The Latest Wuhan Screed Shredded by Peter Daszak

Peter Daszak, the man who came to a lucrative contract with the NIH to study bat COVID in Wuhan four months before the Obama administration banned research to get a function on U.S. land, also wrote another launched The Lancet in an obvious attempt to put a ‘science’ bow on natural origin theory, while once again dismissing the possibility of a lab-leak.

Recall that Daszak was behind a now famous February 2020 Lancet letter signed by 27 authors-many of whom have remotely distanced themselves or withdrawn-claiming that COVID-19 can only thrive in the environment, and the lab-leak hypothesis is nearly impossible. Daszak has since ‘left’ himself from LancetThe COVID-19 commission was due to its numerous disturbances of interest, but was still provided with a platform to reiterate its defense.

“We believe that the strongest indication comes from the new, credible, and verified evidence in the scientific literature that the virus changes behavior, while suggestions of a laboratory spread source remain without scientifically substantiated evidence. which directly supports it as examined by scientific journals, ”Daszak wrote.

He also admitted that his own compensation was “only paid in the form of salary from the EcoHealth Alliance,” his nonprofit who received a contract with the NIH (among ten million received from the US Government), and that he, by EcoHealth, never received funding from the People’s Republic of China – lie you can read about below.

In addition, Daszak casually revealed that his work on coronavirus bats “included the identification of viral sequences in bat samples, and resulted in the isolation of three bat coronaviruses associated with SARS which are now used as reagents to test therapeutics and vaccines. It also comes with it to make a little recombinant bat coronavirus to detect cell penetration and other characteristics of the bat coronavirus where only genetic sequences are applicable. ”

Nothing can be seen here – just a regular human geneticist engineering some coronavirus bats to check how they get into the cells – which Daszak said has been examined and determined by the NIH without giving committee oversight. of Potential Pandemic Pathogen Care and Oversight (P3CO) – that is, as Daily Calling found in April, protected from review.

Daszak’s letter was completely destroyed yesterday on CEO Alexandros Marinos in a must read Twitter thread:

(Going on, emphasizing us)

Second, the purpose of the letter is not to “express solidarity with our professional partners in China”. The push for the letter was the following statement: “We are working together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories that suggest that COVID-19 has no natural origin.”

As such, it is confusing that if they mentioned the original letter, the only thing they also confirmed was solidarity without being asked about: “The answer is clear: we have confirmed our show of solidarity with those in China who have faced the outbreak”

Improves though: “The second purpose of our original Writing was to express our working view that SARS-CoV-2 is likely to originate in nature and not in a laboratory”. It’s worth wondering why an expression of solidarity should be paired with a “work perspective”.

In that paragraph, they criticize themselves for prioritizing the scientific method: “Opinions, however, are not data or conclusions. Evidence obtained using the scientific method must be communicated to our understanding and be the basis of interpretation. of available information “

“We believe that the strongest indication from recent, credible, and reviewed evidence in the scientific literature is that the virus evolved in nature.” This is only recently admitted, but it is clear that this whole letter cannot be a way of making a literature review..

If it had been, leaving out much of the “new, credible, and reviewed evidence in the skin scientific literature” this paper would have been written in the said peer review. In addition, conflicting statements from the first signatory, as well as another, have deepened public confusion.

Charles Calisher, who first signed this letter, told ABC that “there’s too much coincidence” and “it’s more likely it’s from a lab”. Who is it

Stanley Perlman told the Washington Post that “On both sides, information is really lacking. That’s why we have a lot of discussions and, in some cases, mutual conversations. There’s really no data. It’s just opinions.” Who is it

“Allegations and assumptions don’t help, because they don’t facilitate access to information and objective analysis of the pathway from a bat virus to a human pathogen that could help prevent a future pandemic.” – This is clear self-criticism for publishing a “view of action”

In any case, other than highlighting for the whole world how a small cab of conflicting experts pretending to have reached scientific approval in 25 days, it’s unclear what they’re aiming for. in this statement, unless the waters are further crushed. It’s too late.

Published from with permission

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *