pa se ne govori več samo o naravnem izvoru

Ko se je dr. Alina Chan lani prvič oglasila, da bi bilo poleg naravnega treba upoštevati tudi možnost umetnega nastanka nadloge, ki nas pesti že dve leti, je doživljala grožnje, pritiske, blatenja.

Danes?

EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak, furin site cleavage, gain of function research … Ta imena in izrazi so se še pred par meseci bolj šepetala kot ne. Zdaj jih obravnava angleški parlament.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10313053/Covid-19-UK-Wuhan-lab-leak-likely-origin-Covid-MPs-told.html

Zaupati znanosti? Ki objavi članek, ne da bi razkrila navzkrižje interesov? In takih odločitev je v znanosti še veliko. Za ugled, ego, finance … you name it.

“Lord Ridley slammed the Lancet for a ‘lack of transparency’, with Dr Daszak’s links to the lab and role in orchestrating the letter only being revealed after it was leaked.

In the grilling with MPs, Dr Horton insisted he did not know about the scientist’s connections to the lab’s so-called ‘bat woman’ Shi Zhengli – who did experimental research on coronaviruses coming from thousands of samples from the animal – until after the letter was published.

But he admitted that his opinion on the theory has now changed, calling it a ‘valid hypothesis that requires investigation’.

Dr Horton said the Lancet usually takes authors’ declarations of interest at face value.

He said: ‘In this case regrettably the authors claimed they had no interest but there were indeed competing interests that were significant, particularly in relation to Peter Daszak.

‘We weren’t aware of those competing interests but we became very quickly aware of them afterwards because he was subject to considerable public criticism.’

Dr Horton said he and Dr Daszak disagreed on whether there was a conflict of interest, with the latter claiming his links to the lab made him an expert on the topic.

Quizzed on why it took so long to reveal the nature of Dr Daszak’s connections, he insisted this disagreement was behind the delays.

And he claimed the journal does not have enough staff or time to investigate the background of all the authors who are published in it.

He said: ‘In this case, I think Dr Daszak should have declared his interest at the beginning.’

The editor admitted the information revealed in June should have been included in the original February letter.

Tory MP Aaron Bell slammed Dr Horton for taking so long to reveal Dr Daszak’s links to the lab.

He said: ‘When you appeared before us before Dr Horton, you expressed the need for things to move quickly in the pandemic.

‘This seems to have taken far too long.

‘I hope Dr Daszak will be able to come and give evidence to this committee in future so he can explain for himself why he delayed your enquiry into his conflict of interest for so long.’

Dr Horton added that the World Health Organization’s investigation into the lab – which in March this year concluded that the leak theory was one of four valid hypotheses for Covid’s origins – had changed his mind that it was impossible for the virus to have come from anything other than natural origin.

But he said he agreed with the organisation’s assertion that it was an unlikely hypothesis – despite acknowledging that the investigation was hampered by Chinese authorities.

Asked to provide a percentage figure on his confidence in the theory, he said: ‘I agree with the World Health Organization that it’s a valid hypothesis that requires investigation but is extremely unlikely.’

Lord Ridley slammed Dr Daszak for not revealing his direct role in funding controversial gain-of-function research – which manipulates viruses to make them more transmissible and deadly and is illegal in Europe – at the lab until the information was leaked.

And he said it was ‘extraordinary’ that Dr Daszak’s role in orchestrating the Lancet letter was also not revealed until it was revealed by leaked emails.

He said: ‘[Daszak] said to his co-authors that it should not appear to be coming from him or his organisation and he remained on the Lancet commission investigating the origin of Covid for many months thereafter.

‘So there has been a significant lack of transparency, not just from the Chinese authorities, but from Western ones as well on this and that does seem to me a huge problem.’

Earlier this year, an investigation by The Sunday Times revealed efforts by Beijing to control the WHO’s decision making, sabotage investigations and even install officials.”

In “ugledna znanstvena revija”, ta isti Lancet, katerega urednik se zdaj vleče ven glede teorije o izvoru, je objavila fake študijo, da hidroksiklorokin, ki so ga prej predpisovali, ne pomaga. Izvedla jo je družba Surgisphere, še eno v vrsti imen, ki si jih velja zapomniti.

https://www.the-scientist.com/features/the-surgisphere-scandal-what-went-wrong–67955

“It sounds absurd that an obscure US company with a hastily constructed website could have driven international health policy and brought major clinical trials to a halt within the span of a few weeks. Yet that’s what happened earlier this year, when Illinois-based Surgisphere Corporation began a publishing spree that would trigger one of the largest scientific scandals of the COVID-19 pandemic to date.

At the heart of the deception was a paper published in The Lancet on May 22 that suggested hydroxychloroquine, an antimalarial drug promoted by US President Donald Trump and others as a therapy for COVID-19, was associated with an increased risk of death in patients hospitalized with the disease. The study wasn’t a randomized controlled trial—the gold standard for determining a drug’s safety and efficacy—but it did purportedly draw from an enormous registry of observational data that Surgisphere claimed to have collected from the electronic medical records of nearly 100,000 COVID-19 patients across 671 hospitals on six continents.

The study was a medical and political bombshell. News outlets analyzed the implications for what they referred to as the “drug touted by Trump.” Within days, public health bodies including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) instructed organizers of clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment or prophylaxis to suspend recruitment, while the French government reversed an earlier decree allowing the drug to be prescribed to patients hospitalized with the virus.”

Študija, ki so jo morali umakniti. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext#%20

Znanost. Zaupajte.

Še ena dobra analiza. Glede izvora, Shi Zengli (vuhanski inštitut) in Daszaka.

https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/why-does-the-wuhan-institute-of-virologys

“One scientist who has dissected the narrative promoted by science publishers is Colin Butler, a physician, epidemiologist and Honorary Professor of public health at the Australian National University. In an editorial titled, “Plagues, Pandemics, Health Security, and the War on Nature,” Butler highlighted a series of errors and contradictory statements published by Nature, Science, and Scientific American.”

Zapomniti si je dobro to besedno zvezo: “Narrative, promoted by science.”

Svinje kitajske so nam zasvinjale planet, vpršanje je samo namerno ali nenamerno, namerno je še najbolj verjetno, računali so namreč da se bo svetovno gospodarstvo povsem ustavilo, delovala naj bi samo njihova sanitetna industrija , to pa bi lahko pomenilo tisti preskok naprej katerega si kitajci tako želijo.

Napačno sklepanje. So kar Američanci sodelovali.

https://theintercept.com/2021/11/03/coronavirus-research-ecohealth-nih-emails/