Printable View
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/arti...pe-theory.html
coronavirus origin from bioweapons lab has gone from 'conspiracy' to mainstream with no fanfare...
like so much else which will eventually come to be seen and accepted.
open minds - and hearts - are crucial.
From the article,
The Lab-Leak Hypothesis
For decades, scientists have been hot-wiring viruses in hopes
of preventing a pandemic, not causing one. But what if …?
By Nicholson Baker
investigations
"...The new disease, as soon as it appeared, was intercepted — stolen and politicized by people with ulterior motives. The basic and extremely interesting scientific question of what happened was sucked up into an ideological sharknado.
Some Americans boycotted Chinese restaurants; others bullied and harassed Asian Americans. Steve Bannon, broadcasting from his living room, in a YouTube series called War Room, said that the Chinese Communist Party had made a biological weapon and intentionally released it. He called it the “CCP virus.” And his billionaire friend and backer, Miles Guo, a devoted Trump supporter, told a right-wing website that the communists’ goal was to “use the virus to infect selective people in Hong Kong, so that the Chinese Communist Party could use it as an excuse to impose martial law there and ultimately crush the Hong Kong pro-democracy movement. But it backfired terribly.”
In The Lancet, in February, a powerful counterstatement appeared, signed by 27 scientists. “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin,” the statement said. “Scientists from multiple countries have published and analyzed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife, as have so many other emerging pathogens.”
The behind-the-scenes organizer of this Lancet statement, Peter Daszak, is a zoologist and bat-virus sample collector and the head of a New York nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance — a group that (as veteran science journalist Fred Guterl explained later in Newsweek) has channeled money from the National Institutes of Health to Shi Zhengli’s laboratory in Wuhan, allowing the lab to carry on recombinant research into diseases of bats and humans. “We have a choice whether to stand up and support colleagues who are being attacked and threatened daily by conspiracy theorists or to just turn a blind eye,” Daszak said in February in Science magazine...."
the distinction is the assertion of fact.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Jude Iam:
It was reported from the beginning that one possible origin story was 'escape' from a bioweapons lab. Its level of credibility was discussed; it was not dismissed by any reputable source that I saw, but it was considered far less likely than other theories. True, the idea that it was a cunning plot, having been deliberately released as a bio-terror attack, was mentioned but immediately dismissed as extremely unlikely.
If any one is serious about getting to the bottom of the "Corona-virus Crisis" I would encourage you to A. Open up a file and label it "Corona-virus Controversy". B. Print these articles up. & C. Study them. Here we have a situation where we may practice Mae Brussell’s technique of reading everything & working out contradictions. -And this is by no means 'everything'. It is information from only four sources. But each source contains a piece of the puzzle.
From the Beginning of the Corona-virus Crisis, there was a very Binary dialectical
Choice. To wit: whether to believe Dr. Peter Daszak -OR- Professor Francis Boyle.
Transcript of Interview of Dr. Francis Boyle
[the lawyer who drafted the Bio-weapons Treaty of 1989]
Interview of Dr. Peter Daszak by Amy Goodman - April 16, 2020
Zoologist Debunks Trump’s COVID-19 Origin Theory, Calling It “Pure Baloney”
Article by Fred Guterl in Newsweek, April 28, 2020:
Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab with U.S. Dollars for Risky Coronavirus Research
Article by Josh Rogin, in the Washington Post, April 14, 2020
State Department cables warned of safety issues
at Wuhan lab studying bat coronaviruses
For the present, let us simply examine one term that professor Peter Boyle speaks of in his interviews – the phenomena of “gain-of-function” research on corona-viruses that originate in bat caves in China. He has a lot to say about it – none of it very charitable or especially forgiving. He also says categorically that the BSL-4 Laboratory in Wuhan, China is a “Bio-weapons Lab” He does not mince words.
Dr. Peter Daszak, on the other hand, failed to mention to Amy Goodman’s listeners on Democracy Now! that he was doing “gain-of-function” research on Corona-viruses from bat caves in China at the lab in Wuhan. –A big glitch. But the journalist, Fred Guterl, in his article in Newsweek fills in that gap:
"...The NIH research consisted of two parts. The first part began in 2014 and involved surveillance of bat coronaviruses, and had a budget of $3.7 million. The program funded Shi Zheng-Li, a virologist at the Wuhan lab, and other researchers to investigate and catalogue bat coronaviruses in the wild. This part of the project was completed in 2019.
A second phase of the project, beginning that year [2019, ed.] included additional surveillance work but also gain-of-function research for the purpose of understanding how bat coronaviruses could mutate to attack humans. The project was run by EcoHealth Alliance, a non-profit research group, under the direction of President Peter Daszakhttps://www.waccobb.net/forums/images/youtube.pnghttps://www.waccobb.net/forums/images/youtube.pnghttps://www.waccobb.net/forums/images/youtube.png, an expert on disease ecology. NIH canceled the project just this past Friday, April 24th, Politico reported. Daszak did not immediately respond to Newsweek requests for comment..."
-And Josh Rogin, in the article in the Washington Post fleshes out a little more detail about the nature of “gain-of-function research” :
"The research was designed to prevent the next SARS-like pandemic by anticipating how it might emerge. But even in 2015, other scientists questioned whether Shi’s team was taking unnecessary risks. In October 2014, [under Obama, ed.] the U.S. government had imposed a moratorium on funding of any research that makes a virus more deadly or contagious, known as “gain-of-function” experiments."
So what can one make of these contradictions? Obviously, there is a massive cognitive dissonance between the two testimonies -that of Dr. Francis Boyle and that of Dr. Peter Daszak. It is obvious that they cannot both be telling the "whole truth & nothing but the truth". This little pile of data (above) has already indicated that there are holes in the story of Dr. Peter Daszak. It is also evident that Dr. Peter Daszak was employed by Dr. Anthony Fauci to do "gain-of-function research" on bat corona-viruses at the Bio-Weapons Lab in Wuhan, China.
How does one proceed, in order to find out the Reality about any of this ?
- One Begins by Asking Questions -
For instance:
"Who is Dr. Peter Daszak?" *
{besides being all sanpaku}
*** & "What is the 'nature' of his outfit, 'Eco-Health Alliance' ?"
& >important question< :
"Does 'Eco-Health Alliance' have anything to do with William Gates the Third?"
[ >Educated Guess< : Introducing another factor into the equation... ]Here is another pile of data to plumb.
-As I have said, One must
Read Everything-
ecohealth alliance , bill gates
Keep hitting the
"More Results" Bar
@ the foot of the page.
Read.
Four Ko-Ti's in a Nutshell:
1. (If A is B), A is B
2. A cannot be both B and not B
3. A is either B or not B
4. A is neither B nor not B
Peter / podfish wrote:
Quote:
It was reported from the beginning that one possible origin story was 'escape' from a bioweapons lab. Its level of credibility was discussed; it was not dismissed by any reputable source that I saw, but it was considered far less likely than other theories. True, the idea that it was a cunning plot, having been deliberately released as a bio-terror attack, was mentioned but immediately dismissed as extremely unlikely.
Here we have a perfect example of a body behaving in the predictable, clone-like Chompskyite manner. To such persons, it is the height of political sophistication to pontificate about "reputable sources" - for to you, Dr. Joseph Mercola and his "acolyte" {your dismissive word, podfish} Professor Francis Boyle - the law professor who drafted the Bio-Weapons Act of 1989 - are not "reputable".
I notice, Peter, that you have a tendency to dismiss things that have an independent existence outside of your own little reality-box as "extremely unlikely". In point of fact your words are a perfect parrot-like example of vintage Chompskyite "monkey see / monkey do" behavior. Comme ça:
And, as I wrote here, Peter :
"This is perhaps one reason why you "may not already accept the ideas [I'm] pushing" podfish. You are not willing to Question the Sacrosanct position in the Dialectic of so-called "Liberal" Media pundits like Amy Goodman, who hosted the talking head Dr. Peter Daszak https://www.waccobb.net/forums/images/youtube.pngat the very beginning of the Pandemic, and established his Spin on the Origin of the Virus."
You, Peter / podfish have adopted the verbal mannerisms and dismissive insolence of your idol, Our Man in Cambridge, Noam Chomsky. Yet you have learned nothing - and you are still allergic to opening links.
though I'm aware of who he is, I can't claim any familiarity with his work. If I've ever read him, it was a long time ago. But maybe great minds and all that... :wink:Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Mayacaman:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
OK, Peter. I believe you. But clink on the link {of the youtube number} @ 2:30 you will hear Noam Chomsky speak - in the same dismissive manner that you have learned to cultivate - the very same words: "extremely unlikely."
I can only marvel at the subtle, transcendent, & pervasive influence of that chap, old Noam. -Even on a fellow who says he ain't no 'acolyte' of the man.
well, we're both English speakers, with a western cultural background, probably not ridiculously different demographics so the fact we light on similar phraseology isn't a surprise. Well, I bet he's a better writer and wouldn't use "phraseology" like I enjoy doing...Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Mayacaman:
Yes, Peter, you and Our Man in Cambridge both speak English; descend from "western cultural background[s]"; come from similar "demographics" - and you and Noam both like to pontificate about serious issues such as the murder of John Kennedy, the "extreme" un-likeliness of 9/11 being an inside job - and various other subjects that can easily be dismissed as "conspiracy theories."Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
Yet you, Peter, seem adverse to following the rigorous discipline of studying all aspects of the big picture {which involves opening links} and you persist in uttering uninformed and dismissive, broad statements on serious topics.
= Such As =
"Who is Dr. Peter Daszak?"
"What is the 'nature' of his outfit, 'Eco-Health Alliance' ?"*
ecohealth alliance , bill gates
Quote:
Four Ko-Ti's in a Nutshell:
1. (If A is B), A is B
2. A cannot be both B and not B
3. A is either B or not B
4. A is neither B nor not B
ONCE *AGAIN :
If anyone is serious about the "Mystery of the Origin of SARS-CoV-2" I would encourage you to A. Open up a file and label it "Corona-virus Controversy". B. Print the following articles up. & C. Study them.
Here we have a situation where we may practice the advice & research technique of Mae Brussell : Read Everything & Work out the Contradictions. This is by no means 'everything'. It is only information from four sources. But each source contains a piece of the puzzle:
Transcript of Interview of Dr. Francis Boyle
[the lawyer who drafted the Bio-weapons Treaty of 1989]
Interview of Dr. Peter Daszak by Amy Goodman - April 16, 2020
Zoologist Debunks Trump’s COVID-19 Origin Theory, Calling It “Pure Baloney”
Article by Fred Guterl in Newsweek, April 28, 2020:
Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab with U.S. Dollars for Risky Coronavirus Research
Article by Josh Rogin, in the Washington Post, April 14, 2020
State Department cables warned of safety issues
at Wuhan lab studying bat coronaviruses
The doctor who denied COVID-19 was
leaked from a lab had this major bias
By Steven W. Mosher
New York Post
January 16, 2021
https://nypost.com/wp-content/upload...8&h=410&crop=1
Emails reveal that EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak (inset, left) led the charge to deny the
Wuhan lab leak theory, while his company has worked with that same lab on coronavirus research.
Last year, as the China Virus was just beginning to spread across the US, I suggested in these pages that it might have leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. That’s China’s top lab for researching and engineering dangerous pathogens, especially coronaviruses.
No sooner did the story appear than it began to be attacked from all sides.
China issued heated denials, claiming the virus had jumped from bats to humans at the city’s seafood market. The lab a few miles down the road, Beijing officials huffed, had nothing — zip, zilch, nada — to do with it.
I was not surprised that Beijing tried to shuffle off its responsibility for the pandemic onto our little furry flying friends. I mean, the alternative was potentially being held liable for millions of deaths and countless trillions of dollars in damage to the world’s economy.
But I was taken aback when The Lancet, one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals, published a letter signed by “27 prominent public health scientists” that dismissed my lab origin thesis as a “conspiracy theory.”
They reported that scientists from multiple countries “overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife” and “strongly condemn[ed] conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.”
Then Facebook piled on, suppressing my opinion piece for weeks on end last year.
Today, in the aftermath of Big Tech’s takedown of President Trump’s social media accounts, no one would be surprised by such blatant censorship. But at the time I was shocked that the social media “fact-checkers” decided that mine was not a valid opinion.
Later, it was revealed that one of the original “fact-checkers” Facebook had used was herself participating in a joint research project with virologists at the Wuhan lab. Can anyone spell “conflict of interest”?
Now it turns out that she wasn’t the only one with a research connection to the lab.
US Right to Know, an investigative public health nonprofit group, decided to look into the matter further. Through a public records request, they were able to obtain emails that show The Lancet statement was organized by employees of EcoHealth Alliance, which in turn has close ties with the Wuhan lab.
How close? So close that EcoHealth Alliance has received millions of dollars of US taxpayer funding to genetically manipulate coronaviruses with scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
This is the same kind of research that I have long suspected escaped to cause COVID-19.
The drafter of The Lancet statement was none other than the president of EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak. Which means that the very statement that, for many months, shut down open debate on the possible laboratory origin of the China Virus, was actually the product of an organization that was collaborating with the Wuhan lab in the genetic engineering of coronaviruses.
Daszak evidently did not want this connection to become widely known. He stressed in emails that the “statement will not have EcoHealth Alliance logo on it and will not be identifiable as coming from any one organization or person,” so that it will be seen as “simply a letter from leading scientists.” It was in fact signed not only by Daszak, but by four of his EcoHealth colleagues as well. (The entire tranche of emails is archived here: EcoHealth Alliance emails: University of Maryland.)
The Daszak statement closes with the sentence: “We declare no competing interests.”
I find this strange, for I can think of a number of “competing interests” in play here. Chief among these would be a desire to deflect attention away from the close ties between EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan lab, where they were carrying out the kind of “Gain of Function” research on coronaviruses that may well have given rise to COVID-19.
Now that even New York magazine — no bastion of conservative thought — is belatedly exploring the theory that the virus leaked from the lab, are the rest of us now free to at least debate that question? I mean, without being dismissed as conspiracy theorists?
EcoHealth Alliance declined to comment.
Steven W. Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute and the author of “Bully of Asia: Why China’s ‘Dream’ is the New Threat to World Order.”