COMPROMISED: Peter Daszak is removed from UN commission investigating COVID

[ccwu]

Where would we be without the New York Post and Fox News!

We would have fewer fake news without fox or NY Post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DannyTS]

CNN and MSNBC are probably the worst offenders.

Just go to www.foxnews.com and see how many interesting news will never see the light of day on those two channels not because they are not true but because they do not align with the editorial line. Why do you think CNN has not said a word concerning Peter Daszak lately?

 

[x3 skier]

I wonder if anyone doesn’t believe that Daszak was dismissed from the commission because it was reported by a source that they don’t care for because of the ownership, viewpoint or whatever reason. What difference does it make? He either was or wasn’t.

Frankly I have zero interest but this thread has me laughing.

Cheers

 

[DannyTS]

I wonder if anyone doesn’t believe that Daszak was dismissed from the commission because it was reported by a source that they don’t care for because of the ownership, viewpoint or whatever reason. What difference does it make? He either was or wasn’t.

Frankly I have zero interest but this thread has me laughing.

Cheers

WHO inspector has conflict of interest in Wuhan COVID probe: Prominent biologist | Taiwan News | 2021-02-04 12:50:00

Richard Ebright says Peter Daszak has conflict of interest in WHO and Lancet investigations of Wuhan outbreak | 2021-02-04 12:50:00

www.taiwannews.com.tw

 

[DrQ]

I wonder if anyone doesn’t believe that Daszak was dismissed from the commission because it was reported by a source that they don’t care for because of the ownership, viewpoint or whatever reason. What difference does it make? He either was or wasn’t.

If you are going to have an investigation, the investigators should be impartial and not involved with the event under investigation.

Fact: Daszak was:

• Fired
• Recused himself
• Quit
• Abducted by aliens
• ____ (Your answer here)

It doesn't matter who reported the event.

Opinion pieces are like body parts, some have have interest (sometimes prurient), others do not.

 

[Brett]

If you are going to have an investigation, the investigators should be impartial and not involved with the event under investigation.

Fact: Daszak was:

• Fired
• Recused himself
• Quit
• Abducted by aliens
• ____ (Your answer here)

It doesn't matter who reported the event.

Opinion pieces are like body parts, some have have interest (sometimes prurient), others do not.

I'll go with alien abduction

 

[DannyTS]

I am not sure why people who are not interested in certain topics feel obliged to participate in those threads.

 

[MrockStar]

Yup.

 

[bbodb1]

I'll go with alien abduction

Haven't you been already?

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

Interesting that the normal anti media crowd laps up the daily mail.

from wikipedia

The Daily Mail has been noted for its unreliability and widely criticised for its printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research,

Does the Washington Post also fit within that stricture?

My take is that:

• the hypothesis that the virus escaped from a lab instead of a wet market is very credible. That doesn't mean it's true. It means that isn't a cockamamie idea proposed by someone who living in a conspiratorial swamp.
• Believing that the lab origin theory should be investigated is not on the same plane as believing that the 2020 US Presidential election was stoloen
• To say that it doesn't make any difference where the virus originated because it's out there and we need to deal with it as a given is much the same thing as saying that it doesn't make any difference what the cause was for the Chernobyl accident because it happened and we need to deal with it. Investigation of the cause of an accident is pretty important if we want to prevent future occurrences.
• The hysteria that was attached to the initial suggestions that the virus could have escaped from a lab should have been a clue that the hypothesis was threatening to entrenched interests.
• Daszak isn't the only person with conflict in the investigation. While he (and many others) have a direct connection to the Wuhan work, others in the scientific community doing similar work have their livelihoods at risk if the type of work being done in Wuhan is deemed to risky and projects are shut down.
• It's totally natural and expected that the allied scientific community would gather and rally around a member of the fraternity who comes under pressure. I've seen that type of thing happen often in my career. It often comes in the form of a message in the form of "colleague xxx is coming under pressure because of ..... She/he needs your support'. The message of course is simply an emotional pitch, asking us a "tribe" to rally around a member of the tribe.

We scientists fancy that we are objective and dispassionate, when the reality is that ultimately we are people, as subject to passion and prejudice as everyone else. But we are dangerous when we buy into that notion, and then policy makers also buy into that notion and everyone becomes convinced that they can't possibly be wrong.

Seattle scientist digs up deleted coronavirus genetic data, adding fuel to COVID origin debate

A computational biologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center has incited a new skirmish over the origin of the coronavirus, reporting that he has retrieved potentially significant genetic data that had been deleted at the NIH.

www.seattletimes.com

 

[bluehende]

Does the Washington Post also fit within that stricture?

Seattle scientist digs up deleted coronavirus genetic data, adding fuel to COVID origin debate

A computational biologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center has incited a new skirmish over the origin of the coronavirus, reporting that he has retrieved potentially significant genetic data that had been deleted at the NIH.

www.seattletimes.com

I would certainly trust the washington post. You should read the article though.

Bloom, who retrieved the data through Google Cloud, does not claim that it advances one theory or another, but he contends it bolsters evidence that the virus was circulating in Wuhan, China, before a December outbreak of covid-19, the illness caused by the virus, that was linked to a market selling live animals.

also

“These SARS-CoV-2 sequences were submitted for posting in SRA in March 2020 and subsequently requested to be withdrawn by the submitting investigator in June 2020. The requestor indicated the sequence information had been updated, was being submitted to another database, and wanted the data removed from SRA to avoid version control issues,” the NIH said.

The statement said the NIH “can’t speculate on motive beyond a submitter’s stated intentions.”

Bloom’s paper acknowledges that there are benign reasons why researchers might want to delete data from a public database.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

You should read the article though.

What makes you conclude that I didn't read the article?

Bloom’s paper acknowledges that there are benign reasons why researchers might want to delete data from a public database.

Totally correct. But what Bloom's work indicates is that the situation isn't nearly as clearcut as things were potrayed a year ago. And it adds a piece to the picture that the case for COVID origins is not as cut-and-dried as the picture that was given to us a year ago. It further opens up the window to the possibility that there were shenanigans going on, and the public was being played as patsies.

And that the respected scientific consensus that said the lab escape hypothesis was a crackpot theory has some significant problems.

And more importantly, if the scientific consensus could miss that wildly , is it unreasonable to pause to question scientific consensus. And I write that as a member of a scientific community who was part of a consensus on a significant question, that was subsequently blown out of the water. It was a very learning and humbling experience for me, and I get wary when I hear fellow scientists making proclamations and I can tell that they've never really been humbled in their lives. Humbling is very good for both souls and scientists.

In a thread some months back I posted that it is important to recognize the difference between a scientific statement that is based on specific data, and a scientific statement that is based on technical opinion. They are not the same thing, but that distinction is often lost. Much of our response to COVID has been based on scientific opinion, not on science. We scientists have paid a price in credibility for not making clear that distinction.

 

[bluehende]

What makes you (arrogantly) conclude that I didn't read the article?


Totally correct. But what Bloom's indicates is that the situation isn't nearly as clearcut as things were potrayed a year ago.

And that the respected scientific consensus that said the lab escape hypothesis was a crackpot theory has some significant problems.

And more importantly, if the scientific consensus could miss that wildly , is it unreasonable to pause to question scientific consensus. And I write that as a member of a scientific community who was part of a consensus on a significant question, that was subsequently blown out of the water. It was a very learning and humbling experience for me, and I get wary when I hear fellow scientists making proclamations and I can tell that they've never really been humbled in their lives. Humbling is quite for both souls and scientists.

In a thread some months back I posted that it is important to recognize the difference between a scientific statement that is based on specific data, and a scientific statement that is based on technical opinion. They are not the same thing, but that distinction is often lost. Much of our response to COVID has been based on scientific opinion, not on science. We scientists have paid a price in credibility for not making clear that distinction.

And for the 11th time.

It is possible. but unlikely that the virus was a lab release. Why is that so hard to understand that their can be a nuance in a position when things are not known. There is no direct evidence that the lab was working on this virus or that it had a release. There is evidence that it occurred naturally but it is certainly far from definitive. While the release is not a conspiracy theory all the crap around specific scientists that have supposedly been involved are. I highly object to the accusations commonly spouted on right wing news like the NY Post with no evidence whatsoever other than someone has a connection to a lab that specialized in their field. As a scientist 15 yrs ago I collaborated with many Chinese scientists and labs that did biochemical research. Am I responsible for anything that lab does. The reason a lot of this type of research moved to china was a decision made on religious beliefs that limited American Labs. So it moved to China and India

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

Bloom’s paper acknowledges that there are benign reasons why researchers might want to delete data from a public database.

And for the 11th time.

It is possible. but unlikely that the virus was a lab release. Why is that so hard to understand that their can be a nuance in a position when things are not known. There is no direct evidence that the lab was working on this virus or that it had a release. There is evidence that it occurred naturally but it is certainly far from definitive. While the release is not a conspiracy theory all the crap around specific scientists that have supposedly been involved are. I highly object to the accusations commonly spouted on right wing news like the NY Post with no evidence whatsoever other than someone has a connection to a lab that specialized in their field. As a scientist 15 yrs ago I collaborated with many Chinese scientists and labs that did biochemical research. Am I responsible for anything that lab does. The reason a lot of this type of research moved to china was a decision made on religious beliefs that limited American Labs. So it moved to China and India

What caught my attention on this is an item that I read from a reputable source. Sorry I didn't boomark, so I have to go from memory here. This was about six months ago.

The gist was that the virologist had been working on sequencing the genetic code, and there was one sequence in the code that was exactly the sequence that would be introduced into the genetic code in a laboratory that was doing amplification or enhancement studies of the type being investigated in the Wuhan lab, as well as in other labs. And this particular sequence is not one that has been found in the natural environment. As the virologist in the item commented, this was a "smoking gun"; in his opinion that indicated the code he was looking at was for a manipulated virus.

Up to that point I tended toward skeptical on the lab origin theory, leaning toward the consensus of scientific opinion. This was the first credible information I saw that pointed to lab origin as more than just an opinion posited by someone who wasn't involved in the field. Since then I've been keeping my eyes open for a debunk, which hasn't happened. Rather all of the information that I've seen makes that seem increasingly credible.

I specifically don't believe the conspiracy theories about this being a biological weapon that escaped or was released. But having had some career involvement in chemical safety and accident prevention, I know how accidents can happen despite the presence of protections that experts believe to be "bulletproof". It does not at all strain my credibility to believe that the virus escaped a lab.

The fact that "experts" assert it couldn't have escaped from a lab because of the protocols in place is disturbing. That's just scientists who aren't trained in accident prevention deluding themselves into thinking they are experts in accident prevention. Any competent person in accident prevention knows the ludicracy of such statements, particularly during post hoc incident investigations.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

What caught my attention on this is an item that I read from a reputable source. Sorry I didn't boomark, so I have to go from memory here. This was about six months ago.

I believe this is the article I was referring to - from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:

The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan?

If the case that SARS2 originated in a lab is so substantial, why isn’t this more widely known? As is now obvious, there are many people who have reason not to talk about it.

thebulletin.org

Since then Dr. Baltimore has "dampened" his assessment, but dampened or not, his facts and technical observations stand - namely that laboratory leak is not some whacko wishful thinking whimsy.

From the article:

“ should have softened the phrase ‘smoking gun’ because I don’t believe that it proves the origin of the furin cleavage site but it does sound that way.

“I believe that the question of whether the sequence was put in naturally or by molecular manipulation is very hard to determine but I wouldn’t rule out either origin.”

 

[nerodog]

CNN and MSNBC are probably the worst offenders.

Just go to www.foxnews.com and see how many interesting news will never see the light of day on those two channels not because they are not true but because they do not align with the editorial line. Why do you think CNN has not said a word concerning Peter Daszak lately?

I always check all the news channels and it's amazing what is highlighted or not. Check BBC and AL Jeezera.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

A recent article by David Baltimore on the issue:

Caltech's David Baltimore discusses the debate over origins of SARS-CoV-2

Caltech's David Baltimore, president emeritus of the California Institute of Technology and Distinguished Professor of Biology, is a virologist who received the Nobel Prize for his research into viral genetics. In this interview, he discusses the debate over the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

thebulletin.org

So where did it come from in SARS-CoV-2? There are other viruses that have furin cleavage sites, other coronaviruses, though not the family of beta-coronaviruses. So this sequence’s nucleotides could have hopped from some other virus. No one has identified a virus that has exactly this sequence, but it could have come from something close, then evolved into the sequence that we see today.

I’m perfectly willing to believe that happened, but I don’t think it’s the only way that that sequence could have appeared. The other way is that somebody could have put it in there. You can’t distinguish between the two origins from just looking at the sequence. So, naturally, you want to know were there people in the virology laboratory in Wuhan who were manipulating viral genetic sequences? It’s really a question of history: What happened?

When I first saw the sequence of the furin cleavage site—as I’ve said, other beta coronaviruses don’t have that site—it seemed to me a reasonable hypothesis that somebody had put it in there. Now, I don’t know if that’s true or not, but I do know that it’s a hypothesis that must be taken seriously.

 

[bluehende]

Here is a good and balanced article from Nature. I think we can both agree that Nature is a good source for info.

The COVID lab-leak hypothesis: what scientists do and don’t know

Nature examines arguments that the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab in China, and the science behind them.

www.nature.com

a few excerpts.

There’s not yet any substantial evidence for a lab leak. Why are scientists still considering it?
Scientists don’t have enough evidence about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 to rule out the lab-leak hypothesis, or to prove the alternative — that the virus has a natural origin. Many infectious-disease researchers agree that the most probable scenario is that the virus evolved naturally and spread from a bat either directly to a person or through an intermediate animal. Most emerging infectious diseases begin with a spillover from nature, as was seen with HIV, influenza epidemics, Ebola outbreaks and the coronaviruses that caused the SARS epidemic beginning in 2002 and the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) outbreak beginning in 2012.



Is it suspicious that the WIV is in Wuhan?
Virology labs tend to specialize in the viruses around them, says Vincent Munster, a virologist at the Rocky Mountain Laboratories, a division of the National Institutes of Health, in Hamilton, Montana. The WIV specializes in coronaviruses because many have been found in and around China. Munster names other labs that focus on endemic viral diseases: influenza labs in Asia, haemorrhagic fever labs in Africa and dengue-fever labs in Latin America, for example. “Nine out of ten times, when there’s a new outbreak, you’ll find a lab that will be working on these kinds of viruses nearby,” says Munster.



Does the virus have features that suggest it was created in a lab?
Several researchers have looked into whether features of SARS-CoV-2 signal that it was bioengineered. One of the first teams to do so, led by Kristian Andersen, a virologist at Scripps Research in La Jolla, California, determined that this was “improbable” for a few reasons, including a lack of signatures of genetic manipulation6. Since then, others have asked whether the virus’s furin cleavage site — a feature that helps it to enter cells — is evidence of engineering, because SARS-CoV-2 has these sites but its closest relatives don’t. The furin cleavage site is important because it's in the virus's spike protein, and cleavage of the protein at that site is necessary for the virus to infect cells.




After the WHO report: what’s next in the search for COVID’s origins
But many other coronaviruses have furin cleavage sites, such as coronaviruses that cause colds7. Because viruses containing the site are scattered across the coronavirus family tree, rather than confined to a group of closely related viruses, Stephen Goldstein, a virologist at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, says the site probably evolved multiple times because it provides an evolutionary advantage. Convergent evolution — the process by which organisms that aren’t closely related independently evolve similar traits as a result of adapting to similar environments — is incredibly common.

Another feature of SARS-CoV-2 that has drawn attention is a combination of nucleotides that underlie a segment of the furin cleavage site: CGG (these encode the amino acid arginine). A Medium article that speculates on a lab origin for SARS-CoV-2 quotes David Baltimore, a Nobel laureate and professor emeritus at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, as saying that viruses don’t usually have that particular code for arginine, but humans often do — a “smoking gun”, hinting that researchers might have tampered with SARS-CoV-2’s genome.

Andersen says that Baltimore was incorrect about that detail, however. In SARS-CoV-2, about 3% of the nucleotides encoding arginine are CGG, he says. And he points out that around 5% of those encoding arginine in the virus that caused the original SARS epidemic are CGG, too. In an e-mail to Nature, Baltimore says Andersen could be correct that evolution produced SARS-CoV-2, but adds that “there are other possibilities and they need careful consideration, which is all I meant to be saying”.

 

[DannyTS]

I always check all the news channels and it's amazing what is highlighted or not. Check BBC and AL Jeezera.

Yes, I also check all the news channels. I MSome seem to think they are better informed if they get all the info from one side only.

A recent article by David Baltimore on the issue:

Caltech's David Baltimore discusses the debate over origins of SARS-CoV-2

Caltech's David Baltimore, president emeritus of the California Institute of Technology and Distinguished Professor of Biology, is a virologist who received the Nobel Prize for his research into viral genetics. In this interview, he discusses the debate over the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

thebulletin.org

From your article:
"If it happened by natural means, it means that we have to increase our surveillance of the natural environment. We have to try to find the hosts that provide an ability for the virus to change its sequence, to become more infectious. This would mean we need to keep surveillance on markets, on zoos, on places where viruses could jump from one species to another.


But if SARS-CoV-2 came about by an artificial means, it means we’ve got to put better defenses around laboratories."



This perfectly summarizes why so many virologists may not want to be publicly in favor of the lab escape theory. It would just make their work more difficult, they may potentially see the grants reduced or eliminated, their projects scrutinized.

 

[Old Hickory]

Media duped early on by Daszak.

The media is never duped. They are all in.

 

[exco]

Did any Asian or German newspaper cover Peter Daszak lately?