data from health care workers, who in turn are required by law to file reports for a long list of vaccines — COVID vaccines not included.

There’s absolutely no history of massive VAERS fraud, and if the media want to suggest that, they should say it directly and provide evidence.  Anyone filing a false VAERS report is committing a federal crime.

Their point that VAERS reports are meant to generate further studies to contextualize them is true.  In the CDC’s words, “VAERS is designed to rapidly detect unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events[.] … If a safety signal is found, further studies can be done.”

The COVID vaccines are adding a year’s worth of VAERS reports every week.  In four months, they’ve had more adverse reports than any single vaccine has had cumulatively over the past 31 years.  This is clearly a safety signal, further studies are not being done, and it appears they’re being forged.

Tucker Carlson covered some of Dr. McCullough’s findings recently, and, not surprisingly, he was ridiculed for it.  He responded:

That very same [VAERS] system has been used for a long time.  What was interesting is what the numbers showed consistently across decades, as a relative measure, one vaccine comparing to another.  More deaths have been connected to the new COVID vaccines over the past four months than to all previous vaccines combined over a period of more than 15 years.
Mystifyingly, the Washington Post accused Carlson of “using reports submitted to VAERS to suggest that something worrisome is happening,” as if large death and serious illness counts are not worrisome.

Dr. McCullough notes that the Post is part of the “Trusted News Initiative,” an agreement between Silicon Valley and news outlets to censor any news or data critical of COVID vaccines since that could make people hesitate to get vaccinated.  Early on, they set the public curriculum to isolate, mask, and wait for the vaccine, and treatment meanwhile has been discouraged and stigmatized.  Stigmatizing treatment and burying safety data are so counter-intuitive and pervasive at this point that the motives must be questioned.  Are they getting us sick on purpose to sell vaccines?

It appears either that the bureaucracy is trying to hammer through FDA approval or that the arrangements have been made and they’re conditioning the public to accept it.  There’s a reason that it normally takes ten years for a vaccine to hit the market: long-term testing.

Skipping the Phase III trials, getting these results and not just ignoring them, but testing the product on children and infants, in my view, shows criminal intent.

These reports must be studied and the vaccines taken off the market until completion.  Instead, we are seeing the product of a system that, as Dr. McCullough says, has gone off the rails.

TonyG
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
May 27, 2021 6:34 am

Allan,

Your CDC link (wonder.cdc.gov) doesn’t work as provided – it makes you go back and submit the form. Could you instead share what you selected on the prior page to get to the result you linked?

Reply to  TonyG
May 27, 2021 6:45 pm

Hi Tony,

Deaths in Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), since its start in 1990. 2021 is off the charts
See this chart:     
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ex3iZn7XIAAar3k?format=png&name=small
 
The VAERS database can be accessed here: Works for me.
https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D8;jsessionid=A7B76EB21A1BF3DE815952580BAF
 
Access WONDER data by completing and submitting a request page.

To access data for the requested resource please go to:

http://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html.

Or start at http://wonder.cdc.gov and navigate from there.

Here are the instructions for using the VAERS website.



 

TonyG
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
May 28, 2021 6:00 pm

Thank you Allan, and thanks for the instructional video.

The problem is that the link you have contains your session, so when someone else navigates there, they lose all your filters.

I managed to find instructions on specifically how to get the data used for this graph – turns out Dr. Benoit posted it down-thread on the original post: https://twitter.com/JeanmarcBenoit/status/1377517840710955008

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
May 27, 2021 6:58 pm

12,184 Dead 1,196,190 Injuries: European Database of Adverse Drug Reactions for COVID-19 “Vaccines”
By Brian Shilhavy
Global Research, May 26, 2021
https://www.globalresearch.ca/12184-dead-1196190-injuries-european-database-adverse-drug-reactions-covid-19-vaccines/5746273

Health Impact News 25 May 2021

Region: Europe

Theme: Science and Medicine
comment image

The European database of suspected drug reaction reports is EudraVigilance, which also tracks reports of injuries and deaths following the experimental COVID-19 “vaccines.”

Their report through May 22, 2021 lists 12,184 deaths and 1,196,190 injuries following injections of four experimental COVID-19 shots:

From the total of injuries recorded, there are 604,744 serious injuries which equals over 50%.

Seriousness provides information on the suspected undesirable effect; it can be classified as ‘serious’ if it corresponds to a medical occurrence that results in death, is life-threatening, requires inpatient hospitalisation, results in another medically important condition, or prolongation of existing hospitalisation, results in persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or is a congenital anomaly/birth defect.”

Health Impact News subscriber in Europe ran the reports for each of the four COVID-19 shots we are including here. This subscriber has volunteered to do this, and it is a lot of work to tabulate each reaction with injuries and fatalities, since there is no place on the EudraVigilance system we have found that tabulates all the results.

Since we have started publishing this, others from Europe have also calculated the numbers and confirmed the totals.[1]

1,047 Dead 725,079 Reported Injuries following COVID19 Experimental “Vaccines” Reported in the U.K.

Last edited 4 months ago by ALLAN MACRAE
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
May 28, 2021 6:03 pm

THE FORCED COVID-19 VACCINATION OF CHILDREN: A CRIME IN PROGRESS
By Leo Goldstein May 28, 2021
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/05/the_forced_covid19_vaccination_of_children_a_crime_in_progress.html

Healthy children and young adults do not need to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Nevertheless, the current administration vaccinates them without informed consent and even using direct coercion (like giving the choice: vaxx or wear a muzzle). About 200,000 kids 12-15 are injected daily. This rate has been sustained since the start around May 12. Additionally, they continue vaccinating older teenagers.
Vaccine Technology and Data
The word vaccination is associated with kids in people’s minds, but COVID-19 vaccines were not designed for kids or adolescents. Neither were they designed to prevent a mild illness. They were created and rushed to production for emergency use only, for people whose lives are at stake. Corners were cut. Generally, vaccines elicit long-term (years or decades) immune responses, some of which might be not desirable. Vaccines can interfere with the existing immunity, affect the development of immunity to other diseases, can cause autoimmune disorders, etc. It used to take more than a decade after a vaccine’s development to start using it broadly.
No long-term studies or observations have been conducted for COVID-19 vaccines. There is not a single person in the world who received a COVID-19 vaccine more than 15 months ago. Tens of thousands of adult volunteers were vaccinated in a trial less than a year ago. They were observed for a few months. The researchers concluded that the vaccines are efficacious, and short-term side effects are mild-moderate.
The recent trial of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine on kids 12-15 was a joke. It included only 1,131 children in the vaccinated group. Within seven days after the second dose, the vaccinated children developed fatigue (66%), headache (65%), chills (42%) etc. 50% of the kids had to resort to painkillers or antipyretics. This trial was incredibly small and short. For example, if the risk of immediate death from this vaccine is 1 in 2,000, this trial had only a 43% chance of discovering it. Nevertheless, the FDA expanded its emergency use authorization (EUA) to kids 12-15. Then somebody decided to inject tens of millions of kids with it. The dosage is huge for kids. It was selected to be effective in the elderly, who have immunosenescence.
This is an mRNA vaccine. This technology has never been used. No mRNA vaccine or other treatment has ever been approved. This first ever mRNA vaccine was designed against a completely novel coronavirus. The virus itself was not yet understood when the vaccine was developed.
file:///C:\Users\Owner\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.gif
So, this is a new vaccine, based on novel technology, against a novel coronavirus. What can go wrong?
This vaccine was not intended for children and was not tested for their safety, except for the joke trial described above. The EUA was extended for the vaccine to use on kids by the same FDA which authorized Gilead’s Remdesivir, later found ineffective and harmful. The same FDA also restricted and then withdrew the EUA for Hydroxychloroquine.
This is not a debate about vaccines or vaccination in general. It is about the health effects of a specific substance in children and young adults. There is no evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe in the long term, and there is a lot of evidence for the opposite.
The Science
The Pfizer vaccine and all other COVID-19 vaccines used in the U.S. and other western countries share the same defect: they are designed to elicit an immune response only to the spike protein of the coronavirus. Unfortunately, this is a relatively small part of the natural immune response. Additionally, the SARS-COV-2 spike quickly mutates. Even worse, the variants currently prevalent in the U.S. (B.1.1.7 and P.1) are especially nasty mutants (officially, variants of concern) which are partly resistant to the antibodies elicited by these vaccines.
When “vaccinated” individuals, who had no immunity to the coronavirus prior to the “vaccination,” are later exposed to the coronavirus, they will be unlikely to develop a broad immune response to the whole coronavirus. When their short-term immunity from the vaccination wanes and more resistant variants of the coronavirus appear, the young people are likely to become defenseless against them. They will be dependent on periodic booster shots, which might be harmful. The related concepts are antibody-developed enhancement and the original antigenic sin. Some research suggests that such vaccination can also interfere with immunity to common cold coronaviruses, especially in younger kids. These vaccines are likely to cripple the immune system of a child in the long term, to gain some short-term protection, which is not needed. The younger the patient, the stronger the impact of the vaccine.
Instead of mass vaccination, COVID-19 should be aggressively treated with antivirals upon onset of symptoms (IvermectinHydroxychloroquine, etc.). This will prevent the progression of the disease, limit transmission of the infection, and slow down the virus’s evolution toward more immunity resistant variants.
Herd Immunity
About 25% of the 65+ population is not vaccinated. This age group is likely to benefit most from the vaccine and to have the least severe side effects. So why are kids being prioritized instead?
One argument for vaccinating children is to achieve herd immunity in the general population. This is a fallacy, even if we assume that herd immunity against COVID-19 is possible and that it requires a blanket vaccination of the population. A child can carry and shed only a small fraction of virus compared to an adult. Children quickly develop immunity on exposure and maintain it for a long time. The vaccine also has more severe side effects in younger people. Thus, a rational government would have considered vaccinating children only after almost all elderly and supermajority of adults are vaccinated. Only animal predators go after children when they cannot catch adult prey.
Illegality
Existing child vaccines (like MMR) are given for the child’s health. Achieving herd immunity is a desirable side effect. However, vaccinating children against COVID-19 solely for the sake of herd immunity is illegal and appalling.
Medical procedures involving substantial risk require informed consent. The current COVID-19 vaccination campaign is conducted in bizarre circumstances. Kids and their parents are not informed about the absence of benefits, known risks, and existing alternatives to vaccination. Probably for the first time in the history of this country, the patients are also prevented from obtaining such information on their own, as the federal government and complicit Big Tech are censoring all negative information about COVID-19 vaccines and vaccination. Withdrawn or denied information includes the following:

  • Children get no benefits from COVID-19 vaccination. There are exceptions, those who have certain health conditions. Their doctors might offer their parents to vaccinate them.
  • The risks include long term damage to their immune system, including ADE.
  • There is effective prophylaxis of COVID-19, based on Hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin.
  • There are effective and safe treatments for COVID-19, based on Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin.
  • Some children might already have immunity to COVID-19.

Government-funded colleges and universities are demanding COVID-19 vaccines as well. This is coercion. Some states allow kids to be vaccinated without their parents’ consent. Unfortunately, there are organizations that solicit children for the purposes of purported COVID-19 vaccination over the internet and social media.

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
May 30, 2021 1:31 pm

More and more evidence of gross malfeasance and probable criminal conspiracy in the Covid-19 lockdowns and “vaccines” disaster:

COVID VACCINE NECESSITY, EFFICACY AND SAFETY
https://doctors4covidethics.org/covid-vaccine-necessity-efficacy-and-safety/
23/05/2021

THE FORCED COVID-19 VACCINATION OF CHILDREN: A CRIME IN PROGRESS
By Leo Goldstein May 28, 2021
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/05/the_forced_covid19_vaccination_of_children_a_crime_in_progress.html

NOTICE OF LIABILITY FOR HARM AND DEATH TO CHILDREN SERVED ON ALL MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
https://doctors4covidethics.org/notice-of-liability-for-harm-and-death-to-children-served-on-all-members-of-the-european-parliament/
19/05/2021

THOUSANDS OF ATTORNEYS AND DOCTORS HAVE JOINED FORCES TO SUE THE CDC, WHO AND THE DAVOS GROUP FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/05/1000-lawyers-10000-doctors-join-together-file-lawsuit-prosecute-2nd-nuremburg-tribunal-corona-fraud-scandal/
 
NUMBER OF COVID CASES IN DELHI CRASHES AFTER MASS DISTRIBUTION OF IVERMECTIN
By Thomas Lifson May 29, 2021
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/05/number_of_covid_cases_in_delhi_crashes_after_mass_distribution_of_ivermectin.html

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
May 30, 2021 4:54 pm

‘LITERALLY CRIMINAL’: SUPPRESSING DATA ON IVERMECTIN COST ‘HALF A MILLION LIVES’, DOCTOR CHARGESWorld Tribune May 26, 2021
Commentary by R. Clinton Ohlers
https://www.worldtribune.com/literally-criminal-suppressing-data-on-ivermectin-cost-half-a-million-lives-doctor-charges/
[excerpt]

In a recent Zoom call, Dr. Pierre Kory of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance outlined numerous details showing the World Health Organization (WHO) knowingly suppressed data on the effectiveness of ivermectin against the virus in order to benefit the vaccine interests of Big Pharma.

“It’s criminal,” Kory said. “It’s literally criminal.” The drug “could have saved half a million lives this year if it had been approved.”
The WHO, Kory contends, is simply taking part in the tactics of a time-worn “Disinformation Playbook.” The term was coined by the Union of Concerned Scientists 50 years ago to describe the strategies corporations have developed over decades to “attack science when it goes against their financial interests.”
It consists of five parts:
1.    The Fake – Conduct counterfeit science and try to pass it off as legitimate research.
2.    The Blitz – Harass scientists who speak out with results reviews inconvenient for industry.
3.    The Diversion – Manufacture uncertainty about science where little or none exists.
4.    The Screen – Buy credibility through alliances with academia or professional societies.
5.    The Fix – Manipulate government officials or processes to influence policy inappropriately.

Last edited 4 months ago by ALLAN MACRAE
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
May 26, 2021 4:24 pm

VACCINATION IN ISRAEL: CHALLENGING MORTALITY FIGURES?
Analysis by infectious disease specialist claims mismatch between data published by authorities and reality on the ground.
Mordechai Sones , Feb 18 , 2021 8:47 AM
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/297051

A front-page article appeared in the FranceSoir newspaper about findings on the Nakim website regarding what some experts are calling “the high mortality caused by the vaccine.”

The paper interviews Aix-Marseille University Faculty of Medicine Emerging Infectious and Tropical Diseases Unit’s Dr. Hervé Seligmann and engineer Haim Yativ about their research and data analysis. They claim that Pfizer’s shot causes “mortality hundreds of times greater in young people compared to mortality from coronavirus without the vaccine, and dozens of times more in the elderly, when the documented mortality from coronavirus is in the vicinity of the vaccine dose, thus adding greater mortality from heart attack, stroke, etc.”

Dr Hervé Seligmann works at the Emerging Infectious and Tropical Diseases Research Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France. He is of Israeli-Luxembourg nationality. He has a B. Sc. In Biology from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and has written over 100 scientific publications.

FranceSoir writes that they follow publications, data analyzes, and feedback from various countries on vaccination, and have therefore taken an interest in the Nakim article, asking to interview them in order to understand their analysis and its limitations.

The authors of the article declare they have no conflicts or interests other than having children in Israel.

After a presentation, the authors discussed their data analysis, the validations carried out, limitations, and above all, their conclusions that they compare with data received via a Health Ministry Freedom of Information Act request.

Their findings are:

  • There is a mismatch between the data published by the authorities and the reality on the ground.
  • They have three sources of information, besides the emails and adverse event reports they receive through the Internet. These three sources are Israeli news site Ynet, the Israeli Health Ministry database, and the U.S. federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database.
  • In January 2021, there were 3,000 records of vaccine adverse events, including 2,900 for mRNA vaccines.
  • Compared to other years, mortality is 40 times higher.
  • On February 11, a Ynet article presented data related to vaccination. The authors of the Nakim article claim to have debunked this analysis based on data published by Ynet itself: “We took the data by looking at mortality during the vaccination period, which spans 5 weeks. By analyzing these data, we arrived at startling figures that attribute significant mortality to the vaccine.”
  • The authors say “vaccinations have caused more deaths than the coronavirus would have caused during the same period.”
  • Haim Yativ and Dr. Seligmann declare that for them, “this is a new Holocaust,” in face of Israeli authority pressure to vaccinate citizens.

They also invite specialists to complete their analyses, and intend to pursue legal follow-up to their discovery. The Health Ministry was not available for comment on a FranceSoir query regarding the findings.

The authors also deplored “the fact of not being able to communicate on this vital information” to their fellow citizens.

On their site, Nakim writes: “On February 11, 2021, Ynet (the most known Israeli News website) published a confused and confusing article entitled ‘Vaccination efficiency data in Israel, and its rapid effects on the young’.

“Our reanalyses of these data explain why during the massive vaccination project initiated mid-December 2020 during a confinement, daily new confirmed COVID-19 cases failed to decrease as they do during confinements, and, more importantly, why numbers of serious, critical, and death cases increased during that period that covered at least one month. From mid-December to mid-February (two months), 2,337 among all Israeli 5,351 official COVID-deaths occurred. Our analyses indicate orders of magnitude increases in deaths rates during the 5-week long vaccination process, as compared to the unvaccinated and those after completing the vaccination process. Presumably, asymptomatic cases before vaccination, and those infected shortly after the 1st dose, tend to develop graver symptoms than those unvaccinated.

“The Ynet article is organized in an exciting way and uses data provided in an erroneous way by the Ministry of Health. It is unclear whether this was intentional to prove the vaccine’s efficiency or if this was done erroneously because the provided data were misunderstood. Note that in Israel, all vaccines are from Pfizer.
“The data in the table, rather than indicating the vaccine efficacy, indicate the vaccine’s adverse effects,” the authors conclude.

Sources:
THE UNCOVERING OF THE VACCINATION DATA IN ISRAEL REVEALS A FRIGHTENING PICTURE
This source is in English, and has abundant details.
http://www.nakim.org/israel-forums/viewtopic.php?t=270812

VACCINATION IN ISRAEL: DEATH FIGURES THAT CHALLENGE?
Published on 02/17/2021 at 8:30 p.m. – Updated on 02/18/2021 at 2:58 p.m.
Hervé Seligmann and Haim Yativ
https://www.francesoir.fr/videos-debriefings/vaccination-en-israel-des-chiffres-de-mortalite-qui-interpellent-video
{excerpt – translated]
Debriefing by Haim Yativ, engineer, and doctor Hervé Seligmann, formerly of the research unit on emerging infectious and tropical diseases of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Aix-Marseille. Haim Yativ and Dr Seligmann analyzed vaccine data from Israel in an article published on the Nakim.org website.
 
The Citizen Collective of FranceSoir and the Bon Sens association are very attached to publications, data analyzes, feedback from various countries on vaccination, and are interested in the article. We asked to interview them in order to understand their analysis and its limitations.
 
The authors of the article declare that they have no conflicts or links of interest, other than having children in Israel.
 
A complete debriefing which, after a presentation, discusses their analysis of the data, the validations carried out, the limitations and especially the conclusions that they ask to compare with the data requested via a request to the Ministry of Health, through the equivalent of the Israeli CADA (Commission for Access to Administrative Documents).
 
The findings are simple: 
 
There is a mismatch between the data published by the authorities and the reality on the ground.

They have three sources of information besides the emails and side effect messages they receive through the internet.

These three sources are Ynet , an Israeli news site, the Israeli Ministry of Health database, and the US VAERS (side effects) database.  

In January 2021, there are 3000 records of vaccine side effects including 2900 for mRNA vaccines.

Compared to other years, the mortality is 40 times higher.
On February 11, an article from Ynet presents data related to vaccination. The authors of the article “debunked” this analysis, based on data published by Ynet.
“ We took the data by looking at mortality during the vaccination period, which lasts 5 weeks. By analyzing these data, we arrive at startling figures which give a significant mortality of the vaccine. ”

The authors say “ vaccinations have caused more deaths than the coronavirus would have caused during the same period. “ 

Haim Yativ and Dr Seligmann declare that for them “this is a new Holocaust” in the face of pressure from the Israeli authorities to vaccinate citizens.
 
They also invite specialists to complete their analyzes, and intend to give legal follow-up to this discovery, if it were to be validated by data from the ministry: contacted, the latter was not available.
 
The authors deplore the fact of not being able to communicate on this vital information for their fellow citizens.

******************************************************************************

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
May 28, 2021 7:23 am

Since the very beginning, effective treatments for Covid-19 such as Vitamin D and Ivermectin have been ignored or even falsely vilified in favour of these dangerous (and probably relatively ineffective) injections. Clearly, not just bad judgment is involved – many billions of dollars have flowed to big pharma, with probable corruption and kickbacks to media, government officials and health authorities. 

Reply to  Nick Schroeder
May 24, 2021 7:26 pm

SITUATION ASSESSMENT
 
It’s ALL a leftist scam – false enviro-hysteria including the Climate and Green-Energy frauds, the full lockdown for Covid-19, the illogical linking of these frauds (“to solve Covid we have to solve Climate Change”), paid-and-planned terrorism by Antifa and BLM, and the mail-in ballot USA election scam – it’s all false and fraudulent.
 
The Climate-and-Covid scares are false crises, concocted by wolves to stampede the sheep.
 
The tactics used by the global warming propagandists are straight out of Lenin’s playbook.
 
The Climategate emails provided further evidence of the warmists’ deceit – they don’t debate, they shout down dissent and seek to harm those who disagree with them – straight out of Lenin.
 
The purported “science” of global warming catastrophism has been disproved numerous ways over the decades. Every one of the warmists’ very-scary predictions, some 80 or so since 1970, have failed to happen. The most objective measure of scientific competence is the ability to correctly predict – and the climate fraudsters have been 100% wrong to date.
 
There is a powerful logic that says that no rational person can be this wrong, this deliberately obtuse, for this long – that they must have a covert agenda. I made this point circa 2009, and that agenda is now fully exposed – it is the Marxist totalitarian “Great Reset” – “You will own nothing, and you’ll be happy!”
 
The wolves, proponents of both the very-scary Global Warming / Climate Change scam and the Covid-19 Lockdown scam, know they are lying. Note also how many global “leaders” quickly linked the two scams, stating ”to solve Covid we have to solve Climate Change”- utter nonsense, not even plausible enough to be specious.
 
Regarding the sheep, especially those who inhabit our universities and governments:
The sheep are well-described by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of the landmark text “The Black Swan”, as “Intellectual-Yet-Idiot” or IYI – IYI’s hold the warmist views as absolute truths, without ever having spent sufficient effort to investigate them. The false warmist narrative fitted their negative worldview, and they never seriously questioned it by examining the contrary evidence.
 
CLOSURE
 
The policy incompetence of Western governments over past decades is appalling. By attempting to appease extreme leftists who seek to destroy our economies and our freedoms, governments have adopted a failed strategy that makes us weaker, poorer and at much greater risk.
 

Last edited 4 months ago by ALLAN MACRAE
Daryl M
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
May 26, 2021 7:24 pm

There is no question that the MSM and political class have misrepresented and exploited many things related to COVID, but if you think the disease is “false and fraudulent”, you’re a f*cking lunatic. My daughter is an RN at a regional trauma hospital and has been treating COVID patients since the pandemic started. Like every other hospital, her hospital has seen a large number of COVID patients, so many that the ICU had to be significantly expanded. Nurses are so burned out from the workload that many are going on disability. My daughter recently transferred into the ICU (because there is a shortage of ICU nurses, due to the number of COVID patients) where she is caring for the sickest of the COVID patients. COVID is not the flu.

Reply to  Daryl M
May 26, 2021 9:01 pm

Daryl M:

Read what i write, not what you think I write. Your comments are stupid and offensive.

The 2020 lockdown of the workforce and students was entirely unjustified – all we needed to do was over-protect the very elderly and infirm – which we failed to do.

Covid-19 Deaths to 1Dec2020 for under-65’s in Alberta totaled 1 in 300,000. It is more dangerous to drive to the corner store.

Our idiot/corrupt politicians locked us down for ~one year and destroyed our economy based on 13 deaths of under 65’s in >4 million people. Scam!

Also, there was NO total death “bump” (increase in trend) in Alberta and Canada to 30June2020 – no total death bump means no deadly pandemic!

In the USA, the coding for Covid-19 deaths was changed in March 2020 – under the old coding, Covid-19 deaths were 1/16 of current reported totals, like ~40,000, not ~600,000. 40,000 flu deaths is a light flu year for the USA.

The USA authorities’ Covid-19 stats are false and fraudulent.

Hospitals were NOT full in 2020, but they are now. There is more and more evidence that the current increase in Covid-19 cases is caused by a combination of the lockdowns, masking, distancing, and the Covid-19 injections.

Last edited 4 months ago by ALLAN MACRAE
Daryl M
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
May 28, 2021 4:40 pm

I read what you wrote. You just confirmed what I thought you were saying. While there are very valid arguments about how effective lockdowns, masking and distancing have been, hospitals have more COVID patients now than in 2020 because the pandemic wasn’t finished when we relaxed. This resulted in variants which took over. If you think the number of cases has been increased by COVID vaccinations, you are a f*cking lunatic. There aren’t more than a handful of people in Canada who have suffered from severe effects of the AZ vaccination. COVID is very real and it’s very distinct from influenza. I’m sure the virologists in Wuhan would tell us all about it if they could.

Last edited 4 months ago by Daryl M
Reply to  Daryl M
May 28, 2021 8:46 pm

Darryl
Recommend remedial reading and a course in manners.
You are arguing with the 2008 Nobel Prize winner in medicine.
Your comments are imbecilic and rude.

Daryl M
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
May 29, 2021 11:15 am

Your claims that COVID is not a real unique disease (i.e., different from influenza), that COVID deaths are actually caused by COVID vaccines, that COVID variants are caused by vaccines and that COVID can be stopped by taking Vitamin D are among the most imbecilic claims I’ve read since the pandemic begin.

Everywhere you look, places where variants emerged, COVID was spreading rapidly, unhindered by anyone having been vaccinated. How could vaccines cause variants if the variants emerged in populations that were largely unvaccinated?

All populations where vaccinations are making progress, COVID cases and deaths are declining. Variants are not emerging in these populations.

Over 1.8 billion people have been vaccinated. If vaccines were causing more deaths than COVID, it would be obvious. If you think this is happening, it’s a figment of your imagination. On the contrary, there were issues with the AZ and J&J vaccines and they have been removed from use in some places accordingly. If the relatively minor problems of these vaccines were noted and reported, do you think far worse problems in the other vaccines would not have been noticed and reported?

It’s people like you who propagate nonsensical rubbish that give sceptics a bad name.

Daryl M
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
May 29, 2021 2:00 pm

I had lunch with my daughter today and we were discussing people like you who think COVID is not real. She said it’s a shame that it’s not possible for people like you to see with your own eyes what COVID ICU patients look like and to see with your own eyes how the ICUs have overflowed into other units. She also said it’s incredible how people who deny that COVID is real react when they lose a family member to COVID. They are in disbelief until their loved one takes their last breath, even afterwards. There are patients who waste their last breath denying that COVID is real.
And yet, here you are spouting this nonsense…

Last edited 4 months ago by Daryl M
Reply to  Daryl M
May 30, 2021 1:13 pm

Darryl:

Your reading comprehension is non-existent – you need a remedial reading course, because you continue to misrepresent what I have written. Your community college can provide you with remedial reading instruction.

You are also a stupid and rude individual – you need a course in manners. I cannot fix your obtuse stupidity, but I can help you with your manners. Arrange for someone to drive you home.

Mark E Shulgasser
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
May 30, 2021 2:39 pm

While I am substantially inclined to agree with much of Mr. Macrae’s analysis, his out-of-control responses to Daryl M clearly indicate that Mr. M’s verdict is correct. Allan Macrae is a f*cking lunatic.

Reply to  Mark E Shulgasser
May 30, 2021 4:06 pm

Mark aka Darryl: Do you get paid for troll-ing?

Daryl M
Reply to  Mark E Shulgasser
May 30, 2021 4:57 pm

He hasn’t refuted a single point. All he does is rant because his claims are in stark contrast with reality.

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
May 30, 2021 4:10 pm

More and more evidence of gross malfeasance and probable criminal conspiracy in the Covid lockdowns and “vaccines” disaster:

COVID VACCINE NECESSITY, EFFICACY AND SAFETY
https://doctors4covidethics.org/covid-vaccine-necessity-efficacy-and-safety/
23/05/2021

THE FORCED COVID-19 VACCINATION OF CHILDREN: A CRIME IN PROGRESS
By Leo Goldstein May 28, 2021
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/05/the_forced_covid19_vaccination_of_children_a_crime_in_progress.html

NOTICE OF LIABILITY FOR HARM AND DEATH TO CHILDREN SERVED ON ALL MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
https://doctors4covidethics.org/notice-of-liability-for-harm-and-death-to-children-served-on-all-members-of-the-european-parliament/
19/05/2021

THOUSANDS OF ATTORNEYS AND DOCTORS HAVE JOINED FORCES TO SUE THE CDC, WHO AND THE DAVOS GROUP FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/05/1000-lawyers-10000-doctors-join-together-file-lawsuit-prosecute-2nd-nuremburg-tribunal-corona-fraud-scandal/
 
NUMBER OF COVID CASES IN DELHI CRASHES AFTER MASS DISTRIBUTION OF IVERMECTIN
By Thomas Lifson May 29, 2021
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/05/number_of_covid_cases_in_delhi_crashes_after_mass_distribution_of_ivermectin.html

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
May 30, 2021 4:57 pm

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/24/collapse-of-the-fake-consensus-on-covid-19-origins/#comment-3258192
 
‘LITERALLY CRIMINAL’: SUPPRESSING DATA ON IVERMECTIN COST ‘HALF A MILLION LIVES’, DOCTOR CHARGES
World Tribune May 26, 2021
Commentary by R. Clinton Ohlers
https://www.worldtribune.com/literally-criminal-suppressing-data-on-ivermectin-cost-half-a-million-lives-doctor-charges/
[excerpt]

In a recent Zoom call, Dr. Pierre Kory of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance outlined numerous details showing the World Health Organization (WHO) knowingly suppressed data on the effectiveness of ivermectin against the virus in order to benefit the vaccine interests of Big Pharma.
 
“It’s criminal,” Kory said. “It’s literally criminal.” The drug “could have saved half a million lives this year if it had been approved.”

The WHO, Kory contends, is simply taking part in the tactics of a time-worn “Disinformation Playbook.” The term was coined by the Union of Concerned Scientists 50 years ago to describe the strategies corporations have developed over decades to “attack science when it goes against their financial interests.”

It consists of five parts:
1.    The Fake – Conduct counterfeit science and try to pass it off as legitimate research.
2.    The Blitz – Harass scientists who speak out with results reviews inconvenient for industry.
3.    The Diversion – Manufacture uncertainty about science where little or none exists.
4.    The Screen – Buy credibility through alliances with academia or professional societies.
5.    The Fix – Manipulate government officials or processes to influence policy inappropriately.

Last edited 4 months ago by ALLAN MACRAE
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
June 1, 2021 5:10 am

Fake USA Covid Stats:

16 times over-reporting of Covid-19 deaths in the USA.

Now no employer reporting of Covid-19 injection deaths or injuries.

Who is in charge in the USA – looks like Lenin.

OSHA SUSPENDS REQUIREMENT THAT EMPLOYERS REPORT VACCINE-RELATED INJURIES
By Matthew Vadum
May 31, 2021 Updated: June 1, 2021
https://www.theepochtimes.com/osha-suspends-requirement-that-employers-report-vaccine-related-injuries_3838781.html
 
In order to encourage American workers to get vaccinated, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has suspended the legal requirement for employers to report work-related injuries resulting from vaccinations aimed at combating the CCP virus that causes the disease COVID-19.

This suspension of the law by OSHA does not change the fact that employers may be held liable under workers’ compensation laws or under civil personal injury laws, according to the nonprofit group Liberty Counsel.

Earlier in May, the website of OSHA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), stated that employers could be held liable if they required employees to receive COVID-19-related injections as a condition of employment and the employees then experience adverse reactions.

A “Frequently Asked Questions” (FAQ) section of OSHA’s website stated, “If you require your employees to be vaccinated as a condition of employment (i.e., for work-related reasons), then any adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine is work-related. The adverse reaction is recordable if it is a new case under 29 CFR 1904.6 and meets one or more of the general recording criteria in 29 CFR 1904.7,” according to Liberty Counsel.

But visitors to the same website’s FAQ section now see a different message, which reads:
“DOL and OSHA, as well as other federal agencies, are working diligently to encourage COVID-19 vaccinations. OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers’ vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904’s recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination through May 2022. We will reevaluate the agency’s position at that time to determine the best course of action moving forward.”

Last edited 4 months ago by ALLAN MACRAE
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
June 1, 2021 10:54 am

702 TEXANS DIED IN FEBRUARY’S RECORD-BREAKING FREEZE, FAR HIGHER THAN THE STATE’S OFFICIAL DEATH TOLL OF 151
June 1, 2021 Cap Allon

PLUS: STUDY FINDS COLD-WEATHER ACCOUNTS FOR 94% OF TEMPERATURE-RELATED DEATHS.
2020 study by researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago reveals that it is the COLD which should concern us, not the heat.

Last edited 4 months ago by ALLAN MACRAE
Reply to  Daryl M
June 1, 2021 10:56 am

GRAVITAS: THE INTERVIEW CHINA TRIED TO HIDE | WUHAN CORONAVIRUS | DR. AI FEN
3,898,428 views
Apr 3, 2020

 
Dr. Ai Fen is a doctor at the Wuhan Central Hospital. She was perhaps among the first doctors to discover the Wuhan virus. After speaking out against the authorities, Dr. Ai Fen has gone missing. WION’s Palki Sharma brings you the Ai Fen revelations.
 
Post Script:
https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/wuhan-doctor-04142020114914.html
What to believe?

May 24, 2021 6:10 am

The creation of monopolies of information have unfortunately invaded science also. History will therefore judge the handling of the CCP virus harshly.

Larry in Texas
Reply to  oebele bruinsma
May 24, 2021 11:22 am

You are, of course, assuming that there will be NO “monopoly of information” created in the field of world history. I hope you are right, but both the Left and the climate alarmist monopolists in this country are doing a job right now to rewrite both the climatological and political history of this country as we speak. Resistance to this trend must continue and grow stronger. Our freedoms are at stake.

Reply to  Larry in Texas
May 24, 2021 11:59 am

Dear Larry,

As history is written by the winning party as the cliche goes, I hope that common sense will prevail and thus authors history. In Texas I believe you experience already the “Neanderthal thinking” (Biden) also known as common sense which is writing local history. Chapeau!

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Larry in Texas
May 24, 2021 12:30 pm

And assuming that Covid23 and Immunology Inc. don’t wipe us all off the globe.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  oebele bruinsma
May 25, 2021 2:50 am

in aus today we now have media starting the shut down of bloodclot reporting on vaccines
cos
scares people off
well gosh
lets NOT allow the risks to be known(same as always)
MIS informed consent is what they want

May 24, 2021 6:22 am

There was also a great deal of sucking up to the Chinese Communist Party line, that doing the normal thing and naming a novel virus after the place where it was discovered as “racist” and anti-Chinese.
Add that to the TDS prevalent in the legacy media, and the CCP gets a pass on their handling of the pandemic. Does anyone actually believe any reporting coming out of China? Or are they just pretending to?

Wade
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 24, 2021 8:09 am

I think the media sucking up to China was only because Trump was denigrating China and trying to make trade more fair. To the media, Donald Trump was worse than Hitler. Therefore, if he is against something than the media was for it, no questions asked. In their minds, they were righteous and working against Trump was like stopping Hitler. These people would happily cut off both their thumbs if the democrat party told them to, and then turn around and blame Trump for why they can’t grab things.

Since Trump called it the “Chinese virus” and since the media hated Trump for no good reason, they had to discredit his statement that it came from a lab. It didn’t matter if it was true, it only mattered that they stopped their ‘Hitler’. It couldn’t be true because Trump said it was true; the facts don’t matter. The same thinking led the discrediting of hydroxychloroquine. Now that their brainwashed minions succeed in voter fraud, there is no meed to discredit ‘Hitler’ anymore and some snippets of truth can leak out.

Marty
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 24, 2021 8:34 am

I suspect it is much worse than just sucking up to the Chinese Communist Party line. I suspect that there is probably a lot of bribery involved. Too bad we will never know for certain.

If the virus originated in a Chinese military laboratory China could be on the hook for trillions of dollars in damages. Of course they would never pay up for the damage they caused. But still it would be to their advantage to spend a few million dollars to bribe the right people.

Drake
Reply to  Marty
May 24, 2021 9:37 am

If China was blockaded for ALL shipping in or out, they would have 2 choices, pay up or go to war.

As to war:
They have a large army, but where will they send them?

Their Navy has many ships, but they are a shallow water Navy.

Their Air Force has no way to act beyond their limited range from the mainland, after their little man made islands in the South China Sea are made unusable.

For the US, just cancelling all debt to any US business and for all government bonds, etc. would take 20 years of profits from their sales of manufactured goods to the rest of the world away. Especially if ALL free countries did the same.

Of course they would be removed from the WTO, ending their favored trading status, even if they pay up

It appears that China can feed itself, but once the rest of the world stops buying all their goods, they will be through.

There would be a 2 to 5 year Lull in world manufacturing until such time as the rest of the world returns to manufacturing their own stuff. I know many will really be upset that they cannot gat a new IPhone every year. And, of course, there would no longer be excess “workers” to build renewable energy systems. They would all be needed for productive work, not make work projects.

Tony Sullivan
Reply to  Drake
May 24, 2021 10:01 am

Spot on post and essentially what I’ve been telling people for years who have an un-based fear of China.

Jeffery P
Reply to  Tony Sullivan
May 24, 2021 11:06 am

My fear of China is western civilization seems oblivious to the threat. Churchill warned about the threat of Hitler’s Germany but no one want to listen. They we too invested in “peace” to bother with the facts on the ground.

I think we are seeing the same thing with the Chinese threat now. Imagine of the western powers started rallying against Germany in 1935? Unfortunately, France and Britain had disarmed themselves to the point of not being able to oppose Hitler’s annexation of Czechoslovakia in 1938.

Komerade Cube
Reply to  Jeffery P
May 24, 2021 12:54 pm

And we are addicted to cheap stuff while our lords and masters are addicted to high profits and control. No one has questioned the export of our livelihoods to China since the 70s, all in the name of environmentalism.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Jeffery P
May 25, 2021 6:12 am

The leaders of the Western Democracies, including its reporters, are afraid of the Chicoms. That’s why they don’t confront them. The possible exception being the leadership in Australia, which is pushing back on the Chicoms. Out of necessity, no doubt.

This is why it is dangerous to depend on Western leftist politicians to defend us, because they won’t do it, for one reason or another.

If the radical Democrats were as fierce with the international enemies of the United States as they are against their domestic political opposition, then the U.S. would be a very safe place.

Or course, that will never happen.

Biden appears to be compromised by both the Chicoms and Putin and is giving them everything they want. Biden stops a pipeline in the United States costing thousands of people their good-paying jobs, and then Biden oks Putin’s pipeline to Europe.

I do think Biden handled the Israeli/Hamas fighting fairly well, by staying out of it for the most part. He didn’t put too much pressure on Israel, not as much as I figured he would. Had Obama been in office, Israel would not have faired so well, I don’t think.

So I am slightly pleasantly surprised at how Biden did not screw up the situation and make it worse.

Even so, Biden is still a corrupt, traitor who has no business running this nation.

Last edited 4 months ago by Tom Abbott
TRM
Reply to  Drake
May 24, 2021 10:06 am

They would go nuclear and everyone knows it which is why nobody will do a naval blockade. It would start in their theatre with nuking ships to open the shipping lanes and would escalate.
Not to mention that any naval blockade would be subject to attacks from those 2 man subs that “surfaced accidentally” within 2 Km of the aircraft carrier during the US Navy’s drills there years ago.
You would have to do the naval choke points (Hormuz, Malaca, etc) which would involve a lot of other countries.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Drake
May 24, 2021 10:41 am

How would you implement such a blockade with seriously undershipped free-world navies?

Roger
Reply to  Drake
May 24, 2021 10:47 am

I agree with most of your post, but a war with China would be more problematic than you’ve characterized. They would attack Taiwan to the negate the United States’ military advantage, involving it in a war far from home and in China’s backyard. I don’t know how that would play out, but it wouldn’t be pretty.

jtom
Reply to  Roger
May 24, 2021 12:49 pm

I strongly suspect China will attempt to take Taiwan before Biden is out of office.

That could be the straw that leads to a naval blockade, and an attempt to isolate them from world commerce. Of course, Biden would be our Neville Chamberlain, and work out a deal for them to acquire the island.

Regardless, Taiwan produces 80% of the world’s microchips, and China is the largest user of them. This might be a really good time to invest in US microchip fabrication companies. We need to become self-sufficient.

Roger
Reply to  jtom
May 24, 2021 1:04 pm

All very good points, especially the Neville Chamberlain analogy. History may not repeat, but it tends to rhyme.

Last edited 5 months ago by Roger
Neo
Reply to  jtom
May 25, 2021 9:45 am

Why do you think there is a “microchip shortage” now.
With the 30cm wafers and newer 5um and 7um technologies, they should be able to fulfill the needs of the auto industry in about a week of production, so why the shortage.
Look at the solutions. Two new Intel chip fabs in Arizona and other also in the US. Sure TSMC is also constructing new fabs, but the solution is to the problem of what happens if China takes Taiwan.

paul courtney
Reply to  Drake
May 24, 2021 12:31 pm

Drake and others: Glad to see folks of like mind with me. I’d pull the money card first, tell ’em their bonds are being applied to Covid relief. It would be a fiscal mess, but we would come out of that on top. War, as Roger says, would not be a parade, and could get painful, but better than letting them get away with spreading a deadly disease across the globe.
I don’t think USA will do anything, though, look at this article- it took over a year to break through a consensus wall, a wall erected so early that it was absurd from the jump. Attempts to break through were met with classic two-minute-hate operations from the press. They actually tried to tie a recent uptick in anti-asian violence to Trump, when it was clearly perpetrated by street thugs. Those street thugs were obviously emboldened by dems diminished law enforcement, not by Trump. Our press saw Harry Reid lie openly about Mitt Romney, and smugly claim the lie worked, so now our press is too busy concocting new lies to ever look back.

Roger
Reply to  paul courtney
May 24, 2021 2:02 pm

I agree, and just to clarify, I am not a pacifist. China needs to be reined in regardless of whether it can be done peacefully or not. And as jtom mentioned, the man currently living in the White House is very likely to knuckle under and sell the country and the world out to become the second coming of Neville Chamberlain.

Last edited 5 months ago by Roger
Rory Forbes
Reply to  Drake
May 24, 2021 12:33 pm

The problem is, China is more than aware of its own vulnerability, which explains Xi’s belligerence and bullying. This is what makes China so dangerous right now. Xi is pretty much following a game plan based on Sun Tzu. What he has on his side is an overwhelming supply of disposable pawns.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rory Forbes
May 25, 2021 6:34 am

And Xi’s iron grip on power may be slipping according to a few reports I have seen lately.

Nancy Pelosi came out the other day in support of a boycott of the upcoming Olympic Games in China. This is possibly significant.

A boycott of the Chicom Olympics would be a huge loss of face for Xi. And much deserved!

One possible solution from Chicom leadership’s point of view is to make Xi the scapegoat and blame him for the atrocities that have been committed under his rule, then oust him from power and reach out to the international community with new leadership and a new attitude.

I bet Xi is looking back over his shoulder a lot nowadays.

Of course, a desperate dictator can be a very dangerous thing, if he gets out of hand.

We live in interesting times.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 25, 2021 10:46 am

You’re right, of course. If Xi starts to feel too much pressure from his own combined with more displeasure from the West, he’s likely to double down and call their bluff. He has a pretty big ego. From China’s perspective, he’s right, too.

China also has the unique problem of too few available wives. This is throwing a monkey wrench into the Confucian ideal that China still functions under. As you say, interesting times.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 26, 2021 4:04 am

I see where the Chicoms are now raising hell about Pelosi endorsing a boycott of the Chicom Olympic Games.

It’s picking up momentum, Xi.

Xi definitely doesn’t want his Olympic Games to go sour. A boycott would be one way to hit back hard against Xi for the atrocities he has committed against the world. It might even cause him to lose political power. Wouldn’t that be nice.

Jeffery P
Reply to  Marty
May 24, 2021 11:00 am

I think there is a lot of CYA (cover your ass) involved. Fauci and others don’t want the American people to know what our public health agencies were up to.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Jeffery P
May 24, 2021 12:36 pm

That’s exactly what has been going on. They’ve been using the “baffle ’em with bulls*it” ploy for over a year. Much more is known than we’re being told.

Paul S.
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 24, 2021 8:36 am

Does anybody believe any reporting coming out of the USA?

dodgy geezer
Reply to  Paul S.
May 24, 2021 8:42 am

Does anyone believe any reporting, full stop?

beng135
Reply to  dodgy geezer
May 24, 2021 10:06 am

You could take what they say, and assume the opposite. That would get you close to facts…..

Last edited 5 months ago by beng135
MarkW
Reply to  Paul S.
May 24, 2021 10:13 am

Depends on who is doing reporting.
Fox is accurate more often than not.
The rest of the major media only report what the Democrats tell them to report.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  MarkW
May 24, 2021 12:34 pm

That could change, or maybe already has. Who owns Fox?

Streetcred
Reply to  MarkW
May 24, 2021 4:37 pm

Sky in Oz is doing a pretty good job too.

RobR
Reply to  Streetcred
May 24, 2021 5:03 pm

Yup. Ditto for WION in India.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Streetcred
May 25, 2021 6:44 am

I saw a video clip of talking heads on Sky in Australia the other day and was pleasantly surprised at the conservative viewpoint they all presented. I would have thought I was watching Fox News, except for the accent! 🙂

Of course, I *was* watching Fox News at the time, and they were the ones who showed the video clip from Sky Australia.

Last edited 4 months ago by Tom Abbott
Gord
Reply to  Paul S.
May 24, 2021 10:17 am

Yes, too many of my relatives and “friends” believe CNN and as a result suffer from TDS.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Gord
May 24, 2021 12:40 pm

A top CNN executive admitted, a month ago, that everything they reported about Trump was simply made up to. The “fake news” was just that and they admitted. It was intended to influence the reelection of Trump. It worked, and people still believe the lies.

Sommer
Reply to  Rory Forbes
May 24, 2021 4:03 pm

This information needs to circulate until people no longer believe the lies.

https://nypost.com/2021/04/13/cnns-charlie-chester-says-network-peddled-anti-trump-propaganda/

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Sommer
May 24, 2021 4:36 pm

Thank you, Sommer. I knew I could count on someone to provide a link to that fact.

Larry in Texas
Reply to  Paul S.
May 24, 2021 11:29 am

Certainly not most of it. Even Fox News went a little berserk during the first eight weeks or so of this “pandemic” (which I consider to be more of a panic of the politicians world-wide).

Peter fraser
Reply to  Paul S.
May 24, 2021 1:38 pm

Does anybody believe anything from the Lancet? Their rush to denigrate hydro chloroquine and then having to withdraw the article a week later has left them with zero credibility. As with so many journals now they are only political mouthpieces

alexei
Reply to  Peter fraser
May 24, 2021 6:44 pm

Well, when you learn that Christiana Figueras, former Executive Director of the UN FCCC, also served as chair of the Advisory Board of The Lancet, you may begin to connect the dots ……..

Roger
Reply to  Paul S.
May 24, 2021 2:05 pm

In a word, NO!

And I live there.

stacy pearson
May 24, 2021 6:29 am

“…shows how the political environment caused the magic word ‘conspiracy theory’ to trigger a wider epistemic reaction in high prestige opinion”

I LOVE Judith Curry!

About a year ago I was having what I thought was a friendly conversation with a friend of mine who just happened to hold numerous degrees, and had a high opinion of himself. I was making what seemed to me the very common sense point that the BSL-4 lab in Wuhan made by far the better explanation as an origination point of the virus than any so called natural cause. He mockingly referred to me as a conspiracy theorist…to which I told him he had one minute to retract the remark. He did not. I haven’t spoken with him since. This is a person I had known for 50 years. Removing this toxicity from my life was one of the best decisions I ever made.

Tom Foley
Reply to  stacy pearson
May 24, 2021 6:44 am

It’s commonsense that the 1918-19 influenza pandemic started in Spain. After all it was called the Spanish Flu. Or in France, or China, or even Kansas. One hundred years on we are still not sure.

Commonsense suggests people will be arguing about the origin of Covid-19 well into the future, perhaps even for 100 years.

John Tillman
Reply to  Tom Foley
May 24, 2021 6:57 am

The Spanish Flu didn’t start in Spain, but you’re right as to its uncertain geographical origins. However, it did arise naturally in birds and pigs.

When and if the WIV’s lab notes are ever released, should they still exist, then we’ll know more about the birth of the bat flu. At present, there is abundant evidence that the WuWHOFlu was evolved in a leaky BSL-2 lab at the WIV. For a natural evolution, not so much.

Anon
Reply to  John Tillman
May 24, 2021 7:43 am

Yes, I don’t like the conflation of geographical location with genetic origin. And even if you identified a country, someone would still insist on “unknown origin” unless you identified the city then neighborhood, etc. And naming it the Spanish Flu was based on simple observation… when it first came to our attention/awareness. It was not meant to pinpoint the geographical location of the genetic change. And many other diseases also were named as loosely: English Sweat, Spanish Pocks (syphilis), etc… So, if that is enough to deter you why send teams into the Congo to find the natural reservoir of Ebola? Why not start Akron, Ohio?

Anon
Reply to  Anon
May 24, 2021 8:12 am

Or if a Smallpox outbreak is first noticed in the Soviet Union:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Aral_smallpox_incident

Common sense suggests people will be arguing about the origin of this Smallpox outbreak well into the future, perhaps even for a hundred years. (And the lab can only hope so. lol)

However, others may insist, also using common sense, that the origin be pinned down for sure, so that if it did emerge from a laboratory, such research can be discontinued.

Last edited 5 months ago by Anon
whiten
Reply to  Anon
May 24, 2021 11:08 am

Understand this.
The origin of this novel virus is clearly non properly natural.

It is so obvious, from the outset, that actually, all those who suppose to have professional expertise and claimed authoritatively and publically that it cannot be a lab product can be hold accountable for intentional deception.

Is like “tomorrow” suddenly you face a reality of a new bird species with double wings and also double legged.
And someone with enough expertise, responsibility and authority in the matter, abuses all that intentionally with the sole aim of convincing forcefully the rest that it is just nature… when in reality that will plainly be impossible.

cheers

Last edited 5 months ago by whiten
William Astley
Reply to  Anon
May 24, 2021 8:13 am

The issue is not what we call/name covid… the issue is covid manmade?

Why did Facebook and Google hide covid origin discussions? Is there a country pulling the strings of masters of the universe to hide the origins of covid?

COVID virus’s powerful infectious trigger isn’t found anywhere in its related viral group in nature but has been repeatedly inserted into viruses by laboratory scientists”

Covid is super sneaky and it came right out of the box deadly (causes blood clotting and for a small percentage of people causes an autoimmune system attack and covid) and super contagious.

There is zero evidence that covid developed naturally in the wild and then appeared in a wild meat market. That is a fabricated fake story.

Covid is a deadly virus that is made up of three different species and in addition the maker of covid added a spike that enables covid to break the blood brain barrier to cause brain damage.

Covid has made in a lab. And the BSL-4 lab in Wuhan just happened to be doing ‘research’ with the viruses that make up covid.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/physician-scientist-steven-quay-provides-open-letter-response-to-who-report-five-undisputed-facts-support-the-laboratory-origin-of-the-covid-virus-301258582.html
 
The purpose of the Open Letter is to help readers of the WHO report understand the five facts that scientists agree on and which support the conclusion that an accidental laboratory-acquired infection (William: That covid was manmade. There is no evidence that covid has accidently released) was likely responsible for the COVID pandemic.
The five undisputed facts are:

· COVID-19 wasn’t smoldering in the community before the epidemic broke out, as was observed with previous coronavirus epidemics.
· Despite an intense search, neither the COVID virus, nor any close relative, has yet been found in nature, unlike prior natural zoonoses. The closest viral relative is from the laboratories of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, near the epicenter of the first cases.
· The COVID virus had little genetic diversity at the outset, unlike prior natural zoonoses. It was genetically pure, like the man-made vaccines being rolled out.
· The COVID virus’s powerful infectious trigger isn’t found anywhere in its related viral group in nature but has been repeatedly inserted into viruses by laboratory scientists, including at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
· The virus was highly adapted for infection of people from the start, unlike prior natural zoonoses. Growing viruses in humanized mice is a common technique to hone their lethal abilities.

Anon
Reply to  William Astley
May 24, 2021 8:20 am

Yes, I agree. I appended my original comment with the 1971 Aral Smallpox Incident that occurred in the USSR. Should Smallpox ever re-emerge, it would be wise to figure out exactly how, where and why, verses labelling it a futile exercise. Sometimes the best answer does not come immediately. Thanks!

Leo Smith
Reply to  William Astley
May 24, 2021 8:23 am

I dont think the issue is whether its man made or whether it originated in a lab in wuhan or in bats.

The issue is how vulnerable, or not, global society currently is to a viral pandemic

whiten
Reply to  Leo Smith
May 24, 2021 11:27 am

That mostly will depend on who is in charge of matters of healthcare.

One thing has been shown clearly, as far as I can tell, that WHO is not a trustworthy authority, far from it;

and a lot of other potential players in consideration of national and international level have shown a high degree of corruption with their supposed duties and responsibilities.

Intentional malicious acts in consideration of healthcare by the very ones charged with the duties and trust by society at large, consist as an ugly act of betrayal of the society.

cheers

David A
Reply to  Leo Smith
May 24, 2021 11:37 am

Yet certainly if, as appears likely, this was mankind created via GOF research, then that is extremely cogent to future prevention.

RobR
Reply to  Leo Smith
May 24, 2021 12:28 pm

Assessment of morbidity rates is an ongoing affair. Trying to ascertain the origin of the virus is complementary to the process.

Furthermore, it is unwise to concentate on a single loose cannon when the entire armory is untethered.

The guilty must be held accountable and this should never be permitted to happen again.

David A
Reply to  William Astley
May 24, 2021 8:56 am

So zero evidence of natural evolution to the Wuflu, lots of evidence, circumstainal and direct to man made, and lots of evidence of suppression of real evidence.

It is really quite clear.

William Astley
Reply to  David A
May 24, 2021 10:02 am

Yes. What is clear, is logical. Covid did not develop naturally. The next question is what does that mean.

The facts, the physical evidence (covid virus sequence analysis, covid comparison with other viruses, covid deadly features, China ordering the destruction of all covid viruses/samples/first release data/human samples, WHO covering up how deadly and contagious covid was, China did not allow access to independent researchers because China was hiding something, and China benefited economically due to the covid release) points to two possibilities.

Covid was man made and was accidentally released by Wuhan lab workers and China covered up the deadliest, most costly, mistake in Medical research history…. or covid was designed in a lab and released in China, as releasing covid in the US, first would be an act of war.
 
That would mean that the US and China are involved in a cold war. That would mean China is trying to ‘defeat’ the US using unconventional tactics.
 

Nobel prize winner Prof Montagnier says that to insert HIV sequences “can only be done in a lab”:

The Coronavirus Is Man Made According to Luc Montagnier the Man Who Discovered HIV 
 
Dr Luc Montagnier the man who discovered the HIV virus back in 1983 disagrees and is saying that the virus was man made.
According to Professor Luc Montagnier, winner of the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2008 for “discovering” HIV as the cause of the AIDS epidemic together with Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, the SARS-CoV-2 is a virus that was manipulated and accidentally released from a laboratory in Wuhan, China, in the last quarter of 2019.

“With my colleague, bio-mathematician Jean-Claude Perez, we carefully analyzed the description of the genome of this RNA virus,” explains Luc Montagnier, interviewed by Dr Jean-François Lemoine for the daily podcast at Pourquoi Docteur, adding that others have already explored this avenue:

https://joannenova.com.au/2020/04/the-first-synthetic-pandemic-man-who-discovered-hiv-says-coronavirus-is-man-made-ccp-destroyed-the-evidence/

Dr. Shi Zhengli is known as the Bat Woman of Wuhan Virology. And the Bat lady and/or other Wuhan minions destroyed (as ordered by CCP) all of covid related viruses that were being manipulated in the Wuhan lab.

“We’ve already heard how her lab was central to research on Coronaviruses and how she and others were ordered to destroy all copies of the laboratory viruses on Jan 2nd this year in what appears to be a mass cover up.”

“A string of papers were released in February claiming the Wuhan Virus was “96% related” to a known Bat Coronavirus and was therefore natural (see Zhao et al 2020, Shan-Lu Liu, 2020, Andersen et al 2020). Two of these papers appeared in Nature. But what we didn’t know was that the RNA sequence for the original bat Coronavirus that the new pandemic evolved from, which was called RaTG13, was only registered on Jan 27th this year, despite it supposedly being discovered in 2013. The first  Nature paper appeared only 6 days later. So much for Peer Review…”

RobR
Reply to  William Astley
May 24, 2021 12:35 pm

It is unwise to assign malice, where simple incompetence will do.

The CCP definitely engaged in “weaponization” gain of function research. However, the pathology of the outbreak points towards an accidental release followed by a cover up.

See the video entitled “Counting Cars” by ABC news on Youtube.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  RobR
May 25, 2021 7:00 am

It looks like an accidental release into China, and a deliberate release by the Chicoms into the rest of the world.

Sam the First
Reply to  William Astley
May 24, 2021 2:29 pm

As I remarked in a comment above, very highly placed Chinese friends of a friend confirmed (back in late Feb or early March last year) that the virus is manmade: it was apparently being developed to bring Hing Kong to heel, but escaped from the lab before they were ready.
I know a lot about this source, who was risking everything providing this info.

RobR
Reply to  Sam the First
May 24, 2021 6:42 pm

William,
This explanation is plausible and one I considered at the onset of the virus. Hong Kong is huge economic engine for the PRC and they can’t afford to lose her, as other provinces would likely follow suit.

What if the WIV had reported mixed success in weaponizing bat viruses and were pressed to produce immediate results. Imagine long hours and additional conscripted under trained staff inside a lab conducting BLS 4 research using BLS 2 and 3 protocols. Consequently, the virus escaped before it could be unleashed on the Cantonese.

Not implausible in the very least.

Komerade Cube
Reply to  William Astley
May 24, 2021 1:04 pm

>>>Why did Facebook and Google hide covid origin discussions? Is there a country pulling the strings of masters of the universe to hide the origins of covid?<<<

ya think? Hey Griff, you’re paid by the Chinese to disrupt conversations here on WUWT, could your masters be paying someone else to remove pejorative comments on oligarch media?

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  John Tillman
May 24, 2021 8:14 am

John,

Good comment. However, there is no need to wait on release of WIV’s lab notes for the period covering, say, 2010 to 2020 (which I am 99.9999% sure no longer exist in original form, if at all).

The “smoking gun” exists in published scientific papers that have Wuhan Institute of Virology researches listed as coauthors.

Among the most damning of such publicly-available papers is one linked in an article published by scientific journal nature medicine (full version of it available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4797993/ ) reporting on gain-of-function research using mice that provides these specific statements taken verbatim from the referenced paper’s main body text:
“Therefore, we synthesized the SHC014 spike in the context of the replication-competent, mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone (we hereafter refer to the chimeric CoV as SHC014-MA15) to maximize the opportunity for pathogenesis and vaccine studies in mice . . . To test the ability of the SHC014 spike to mediate infection of the human airway, we examined the sensitivity of the human epithelial airway cell line Calu-3 2B4 (ref. 9) to infection and found robust SHC014-MA15 replication, comparable to that of SARS-CoV Urbani (Fig. 1c).” (my bold emphasis added)

Note: “pathogenesis” is med-speak for “the development of a disease and the chain of events leading to that disease” . . . now, why would one want to “maximize the opportunity” for that? And mice are the laboratory animals-of-preference for closely representing human susceptibilities to infectious diseases, especially those spread via airborne transmission.

A coauthor of the above-referenced paper, published in 2015, is Zhengli-Li Shi with her cited affiliation “Key Laboratory of Special Pathogens and Biosafety, Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, China”

Another coauthor of this paper is Xing-Yi Ge, with same cited affiliation.

William Astley
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
May 24, 2021 12:07 pm

Yes. It absolutely is a fact that Wuhan lab was making covid like deadly pathogens/viruses and publishing papers to leave a paper trail.

Why was the Wuhan lab making ‘man made’ super deadly covid like viruses?

There is zero evidence to even support the possibility that covid could be natural.

Covid was absolutely, positively man made. Covid appear suddenly with all of its deadly features and this is the kicker…. the smoking gun…

Covid (the spliced together ‘thing’, three viruses from three different species, with the spike protein added) had evolved ‘knowledge’ of the human immune system when it infected the first person in Wuhan.

It is fact that there no evidence, that covid infected any person on this planet, before Wuhan release.

Covid appeared, on the earth, just like it was a released bioweapon. No in human infections prior to its release in China. No possibility that covid was developed anywhere else but a lab.

Flip the question around. It is not possible for covid to have occurred naturally without evidence. Not possible.

That logically means/forces to be true. That some persons, used mice who have been engineered to replicated the human immune response and then infected the engineered mice, with the dumb first formed spliced together/engineered covid to enable the dumb unevolved virus to infect and evolve to enable covid to defeat the human immune system…. When it was released.

The engineered mice lab ‘work’….. is the only way without infecting humans to evolve the first spliced/created covid.

Is that criminal negligence causing death? It sounds like someone went to a lot of trouble/spent a lot of money to create covid. Why?

And how many people/countries were involved?

Who is going to help us? Who is on our side?? Was the CDC involved? Who is pulling the strings?

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  William Astley
May 24, 2021 12:48 pm

The US is complicit in this, although the SARS-CoV-2 virus (i.e., cause of COVID-19) was clearly NOT released in the United States.

Nine (9) of the coauthors of the paper that I referenced were affiliated with the Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.

Do a word search for “NIH” on that scientific paper and you find the following statements, again verbatim:
This paper has been reviewed by the funding agency, the NIH. Continuation of these studies was requested, and this has been approved by the NIH.” and specifically under the subsection titled AcknowledgmentsResearch in this manuscript was supported by grants from the National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Disease and the National Institute of Aging of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) under awards U19AI109761 (R.S.B.), U19AI107810 (R.S.B.), AI085524 (W.A.M.), F32AI102561 (V.D.M.) and K99AG049092 (V.D.M.) . . . Human airway epithelial cultures were supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease of the NIH under award NIH DK065988 (S.H.R.).” (my bold emphasis added)

Note that Dr. Fauci was appointed Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) in 1984, so the work reported on in this 2015 article was done under his administration and clearly with his knowledge, despite his recent Congressional testimony to the contrary.

Researchers Zhengli-Li Shi and Xing-Yi Ge continued this gain-of-function and chimeric CoV creation research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology after the US government shut down all such research within US borders because it was deemed by competent reviewers (lucky us!) to be far too dangerous to continue, even in BSL-4 laboratories!

Last edited 5 months ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
May 24, 2021 2:16 pm

As a follow-on to my post immediately above, I should have noted that, as of 2013 (see https://fas.org/programs/bio/research.html ), there was one operational BSL-4 labs located relatively close to Chapel Hill, North Carolina:

1) United States Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases, Department of Defense, at Frederick, MD (about 310 miles away)

and three more BSL-4 labs planned or under construction that were also relatively close:

2) Virginia Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services,
Department of General Services of the Commonwealth of Virginia, at Richmond, VA (about 160 miles away)

3) Integrated Research Facility, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, at Ft. Detrick, MD (about 310 miles away)

4) National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center,
Department of Homeland Security, at Frederick, MD (about 310 miles away)

There was also a Regional Biocontainment Laboratory (RBL) located at Global Health Research Building, Duke University, Durham, NC (BSL rating in 2015, the publication date of the previously-noted scientific paper, unknown to me ) that was only 12 miles away.

The NIAID (https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/biosafety-labs-needed#:~:text=There%20are%20currently%20only%20four,Southwest%20Foundation%20for%20Biomedical%20Research ) as of 2018, cites only four major BSL-4 “suites” in the US: “There are currently only four operational BSL-4 laboratory suites in the United States: at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta; at the United States Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Maryland; at the Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research in San Antonio, Texas; and at the University of Texas at Galveston. Georgia State University in Atlanta has a small BSL-3/BSL-4 glove box facility. In addition, a small BSL-4 facility exists on the NIH campus in Bethesda, Maryland, but it is currently being operated only at a BSL-3 level for research on important emerging infectious diseases.”

Therefore, a portion of the laboratory research reported on in the previously-mentioned 2015 paper by Zhengli-Li Shi, et al, may have been conducted inside the US at one or more of these BSL-4 facilities by the noted researchers/coauthors from University of North Carolina, as well as by Zhengli-Li Shi and Xing-Yi Ge, either at the same location(s) and times, or separately at the WIV, leading up to publication of their paper.

Last edited 5 months ago by Gordon A. Dressler
John Tillman
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
May 24, 2021 3:13 pm

Nicholas Wade, in his BotAS article, reports that Shi and her team worked in a BSL-2 lab, since BSL-4 rules were too onerous. This was one of the reasons that the State Department sounded alarms.

BSL-2 procedures are comapable “to a dentist’s office”.

Even if the lab release were indeed accidental, the CCP intentionally spread the virus throughout the world by not restricting international flights, while shutting down domestic out of Wuhan. With the complicity of its running dog lackey WHO, the Party further aggravated the global death rate by withholding information about how it spread, by delaying announcement, contrary to its WHO treaty obligations, by keeping foreign specialists out, and by covering up for so long, even punishing heroic whistleblowers like the sainted, martyred Dr. Li.

The gen0cidal, mass-murthering, military expansionist CCP dictatorship is the enemy of all mankind, starting with its own subject peoples.

Last edited 5 months ago by John Tillman
John Tillman
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
May 24, 2021 4:45 pm

The 2014 shut down was temporary. FauXi got funding restored, and directed it through the EcoHealth cut out to Wuhan, after Shi moved there from Baric’s UNC lab. It was finally stopped by Trump in 2018.

RobR
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
May 26, 2021 7:55 am

Bat woman lied and millions died!

John Tillman
Reply to  RobR
May 27, 2021 6:34 pm

FauXi has also repeatedly, shamelessly lied.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Tom Foley
May 24, 2021 7:41 am

Tom Foley posted Commonsense suggests people will be arguing about the origin of Covid-19 well into the future . . .

Do you really want me to start listing the number of times “commonsense” has been 180 degrees out of alignment with truth? I could start with the flat earth, move on to the celestial orbs, perhaps include the aether, and go on from there.

Art-Kingston
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
May 24, 2021 8:17 am

Common sense vs. religion. Now there’s a contradiction!

n.n
Reply to  Art-Kingston
May 24, 2021 10:25 am

In Stork They Trust

n.n
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
May 24, 2021 10:25 am

Common sense or convenience.

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
May 25, 2021 3:02 am

“I could start with the flat earth” … shows how much you know. The flat earth idea is a myth created after a novel about Christopher Columbus. Most people in antiquity either didn’t care what shape the earth was, or knew that it was spherical. Because it was pretty obvious to people in antiquity in small boats that things disappear over the horizon. It was only after the 17th century when large ships became the norm, that the horizon became so distant that the effect of land disappearing over the horizon became difficult to see.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Mike Haseler (aka Scottish Sceptic)
May 25, 2021 7:45 am

Mike posted, unbelievably: “The flat earth idea is a myth created after a novel about Christopher Columbus.”

Per Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth ), here are some statements that clearly contradict Mike’s assertion:
— “In early Egyptian and Mesopotamian thought, the world was portrayed as a disk floating in the ocean.”
— “Both Homer and Hesiod described a disc cosmography on the Shield of Achilles.”
— “Several pre-Socratic philosophers believed that the world was flat: Thales (c. 550 BC) according to several sources, and Leucippus (c. 440 BC) and Democritus (c. 460–370 BC) according to Aristotle.”
— “Hecataeus of Miletus believed that the Earth was flat and surrounded by water. Herodotus in his Histories ridiculed the belief that water encircled the world, yet most classicists agree that he still believed Earth was flat because of his descriptions of literal ‘ends’ or ‘edges’ of the Earth.”
— “The ancient Norse and Germanic peoples believed in a flat Earth cosmography with the Earth surrounded by an ocean . . .”
— “In ancient China, the prevailing belief was that the Earth was flat and square, while the heavens were round, an assumption virtually unquestioned until the introduction of European astronomy in the 17th century.”

All of the above statements from Wikipedia describe beliefs and observations made hundreds to thousands of years before Columbus was born in 1451 AD.

No ad hominem comment necessary.

John Tillman
Reply to  Mike Haseler (aka Scottish Sceptic)
May 25, 2021 2:49 pm

Washington Irving’s A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus is a misture of history and fiction, not a novel. Among the fictional elements is the fable that Europeans in 1492 thought that the Earth is flat. They knew it was spherical. Spanish savants also knew its approximate size, which is bigger than Columbus’ estimate. He also imagined that Asia extended farher east than it actually does.

His crew was not worried about falling off the edge of the Earth, but rather of being unable to get home, since the wind was blowing so steadily from the east. But CC knew that at a higher latitude, it blew from the west.

However, in the ancient Near East, including in both Testaments of the Bible, the Earth was believed flat. The New Testament is surprising, since Greek scientists had realized for centuries that it’s spherical, and even measured it fairly accurately.in the 3rd century BC.

Yet the Early Church Fathers continued to defend the biblical flat Earth until at least AD 400, the time of Augustine, author of De Genesi ad literam. So belief in a flat Earth did exist for a long time, but was also long gone by the Late Middle Ages, when the Church backed the geocentric Ptolemaic system of nested spheres.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Tom Foley
May 24, 2021 9:51 am

The origin is almost certainly a copper mine in Yunnan Province. In 2012 several miners fell ill and died with a virulent pneumonia after clearing droppings from horseshoe bats which had colonised the mine. Shi Zheng Li and colleagues of the WIV took samples back to Wuhan, where the virus was cultured and identified.

RobR
Reply to  Graemethecat
May 24, 2021 12:41 pm

There is likely a great deal of truth to what you wrote. Of course, eight-years and a great deal of manipulation have ensued since then.

jtom
Reply to  Graemethecat
May 24, 2021 1:03 pm

But no widespread contagion. Seems no one outside the exposed miners fell ill. No other workers, family members, or health personnel. So not the same virus.

That is not to say it couldn’t have been the ‘starter stock’ used to create a deadlier, more contagious virus. AFAIK, Man has not created a virus solely from inactive chemicals. They always start with an existing virus, and change it.

John Tillman
Reply to  Graemethecat
May 24, 2021 3:30 pm

The natural strain closest to the WuWHOFlu virus, RaTG13, came from that mine shaft. Three of six miners there fell ill with pneumonia and died.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.581569/full

However, like SARS and MERS, that strain isn’t highly infectious. Shi’s GoF “research” in vitro and humanized mice made it easier for the virus to break into our lung cells.

Among abundant other evidence of lab manipulation is the furin cleavage site, which separates the spike protein and allows cellular entry. It consists of a four amino acid peptide, the symbols of which are PRRA. “R” stands for arginine, which is coded genetically by six different nucleobase triplets. Different mammals use predominantly one or another of those possible six. At the site, both Rs are coded by the codon most common in humans but least common in bats. Only 5% of the arginine codons in the bat genome are composed of those three nucleobases, so the odds of both occurring together is 0.25%.

Last edited 5 months ago by John Tillman
Richard Page
Reply to  stacy pearson
May 24, 2021 6:54 am

I’ve always considered the ‘escaped lab experiment’ to be the most logical theory as to the origin of the virus OUTBREAK. It fit all of the known facts and didn’t need lashings of handwavium to make it work.
And yes, I am making a clear distinction between the origin of the virus outbreak and the origin of the virus. It seems reasonable to assume with some degree of certainty that the virus escaped from the Wuhan lab – but what the lab workers were doing with it and why, are questions that, as yet, have no clear answers.

Last edited 5 months ago by Richard Page
Anon
Reply to  stacy pearson
May 24, 2021 7:22 am

I think what we need to do is coin a new term: COMMON SENSORY THEORIST

The lab escape theory was the first one I arrived at, using the following logic. See if you can follow it:

A Gorilla is spotted roaming the streets of New York City. How do you explain it?

1] Propose that it swam (or hopped on a ship, King Kong style) from the African Congo?

2] Theorize that another species (eg opossums) mutated and evolved into gorillas?

3] Call the Bronx Zoo and see if they have any gorillas missing?

In the reason based scientific world I inhabited before Climate Change hysteria, #3 would be the first thing one would have done.

So, in lieu of renaming the current era the Anthropocene, we might consider changing the calendar with the “zero year” being 1988 when Jim Hansen briefed Congress about global warming. Every date that occurs prior to that year is suffixed with BCC and all dates afterward are suffixed with ACC. Thus we are in the year 33 ACC. /s

Last edited 5 months ago by Anon
Richard Page
Reply to  Anon
May 24, 2021 7:27 am

Alternatively DAS. Thus we would actually be in the 33rd year of DAS or Dark Age of Scientism. Arguably the start date could be pushed back even earlier.

n.n
Reply to  Richard Page
May 24, 2021 10:30 am

Modern or post-normal science is disposed to conflation of logical domains for reason of secular causes, including: capital, control, narcissism, leverage, convenience. In this respect, nothing has changed, and without competing interests, it evolved and, in fact, progressed.

beng135
Reply to  Richard Page
May 24, 2021 10:40 am

Perhaps DAS would start when “Critical Theory” (western marxism) was beginning to be espoused in academia in the early 1930s. Franklin D Roosevelt was an adherent.

Last edited 5 months ago by beng135
philincalifornia
Reply to  stacy pearson
May 24, 2021 12:35 pm

I’ve done that too, and never regretted it, ever. In fact, I refer to my head as a libtard-free zone these days.

Sam the First
Reply to  stacy pearson
May 24, 2021 2:15 pm

I have a friend who due to professional links has a few very highly placed Chinese friends. I can’t go into detail, obviously.

They confirmed to my friend that this virus was made in a Wuhan lab, and the most highly placed informant (Govt employee) said it had been intended for use on dissidents, primarily in HK, but escaped before it was ready to be used.

Tom Kennedy
May 24, 2021 6:38 am

I get all the news I need from Judith Curry’s Climate etc., Watts up with that, and the weather report.

Almost everything else is suspect.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Tom Kennedy
May 24, 2021 8:24 am

and even some of the above has its issues

Drake
Reply to  Leo Smith
May 24, 2021 9:54 am

But those issues are brought to light in the comments, giving readers information enough to make a reasoned judgment.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Drake
May 25, 2021 7:07 am

Yes. The most important part.

dk_
May 24, 2021 6:40 am

Do we want people to see scientists as angry, embattled, frustrated people … or rather people who are doing [their] best to solve problems to make the world better?

Why is either valid? Scientists are people working on problems. Seeking to “make the world better” is hubris, and probably nothing at all to do with the truth of a proposition. It is the delusion of a megalomaniac, not a scientist.

TheLastDemocrat
Reply to  dk_
May 24, 2021 7:31 am

I believe scientists generally are motivated by a general desire to make the world a better place.

When examining non-profit fund-raising, I encountered the concept of the “dual mission.” Let’s say a charity is focused on helping the homeless. Their “clients” are not really the homeless. Their clients are people who might donate money to address a problem that the possible donors are concerned with.

As with much in economics, we can do something ourselves, or enter a contract to have it done by somebody else. I can change my own car oil, but I regularly prefer to contract that out to the oil change shop. They are more efficient at it.

So, when any of us donate to a charity, we are doing a similar efficiency exchange.

So, a charity has a dual mission: help the homeless and satisfy the possible, homelessness-concerned donors. In an amazng insight, I realized that a charity doesn’t even have to achieve the mission of helping the homeless very well to stay alive across time. But it must satisfy donors.

This “dual mission” idea can be adapted to scientists. A scientist wants to make the world a better place, plus wants to sustain a paying job. To keep a roof over his or her head, and food on the table, and shoes on the kids’ feet.

So, yes, a scientist can merely be after tenure and salary, but also desire to save the world. Most all of us have such as dual mission.

This can lead to compromises in one or the other.

It is not talked about professionally this way. People do say “work-life balance.”

The bills have to get paid. But in research, you can toil away, producing papers, for years, and we still have little ways of measuring impact in making the world a better place.

John Endicott
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
May 24, 2021 8:48 am

I believe scientists generally are motivated by a general desire to make the world a better place.”

no more or less so than anybody else. Science itself is not about “making the world a better place” and if you are trying to make it so, you don’t understand what science is or what it does.

dodgy geezer
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
May 24, 2021 8:53 am

It’s actually a disadvantage to help the homeless – if you succeed you are out of a job.

Any charity is most interested in maintaining the supposed ill it was set up to abolish….

Drake
Reply to  dodgy geezer
May 24, 2021 9:58 am

The Department of Energy and the Department of Education have both delayed any improvement in delivery of their named interest and in general have been successful in doing the opposite. BUT, a lot of bureaucrats have made a lot of money over the years.

dk_
Reply to  Drake
May 24, 2021 10:15 am

Drake,
It may be also about the money, but see Pournelle’s Iron Law. The first job of any bureaucrat is to protect the bureacracy (The late Dr. Pournelle was more generous than I).

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  dodgy geezer
May 25, 2021 6:11 pm

Just like the medical industry is not really looking for a “cure” for cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc. The “health care” industry is not about caring for the health of people, but about managing diseases. Why kill the golden goose?

dk_
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
May 24, 2021 9:26 am

LastDem,
Sorry, but I must respectfully disagree. Scientist are first people who have second developed a talent and personal fascination for looking at specific, overall small problems. Saving the world is a thing for ideologues, saints, or charlatans. A scientist who happens to do both by accident, if recognizedm is arbitrarily either condemned or canonized. A scientist who sets out to make the world better isn’t acting as a scientist, but may become known as one of those other three.

Likewise, politicians who seek to protect the public or save te world are leading down a false trail, made more from ego than from charity.

Most people do stuff in order to eat. If they don’t, they die. Idealizing any group for any reason will at the very least leave one disappointed.

Scientific advancement is the concatenation of tiny, esoteric changes in understanding, multiplied by a lot of hard work by a lot of non-scientists.

First prize goes to the fellow commenter who civilly calls my opinion cynical AND knows who Aristothenes was. Points marked down if only Diogenes or Crates. Uncivil comments will be ignored, probably.

Last edited 5 months ago by dk_
dk_
Reply to  dk_
May 24, 2021 10:10 am

Dang. Brain error. Wrong greek. Prize goes for Antistithenes. Aristothones is extra, extra credit. Like the TV show, points don’t matter.

Oldseadog
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
May 24, 2021 10:01 am

TLD,
I believe that most real scientists are motivated by “How?” and “Why?”

Dan DeLong
Reply to  Oldseadog
May 24, 2021 12:06 pm

I have personally known a few dozen scientists throughout my career. After a few years on the job, those in academia are motivated by “How do I get tenure?” and “How do I get funding?” The scientists who work in government labs are motivated by “How do I make my boss happy?” It’s the managers (who may call themselves scientists) in the government labs who work on keeping the lab growing.

I once worked on a multi-hundred million dollar military hardware development program that was cancelled partially because two government lab managers could not and would not agree on performance specifications.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
May 24, 2021 11:43 am

And Teacher’s Unions are all about helping the children….

/sarc

jtom
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
May 24, 2021 1:25 pm

“ When examining non-profit fund-raising, I encountered the concept of the “dual mission.” Let’s say a charity is focused on helping the homeless. Their “clients” are not really the homeless. Their clients are people who might donate money to address a problem that the possible donors are concerned with.”

You have badly underestimated their need to pay their own salaries. That is the number one mission of many, if not most, non-profits. Most create tear-jerking reasons to donate, even if there is little they can do about the problem. It’s just to generate money to continue paying their own salaries.

Even the term ‘non-profit’ is a sham. How do you make the charity a ‘non-profit’? Pay the actual profits to yourself as an employee; overpay the landlord for the rent for your offices. Oh, you’re the landlord, btw. Overpay for office supplies and equipment, using just one supply company; the one you own. Pay an outside organization for a white-paper on different small cookstoves available to replace dung-fueled fires. The outside organization is a family member or friend (no one will ever ask to see the actual white-paper). This was a favorite ploy of the Clinton Foundation.

Do not give money to groups blindly. Do some research.

R_G
Reply to  jtom
May 25, 2021 8:41 pm

So true.

John Tillman
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
May 25, 2021 2:51 pm

Too many scientists are motivated by ideology.

Leo Smith
Reply to  dk_
May 24, 2021 8:25 am

if I want to “make the world better” I go out and weed my flowerbeds

dk_
Reply to  Leo Smith
May 24, 2021 9:29 am

Leo, Good work, that man!

Mr. Lee
Reply to  Leo Smith
May 24, 2021 10:42 am

should be a bumper sticker.

beng135
Reply to  Leo Smith
May 24, 2021 1:14 pm

“Making the world better” (or “saving the planet”) is pure hubris. Like you say, start in your own backyard/home.

dk_
Reply to  dk_
May 24, 2021 9:49 am

Later, I see that Mike Hulme might have been taken a little out of context. See https://mikehulme.org/trust-and-mistrust-of-climate-science-2/ for the context of the presentation wherein Dr. Curry found the quoted passages. In particular, the paragraph I excerpted was second from a list of three “Don’ts.” I still think Hulme’s (allusion? metaphor?) quote of John Besley was invalid for the reasons I previously stated, but I may agree with Hulme’s three “Do’s and Don’ts.”

willem post
May 24, 2021 6:48 am

Instead of research cartel, I would prefer research cabal, which more closely describes the motives of the CYA crowd.

beng135
Reply to  willem post
May 24, 2021 1:16 pm

Research syndicate.

May 24, 2021 6:55 am

Excellent! The parallels between shutting down climate and corona skepticism reflect an entrenched game plan to control public opinion. Denigrate the skeptics and elevate the believers to saint hood. Any skeptical challenge is conspiracy theory. Create a false consensus, so that skeptics are just rejects, and believer of the chosen dogma are the “popular kids” Shade the facts and control the media. Transform education into a vessel for teaching dogma instead of critical thinking.

The origin of COVID is a much simpler issue to diagnose than climate change. But if investigations clearly show how virologists falsely shaped pubic opinion, it will serve as a powerful example exposing how public opinion gets falsely manipulated and that scientists are not saints. They share the same virtues and weaknesses that we all have no matter our station in life. Hopefully it will force people to realize we must always be skeptical critical thinkers.

My motto in life was concisely stated by Darwin’s Bulldog

“skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin”.

Reply to  Jim Steele
May 24, 2021 9:40 am

blind faith – do what you like – right

Drake
Reply to  Krishna Gans
May 24, 2021 10:00 am

OBiden won, now we can stop blocking the truth.

MarkW
Reply to  Krishna Gans
May 24, 2021 10:25 am

We share over 90% of our DNA with chimpanzees. It’s hardly surprising that two viruses also share genetic information.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  MarkW
May 24, 2021 1:07 pm

That is faulty reasoning. A virus has very little DNA to share and very low motility with which to initiate sharing. However, when you bring together numerous viruses in one lab, with the sole intent of combining their characteristics, the likelihood of creating new viruses with diverse combinations of unrelated genes is high.

BTW we share 98.8% of our DNA with chimps … nearly 84% with pigs, 61% with fruit flies and about 60% in a banana.

MarkW
Reply to  Rory Forbes
May 24, 2021 4:28 pm

Actually viruses have no DNA, they have RNA.
And sharing genetic material has been the method of virus evolution probably going back to the first virus.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  MarkW
May 24, 2021 4:40 pm

Actually viruses have no DNA, they have RNA.

So I was even more correct. None is even less than “very little”. However, you missed the point. There must be close proximity in order to share genetic matter. A laboratory where they are actually doing gene splicing on viruses is a prime source.

I was attempting a tone of irony in my earlier post.

Last edited 5 months ago by Rory Forbes
John Tillman
Reply to  MarkW
May 25, 2021 3:35 pm

There are both RNA and DNA viruses. The two smallpox viruses contain DNA, for instance. All the RNA viruses appear to share a common ancestor, while the origins of DNA viruses are probably various, to include degeneration from prokaryotes. Some giant viruses still retain vestigial metabolism genes.

And yes, viruses mix and match freely inside their hosts, transferring genetic material horizontally, often with wild abandon. Viruses also pick up material from their hosts, and can enter their genomes.

http://www.synthesis.cc/synthesis/2005/03/recombination_vs_reassortment#:~:text=The%20figure%20defines%20reassortment%20as,genome%2C%20potentially%20from%20the%20host.

Our genome contains more viral sequences than it does human genes, ie protein-coding seqences, which are a small portion of our total genome.

Last edited 4 months ago by John Tillman
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rory Forbes
May 25, 2021 7:15 am

“BTW we share 98.8% of our DNA with chimps”

I read an article yesterday that claims to have discovered a genetic change that is unique to humans. Monkeys and even Neanderthals do not have this mutation, which affects the function of the brain.

That’s about as detailed as I can get on the subject right now.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 25, 2021 10:52 am

that claims to have discovered a genetic change that is unique to humans

Somehow that doesn’t surprise me a lot. Tiny variations left to themselves over long periods of time have enormous potential for change. I shall keep my eyes open for more info in that area. Thanks!

John Tillman
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 25, 2021 4:02 pm

Many of the salient differences between humans and our fellow great apes lie not in our genes, ie protein-coding sequence, but in control sequences. For example, humans and chimps have the same number of follicles per square inch on our bodies, but our hairs grow short, while theirs grow long, as in a normal great ape, or other primate.

Two key brain genes distinguish humans from other extant great apes and our closer relatives, extinct bipedal apes, the australopithecines. I’d be interested to know what mutation separates our brains from those of our closest kin, Neanderthals, and presumably Denisovans and other extinct members of Genus Homo, or even subspecies of H. sapiens.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Tillman
May 26, 2021 4:10 am

“I’d be interested to know what mutation separates our brains from those of our closest kin, Neanderthals, and presumably Denisovans and other extinct members of Genus Homo, or even subspecies of H. sapiens.”

I saw this report at Eurkeka Alert, I believe. I’ll see if I can find it again. It did go into a little detail about the differences.

John Tillman
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 26, 2021 8:33 am

Thanks!

commieBob
May 24, 2021 7:00 am

The reason some folks don’t like the lab leak hypothesis is that it implicates gain of function research and that implicates Fauci.

John Tillman
Reply to  commieBob
May 24, 2021 7:49 am

I hope that FauXi funded Shi “Bat Woman” Zheng Li’s gain of function “research” to give the US a peek into CCP biowarfare labs, but I suspect that he really believed such insanely risky “work” was worthwhile. After all, he’d funded it at UNC before the temporary suspension in 2014.

The virologists, backed by FauXi, beat a ban supported by molecular biologists, epidemiologists and other relevant specialists.

beng135
Reply to  John Tillman
May 24, 2021 1:22 pm

FauXi funded her?

ap_892441033906_slide-899c76cfe1e85044d836777702507d462bc6a3d1-s1200.jpg
John Endicott
Reply to  beng135
May 27, 2021 6:21 am

Wrong bat person, that’s bat *girl*. Batwoman can be seen on the CW.

Steve Case
Reply to  commieBob
May 24, 2021 7:53 am

First time I heard the term “Gain of function” was a You Tube of Senator Rand Paul vs. Dr. Fauci. about a week or so ago.

So a Google search on “Gain of function definition” turns up a lot of pages with a definition that looks like gain of function research is aimed at producing mutated pathogens that are more virulent or contagious. However a “Find” [Ctrl-F] search for “contagious” or “virulent” on those pages turns up mostly 0/0 or nearly nothing.

Paint me confused.

commieBob
Reply to  Steve Case
May 24, 2021 8:13 am

It’s the difference between what they say they are trying to do and the obvious outcome of what they’re doing.

Steve Case
Reply to  commieBob
May 24, 2021 9:55 am

Understanding what they are trying to do is not very understandable to most mere mortals but virulent and contagious rings the bell.

Oldseadog
Reply to  Steve Case
May 24, 2021 10:03 am

If you use Google no wonder you are confused.

John Tillman
Reply to  Steve Case
May 25, 2021 4:05 pm

“Gain of function” is a term of art clear across genetic engineering, directed evolution, synthetic biology, etc. It’s not limited to making viruses more infectious or lethal.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  commieBob
May 24, 2021 8:14 am

Who presumably outsourced it to CCP-Wuhan in order to circumvent the Obama-era rule against such.

Next up is what really happened with the early stories supposedly leaked out of Wuhan that claimed:

– people dying in the streets
– crematoria running 14 days full time per week
– apartment building doors welded shut
– bulldozed roadblocks on roads running out of the city

All just evaporated once the global quarantine set in.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
May 24, 2021 8:48 am

Exactly right! Once the virus was out of the lab and into the local population, it was imperative from a CCP perspective that the West economically hamstring itself, hence the early 24/7 media reports showing tank trucks and people in moon-suits spraying (what?) the bejesus out of Wuhan.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
May 25, 2021 7:21 am

What about all the cell phones that supposedly went silent about that time and never came back online? A very large number of them as I recall.

The U.S. intelligence community apparently has pictures from orbit of deserted streets around Wuhan about that time.

The Taiwanese claim all the military bases around Wuhan were put on lockdown around Nov. 1, 2019.

Abolition Man
Reply to  commieBob
May 24, 2021 9:06 am

commieBob,
Not just Fauxi gets implicated if an actual investigation takes place! There are the MDs who knowingly withheld effective treatments from their patients, when ivermectin and HCQ were suppressed. And we have to put the pols who placed infected patients in nursing homes right up there near him for their level of complicity in killing granny and grandpa!
There are many people who took part in the misinformation and panic inducing media coverage who are in serious jeopardy if they get caught in the spotlight and asked serious questions! The question that needs to be answered right away is why the “vaccines” are not being pulled considering how many adverse reactions are being reported! More than ALL other vaccines for the last twenty years should be enough, but I guess there are other political consequences to protecting the public!

n.n
Reply to  Abolition Man
May 24, 2021 10:42 am

Nobody wants to be associated with the pejorative label “anti-vaxer”. And, apparently, vaccines are the only effective means of immunity and treatment to mitigate transmission and disease progression. That said, don’t forget your goggles, the eyes are a window to social and viral contagion.

whiten
Reply to  n.n
May 24, 2021 2:40 pm

n.n

In the proposition of your point made in your comment,
and
also your position of your own understanding in this specific given issue,
please do name the disease (as per this very specific case) that it’s transmission and progression has to be mitigated by vaccines,
and
also please do name one vaccine that you know or think it could achieve such as, in this very specific case of 2020 Pandemic.

cheers

Last edited 5 months ago by whiten
John Tillman
Reply to  n.n
May 24, 2021 3:50 pm

Vaccines are far from the only effective means of treatment. Brave doctors have discovered multi-drug protocols to treat COVID both while the patient is still at home, and then in the hospital, and to keep them out of hospitals.

Remarkable that Carlson’s May 7 interview with Dr. Peter McCullough hasn’t been pulled yet. It’s 45 minutes long, but I recommend it.
Vaccines are to immunize, but if you get the disease, then antiviral meds are indicated. However, doctors have been threatened for treating their patients with such safe and effective drugs as HCQ and ivermectin, plus steroids, and proposed preventatives like vitamins C and D, zinc and antibiotics as ionophores.

Sam the First
Reply to  commieBob
May 24, 2021 2:52 pm

Read Dr Judy Mikovits’ first book, recounting how Fauxi destroyed her career. It tells you all you need to know about the man.

CD in Wisconsin
May 24, 2021 7:09 am

This posting reminds me of President Eisenhower’s farewell speech to the nation back in January, 1961:

“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower%27s_farewell_address

Sounds like he knew all too well that what we are seeing today with “climate science” and governments could indeed happen. And his warning was from 60 years ago.

Drake
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
May 24, 2021 10:05 am

The same thing has been the case throughout history whenever a government got big enough to have such power.

n.n
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
May 24, 2021 10:44 am

The industrial complex, the academic complex, and, the greater risk than the two aforementioned combined, the sociopolitical complex: a multi-trillion dollar industry.

May 24, 2021 7:09 am

Does someone know the way Ivermectin works ?
HCQ is known to be a Zn ionophore “placed” in cells to prohibit virus replication – but what’s about Ivermectin ?

Last edited 5 months ago by Krishna Gans
Reply to  John Tillman
May 24, 2021 8:03 am

thx !!

Reply to  John Tillman
May 24, 2021 10:31 am

Interaction of hydroxychloroquine with SARS-CoV2 functional proteins using all-atoms non-equilibrium alchemical simulations
Using a combination of enhanced sampling molecular dynamics techniques and non-equilibrium alchemical transformations with full atomistic details, we have shown that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) may act as a mild inhibitor of important functional proteins for SARS-CoV2 replication, with potency increasing in the series PLpro, 3CLpro, RdRp. By analyzing the bound state configurations, we were able to improve the potency for the 3CLpro target, designing a novel HCQ-inspired compound, named PMP329, with predicted nanomolar activity. If confirmed in vitro, our results provide a molecular rationale for the use of HCQ or of strictly related derivatives in the treatment of Covid-19.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Krishna Gans
May 24, 2021 8:17 am

Another interesting question:

How did Trump learn about, or who told him, HCQ being an effective treatment? This was supposed a new virus with little history, so who decided to try a malaria drug?

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
May 24, 2021 8:30 am

They looked on a lot of drugs beeing able to help against COV-19. HCQ was some years earlier in the pipeline as SARS was a pandemic candidate.
That’s why Raoult had a look on.
The good results of his findings were spread, that’s what Trump read or heard.

Last edited 5 months ago by Krishna Gans
n.n
Reply to  Krishna Gans
May 24, 2021 11:04 am

Or, specifically, advised: early prophylactic and therapeutic treatments. He also took the right position on national mandates, travel restrictions from hot zones, selective isolation of symptomatic and at-risk individuals. The conflicted special interests of domain experts and incessant journolistic braying must have taken its toll and there were missteps (e.g. ventilators). The vaccines as a part of a risk management protocol, involving unknown or uncharacterized (e.g. protein) features, were never a viable candidate for general distribution. Time will tell.

Oldseadog
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
May 24, 2021 10:07 am

Carlo,
I understand that they found that areas with high levels of Malaria had low levels of WuFlu and wondered if the anti Malaria drug that everyone took prevented WuFlu.

Reply to  Oldseadog
May 24, 2021 10:26 am

Very first it was used in China, may be based on
Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread
from 2005

Last edited 5 months ago by Krishna Gans
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
May 25, 2021 7:31 am

Fauci supposedly used HCQ on people infected with SARS-Cov-1, back in 2003, and Fauci wrote a paper on it. SARS-Cov-1 was a very lethal virus at a 10 percent mortality rate, but fortunately it was not very infectious and only about 8,000 people contracted it and about 800 of them passed away from it.

If the Wuhan virus were as lethal as SARS-Cov-1, the world would be in big trouble right now.

I’m not sure how Trump first ran across HCQ. Trump was apparently having daily brainstorming sessions with all the doctors, right after this pandemic started, so he probably had as much information as anyone about the situation after a few weeks.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 26, 2021 4:26 am

I’m reading a new book, “Breaking the News” by Alex Marlow, and he reminds us in the book about how reporters from the New York Times, a few months after the pandemic broke out, in April 2020, claimed that Trump had a financial interest in hydroxychloriquine and Trump was promoting the drug for selfish purposes.

The claim turned out to be untrue, as reported by several fact-checking outfits. One estimated Trump had $99 invested in a company that made the drug, and the investment was in among a blind trust mutual fund that Trump had no control over anyway.

The Lying Leftwing Media has lied us into the situation we are in now. Someday they ought to pay the price for the harm they have done. The American public are on to them, though. About 80 percent of Americans think the Leftwing Media is the chief cause of division in the United States.

n.n
Reply to  Krishna Gans
May 24, 2021 10:52 am

The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro

HCQ works in two modes: Zn ionophore and inhibits spike function to gain entry into the cell.

New insights on the antiviral effects of chloroquine against coronavirus: what to expect for COVID-19

The multiple molecular mechanisms by which chloroquine can achieve such results remain to be further explored. … preliminary data indicate that chloroquine interferes with SARS-CoV-2 attempts to acidify the lysosomes and presumably inhibits cathepsins, which require a low pH for optimal cleavage of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein

Zn2+ Inhibits Coronavirus and Arterivirus RNA Polymerase Activity In Vitro and Zinc Ionophores Block the Replication of These Viruses in Cell Culture

related:

Postoperative wound infections and surgical face masks: a controlled study

Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

2hotel9
May 24, 2021 7:19 am

No they will enshrine their lies into the religion they have built to protect Globall Warmining.

ralfellis
May 24, 2021 7:34 am

.
For further information please see the Dr Weinsteins’ Dark Horse podcast on this topic. These biologists have been pointing out that Covid is a gain-of-function virus, for over a year now.

As background info – they were also kicked out of their university for being anti-BLM, so they are born-again liberals without their previous Wokeness. They ended up with armed gangs trying to hunt them down on campus. You tend to know your tenure has expired at that point….

https://youtu.be/vxTODvTNHlw

R
.

commieBob
Reply to  ralfellis
May 24, 2021 8:11 am

Bret and Heather have consistently been way ahead of the curve with accurate information that others pick up much later.

Graemethecat
Reply to  ralfellis
May 24, 2021 10:00 am

There is a lot of extremely cogent and interesting information about the origins of Covid-19 and the WIV in this video:

Matthew Schilling
May 24, 2021 7:41 am

Charge the Chinese Communists for the destruction they have caused through sloppy arrogance. How much? I suggest the value of all our T-Bills that they own, plus $1.

Drake
Reply to  Matthew Schilling
May 24, 2021 10:08 am

Plus the cost of all factories relocated to China, plus the value of all stolen intellectual property.

Coach Springer
May 24, 2021 7:58 am

media enforcement of public opinion.”

Yeah, and it shut down scientific debate (“inquiry”). How’s come, scientists?. Stop playing to mob.

Earthling2
May 24, 2021 8:00 am

Mark Levine interviewed Nicholas Wade yesterday on his Fox TV show for an entire hour on his 10,000 word essay on said subject. There is still remnants left of true investigative journalism, but in very short supply. You can watch the one hour interview from the Life, Liberty, Levine broadcast at the link below. Very informative and hopefully this turns the narrative around about what probably happened between USA funding, and the Wuhan screw-up. Or was it deliberately sabotaged by the CCP military biowarfare unit that weaponized this GOF virus after the scientists were done messing around with the spike protein. As Peter Daszak was saying on the record just a few weeks before this all blew up, ‘manipulating coronaviruses is very easy to do’.

https://www.foxnews.com/shows/life-liberty-levin

Richard Page
Reply to  Earthling2
May 24, 2021 8:26 am

I do wish people wouldn’t just throw terms such as ‘military biowarfare’ and ‘weaponised’ as if they are actually relevant. A lot of countries have military research units tasked with various undetermined uses of viruses and antivirals and ALL appear to be in military facilities, under military control and with onsite military security. In addition they are exclusively funded by that nations government or military with absolutely no intervention by foreign nationals – in fact that very thing is often strongly discouraged by force!
To immediately jump to a conclusion such as it being a military bioweapon aimed at another country, without a shred of evidence to support it and with evidence appearing to show it was some sort of commercial or civilian research project, is senseless.

Have you ever considered the possibility that they may (as a tentative hypothesis) have been studying various strains of coronavirus to try to develop cures to MERS, SARS and other coronavirus strains for commercial profit? It makes much more sense than your theory.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Richard Page
May 24, 2021 9:06 am

Gain of function testing that escaped.
Simple, logical, and vehemently denied as even possible and racist to even suggest.

This has unfolded exactly the same way as the climate scientologists scam has done so, fake consensus and attack anyone who deviates

Richard Page
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
May 24, 2021 9:33 am

I agree with you. I would go so far as to harshly criticise anyone caught attempting to cover up the outbreak origin and vectors as we need every scrap of information that we can get our hands on in order to combat it.

However, I stand by my criticism of anyone jumping to unwarranted and unjustified conclusions with no evidence whatsoever.

Mr. Lee
Reply to  Richard Page
May 24, 2021 10:45 am

Get real.

Earthling2
Reply to  Richard Page
May 24, 2021 1:18 pm

A certain Chinese virologist Dr. Li-Meng Yan that had a front row seat to what was going in Wuhan and China begs to differ. No matter how the virus ‘evolved’ and was let loose on the world, one thing is 100% certain and that is that the CCP Gov’t deliberately lied about everything from the very beginning, (and WHO ran cover for them) while shutting down travel to Wuhan domestically within China, but allowing air travel directly out of Wuhan to infect the rest the rest of the world. If that isn’t the definition of ‘weaponized’ then what is?

Last edited 5 months ago by Earthling2
Richard Page
Reply to  Earthling2
May 24, 2021 1:38 pm

Hanlon’s razor – “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”

RobR
Reply to  Richard Page
May 24, 2021 8:10 pm

The two needn’t be mutually exclusive in the present case. Working on weaponizing coronavirus’ does not preclude an accidental, or premature release.

Richard Page
Reply to  Earthling2
May 24, 2021 1:55 pm

We both broadly agree on the basic facts – this virus came out of the Wuhan lab and was then spread via air travel all over the world.
The only point where we disagree is on intent; you think it was intentionally spread as a bioweapon and I think it was a perfect storm of cockups, bad timing and mismanagement. Let’s just leave it at that and wait for more information to emerge.

Earthling2
Reply to  Richard Page
May 24, 2021 9:17 pm

Fair enough, but hopefully we get honest information out of China, and the NIAID/CDC et al. We know that China had intense motive, to lash out at the sanctions and to upset the applecart re: the election and getting Trump out of office. And we also know that the CCP is a massive criminal organization, with a cold blooded psychopath leader as dictator for life.

I would say Occam’s Razor applies more than Hanlon’s Razor, in that the consensus view by certain interests makes it unlikely that it is just stupidity, but with the way everything unfolded, especially China lying and concealing things, including disappearing their own doctors and scientists just says what is obvious. I can see why people don’t want to believe this, as the ramifications are so monumental as to be a declaration of world war. But I agree, before ‘declaring’ war, we better be 100% sure of these allegations.

John Tillman
Reply to  Richard Page
May 24, 2021 4:13 pm

Chinese labs are dual use, like the company that made the probably ineffective vaccine I got in Chile. Not just medical research, but many industries are owned by the regime or do extensive business with the military.:

https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4137284

Biowarfare history of China’s Sinopharm vaccine maker raises questionsAnalysts suspect Sinopharm lab’s biowarfare pedigree points to dual-use research

RobR
Reply to  Richard Page
May 24, 2021 8:05 pm

And, why are two top Generals in charge of the lab?

Neo
May 24, 2021 8:08 am

Over at Twitter, that online site run by that homeless guy @Jack, they have been censoring everything that implicates the Chinese in anyway. @Jack and his minions have been busy enforcing the stupid memes.

Last edited 5 months ago by Neo
gringojay
Reply to  Neo
May 24, 2021 9:20 am

My body, my herd.

CDEC7EC5-BAC0-4681-B55C-DFD6C62C3593.png
TEWS_Pilot
May 24, 2021 8:31 am

The Coming Climate Lockdown
https://youtu.be/GD_cdkKDYWc

dodgy geezer
May 24, 2021 8:34 am

We will find the the way things work is:

1 – there is a consensus so we are right.
2 – if the consensus is disproven, this proves that science works, so we are right….

May 24, 2021 8:56 am

The church is specialized in answering questions about the unknown.
Consensus is religion, it is about defining “truth” where no proof is possible.
The consequence of consensus is that heretics have to be silenced.

Reply to  David Dirkse
May 24, 2021 1:24 pm

Mixed Blessing, silencing Jorge Mario Bergoglio heretic pope Francis. Heresy is truth versus facts. SEDEVACANTISM now comes to the Oval Office of America.

ThFe
May 24, 2021 8:59 am
Beta Blocker
May 24, 2021 9:03 am

Donald Rapp, in resigning from his long time participation on Judith Curry’s blog, included this comment among his several reasons for why he was leaving: “Do I think Mr. Trump was the worst American president, ever? Yes. Check me off.”

This was my response in reply:

———————–
The history of the COVID-19 pandemic is now being rewritten to eliminate Donald Trump’s central role in speeding up delivery of the SARS vaccines through his efforts at speeding up the government’s regulatory review process.

The true story of what actually happened is being progressively replaced with the narrative that Donald Trump did little or nothing to fight the pandemic; that he played little or no role in speeding up delivery of the vaccines; and that real progress in fighting the pandemic was made only after Joe Biden was inaugurated as president.

Mr. Rapp, I’m curious. Do you agree or disagree with the almost universal opinion now held among those who voted for Joe Biden that his ascension to the White House was the true turning point in our battle with COVID-19?
—————————-

Reply to  Beta Blocker
May 24, 2021 9:26 am

Biden was only able to speed up because Trump orderd as early as possible. the vaccines.
Without these orders, Biden would have empty hands

hiskorr
Reply to  Krishna Gans
May 24, 2021 10:21 am

Biden was among those vaccinated before 01/20/21/ QED!

David A
Reply to  Krishna Gans
May 24, 2021 11:54 am

Which, in retrospect, may have been President Trump’s greatest error. Although honestly come by with the advice he likely had.

Richard Page
Reply to  Beta Blocker
May 24, 2021 9:41 am

As the contrast between the UK and the EU’s different approaches to vaccine development demonstrates, the real fight was long before the vaccines were ready to deploy. Mistakes were made by every single country to a greater or lesser degree but it is clear that Joe Biden has contributed absolutely nothing to the fight against covid.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Beta Blocker
May 24, 2021 10:31 am

Judging a person’s policies/theories by his personality is a very dangerous row to hoe, especially for a scientists or engineer. In reading Mr. Rapp’s ‘several reasons’ for leaving Judith’s blog it appears he might have fallen into that trap. And, if so it makes any work he has generated (i.e., designs, theories, etc.) suspect because it suggest that it may not have been based on all of the available information on the subject.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joe Crawford
May 25, 2021 7:48 am

Rapp is obviously delusional. Trump was one of the best presidents the United States ever had. A conservative’s dream.

He’ll be back. 🙂

Trump’s detractors for the main part, seem to focus on Trump’s personality rather than his policies.

I happen to like Trump’s personality. I like it when he sticks it to the lying Leftwing Media and the lying Leftwing politicians. I can’t get enough of it! I’m tired of meek, compliant Republicans whose only concern is what the Leftwing Media is going to say about them!

Trump is the most investigated human being in history and he has come out on the other end clean as the driven snow, despite the best efforts of the Left and the weaponized government they use against him. The Left isn’t done trying to destroy Trump, but I have a feeling they are not going to do any better at it in the future.

We have an uncorrupted, clear-seeing man in Trump. What more could you ask of a president? If he attacks those who attack him, so what? What do you expect him to do? Hang his head and slink off at any criticism?

Trump is going to be getting out and about beginning next month, flying around in his newly refurbished TRUMP 757 jet. Let’s see what the future brings.

Last edited 4 months ago by Tom Abbott
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 25, 2021 8:00 am

Now I say Rapp is delusion based on Rapp being a conservative.

But I don’t know his political affiliation, and if he is a Lefty then it makes perfect sense that he would think Trump is the worst president ever since Trump was systematicallly dismantling the socialist system set up in the United States, so I can understand his condemnation of Trump. You are not going to like someone who is bursting your delusional bubble.

But I praise Trump for that very reason. Someone needs to dismantle the socialist agenda in the United States before it destroys us all.

For conservatives, Trump is one of the best presidents, and for Democrat socialists, he is the worst.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 25, 2021 4:50 pm

They are still not done with the witch hu investigations, the insane Democrat DA in New York has pulled a grand jury together.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
May 26, 2021 4:35 am

I doubt that they can find anything criminal about how Trump has run his business. If he had done something illegal, you can bet it would have come out into the public by now considering how hard the Democrats are trying to pin anything and everything on him.

But, the Democrats are pretty good at setting people up for a fall, so we’ll just have to see how unscrupulous they intend to be. My guess is they will push it to the limit of the law, if not beyond. They want Trump bad! They are scared to death that he will get back in power and resume destroying their socialist/authoritarian agenda. So, they are pulling out all the stops to get Trump.

But Trump has about 75 million supporters who are paying attention.

TonyG
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 26, 2021 6:37 am

“The process is the punishment” – usually they apply pressure until the subject rolls, but that’s very unlikely with Trump.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Beta Blocker
May 24, 2021 11:04 am

Here is part of a letter that I have been sending to media, politicians and medical people:
Donna Laframboise is about the only journalist in Canada who has written about HCQ. She quotes an essay which describes the situation:
https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2020/08/24/hydroxychloroquine-the-judgment-of-history/
Hydroxychloroquine & the Judgment of History
How a safe, well-understood malaria drug was demonized as a COVID-19 treatment. Because a politician said good things about it.
Norman Doidge persuasively argues that history will judge many people in Hydroxychloroquine: A Morality Tale,

After President Trump QUOTED a doctor who had success with a combo of Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, and Zinc, he was denigrated by Fauci, Democrats, and the corrupt CNN. He has now been shown to be correct. Meanwhile, here in Canada everyone is in DENIAL about treatments that work and can save lives. Because of the MSM many have died in the USA and around the world. There are now over 200 studies showing the efficacy of HCQ, Vitamin D, Zinc, and Ivermectin:
 https://c19study.com/
Oh, did you notice something? IVERMECTIN, the new kid on the block. Yes, the Japanese wonder drug which can be used in prevention and treatment.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
May 25, 2021 8:16 am

The last thing I saw recently was that the National Institutes of Health authorized the use of Ivermectin on the Wuhan virus.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Beta Blocker
May 25, 2021 9:10 am

In another post on Judith Curry’s blog this morning, I use Donald Rapp’s reasons for abandoning Climate Etc. as the starting point for my comment. I ask him the question, why is it that climate activists aren’t holding Joe Biden to account for not doing all that the law authorizes him to do in quickly reducing America’s carbon emissions?

————————-

Concerning the reasons Donald Rapp gives for abandoning Climate Etc., let’s explore one facet of his ringing denunciation of Judith Curry’s blog in somewhat greater detail; i.e., those points of his comment which concern the Trump presidency.

In contrast with Trump’s America First foreign policy, a key element of Joe Biden’s foreign policy is that the United States must present itself as the role model to be followed in pursuing environmental stewardship. As Biden’s argument goes, China, India and the other developing nations will not agree to reduce their carbon emissions unless America demonstrates its firm resolve to show the way.

Foreign governments know full well that if Biden’s climate action plan doesn’t hold water; and that if he can’t deliver on his announced goal of a 50% reduction in American’s carbon emissions by 2030, they are off the hook for reducing their own emissions. So we must ask this question:

Why don’t climate activists hold Joe Biden to account for not doing everything in his power as president to quickly reduce America’s carbon emissions?

Using the Clean Air Act to its fullest possible effectiveness in quickly reducing America’s GHG emissions has been a topic of discussion in the environmental law community for more than a decade. One of the reasons offered by those who promote aggressive use of the Clean Air Act is that America’s leadership is crucial for bringing the developing nations on board in limiting their future carbon emissions.

If Biden were to go a step further beyond the Clean Air Act and combine the authorities already granted to the president in the CAA with those authorities already granted in national security law — then the Executive Branch could, by formally declaring a carbon pollution emergency, unilaterally dictate that America must reduce its GHG emissions 50% by 2030.

The details of how this might be done are described in a comment I posted on May 3rd, 2021, on WUWT describing the Supply Side Carbon Emission Control Plan (SSCECP).

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/03/climate-is-everything/#comment-3238630

It is impossible to build enough wind, solar, and nuclear by 2030 to reach Biden’s 50% goal. That goal can be fully achieved only by imposing strictly enforced energy conservation measures on the American economy.

The SSCECP is a highly effective but also highly coercive means of reaching 50% by 2030. The plan imposes an artificial shortage of carbon fuels on the American people while also increasing the price of all forms of energy for all of America’s energy consumers, thus encouraging energy conservation as the primary means of achieving Biden’s 2030 GHG reduction target.

So far, Joe Biden has shown no sign that he will use the full authority of the Chief Executive to reach his announced 2030 target. One can draw one’s own conclusions if President Biden never uses the full authority of his office in pushing GHG reductions as far and as fast as current law authorizes him to do.

Which brings us back to Donald Rapp’s reasons for denouncing this blog. 

Will you, Mr. Donald Rapp — someone who was, and is, a vocal opponent of Trump’s America First foreign policy — are you yourself willing to call Joe Biden to account for not doing everything in his power as president to quickly reduce America’s carbon emissions, with the ultimate effect of handing China and India and all the other developing nations a convenient excuse for not reducing their GHG emissions as well?

————————-

Jeff Corbin
May 24, 2021 9:22 am

I have been following the Coronavirus research as a layman working in the health care industry since I learned about Crispr Cas 9 technology in 2016 . As this research progressed after WHO’s bogus H1N1 pandemic in 2009, (see Forbes articles), there was a growing consensus ringing at a low level in the media that the next great pandemic was inevitable. In 2016, the movie “Pandemic” came out…the same year I learned about Crispr Cas 9 and the SAR Coronavirus research and it’s chimeras. Once Crispr Cas 9 took hold and SARS Coronavirus chimeras and parts thereof captured the imagination of the virology world, the vaccine wheels started the churn to address the ‘inevitable SARS pandemic’. It is no surprise or miracle that a COVID -19 vaccines were made available so quickly…it is a thing and it is a good thing just like Flu Vaccinations are a good thing. Today, Fox news is cycling a story about Wuhan Virologists sickened in November 2019…. interesting especially since Italian Virologists have pretty good proof COVID 19 was killing people in Italy in early October 2019. Given the amount of research and the number of SAR’s chimeras out there, the virus could have come from anywhere. This is especially true since Crispr Cas 9 can be done in any reasonable lab anywhere. The next question, would we have noticed that there was a pandemic if someone hadn’t told us? In the fall of 2019, I noticed a big up tic of viral pneumonia admits and a few a diagnosis of Coronavirus. So when the first stories of the Wuhan virus came out, I wondered if what I was seeing wasn’t in fact the same virus. So this begs the question…. would the American public even noticed there was a pandemic if the WHO hadn’t hit the PANDEMIC button? According to CDC data in 2017 approximately 500,000 American’s died directly from respiratory viruses of all kinds and/or from chronic lung conditions exacerbated by viruses of many kinds. If we compared these apples to the COVID apples, do we have surplus deaths? The hackles of censorship are coming off but remember everything is leveraged to spin narratives. The narrative now is ‘ we were innocent victims but we now have finally fixed the problem’. ‘It’s time to put it all behind us’….’get on the band wagon get your vaccine before you make yourself a victim’. Finally, any truth that is exhumed from the ash pit of the pandemic will disappear in the vapor of “who cares” .as we get on with our lives…..Maybe been had, definitely had been and now is not. LOL

TRM
May 24, 2021 9:43 am

And don’t forget Canada’s role in this debacle! Shipping this stuff to Wuhan OUTSIDE THE PROPER CHANNELS.
That whole facility in Manitoba is a joke. No background checks for the people they hire from China? WTF?
So many questions and so little sodium pentothal …

Martin
May 24, 2021 9:45 am

I live in Birmingham UK where the last outbreak of Smallpox occurred in 1978, via a lab escape, so it was my first thought that Covid was due to something similar. My late father was a biologist at Birmingham University, and knew some of those working with smallpox at the medical school laboratories. The official version of events – that the virus escaped through the ventilation system – has one very major flaw – that is the smallpox virus held in Birmingham had been radioactively tagged for easier traceability, but there was no sign of the radioactive tagging in the ventilation system. So, despite strict protocols being in place somehow the virus managed to escape from the labs into the offices above, causing the deaths of a young photographer, Janet Parker and her father, and the suicide of the departmental head, Professor Henry Bedson who took personal responsibility for the escape. Fortunately the young lady’s illness was identified before the infection spread beyond her own family – which is probably why the story isn’t more widely known.

TonyG
May 24, 2021 9:46 am

This constant clamoring about “consensus” is destroying science.

William Naigle
May 24, 2021 9:46 am

Thank you, Judith, your intellect is a national treasure!

Another national treasure is Eisenhower’s farewell address and the profound wisdom he demonstrated in his advice for the future. I encourage everyone to read his short address who has not already done so.

Just substitute ‘scientists’ for ‘scholars’ and ‘global/corporate’ for Federal to update to the 21st century environment.

Transcript of President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Farewell Address (1961)

Everyone knows this quote:

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist”.

Who is familiar with this warning?:

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite”.

Robert of Texas
May 24, 2021 10:02 am

As long as elites can make and keep profits by lying or covering up information, they will continue to do so.

It is sad that so many so-called “scientists” have been corrupted by money – but when you look at the colleges that produce these people it becomes more clear – integrity is a concept of the obsolete past.

As for the origins of Covid-19? We may never know…but there are sure a lot of coincidences to explain away and THAT makes me suspicious (not a believer, just not ready to dismiss)

Robert of Texas
Reply to  Robert of Texas
May 24, 2021 6:22 pm

Once AGAIN, this site revealed the cover-up before any mainstream media had a clue…(Other than FOX News maybe). I wish these liberals with their heads stuck permanently in the sand would wake up to reality…we don’t KNOW the virus came from a lab be we DO KNOW there was a massive attempt to prevent any investigation of the possibility. Thank you CNN, MSNBC, and CBS for helping to try and cover this up – it makes you look like the idiots you really are.

markl
May 24, 2021 10:02 am

Science and politics. What a disastrous combination.

Reply to  markl
May 24, 2021 1:30 pm

Learn what is, and what is not, science. If it ain’t falsifiable then it ain’t science. Falsifiability is the demarcation boundary between science and nonsense politics.

First Karl Popper wrote The Logic of Scientific Discovery, then he wrote The Open Society and Its Enemies putting the lie to Marxism.

MarkW
May 24, 2021 10:09 am

Once Trump speculated on the possibility of the virus not being natural in origin, it became accepted wisdom in the scientific community that any comments in that direction would benefit Trump, and that could not be tolerated, under any circumstances.