“All agencies assess that [the] two hypotheses are plausible.”
This is in stark contrast to the certitudes peddled by Andersen, Lipkin, Holmes and co in Lancet, Nature and their continual social media ranting.
Going further, the report does not rule out the possibility that COVID-19 was genetically engineered:
One intelligence agency (IC) assesses with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
These scientists, who (as we now know) actually had their own doubts, spent a year and a half gaslighting everybody they could talk to, in perfect tandem with Chinese obfuscation and lies.
I can expect China to cover up and hide data. That's their standard practice.
But I do not expect many Western scientists and scientific journals to be effectively complicit in that charade - shame on them all who took part into this deception. unherd.com/2021/06/beijin…
If politics is too serious a matter to be left in the hands of politicians (De Gaulle), then clearly the DARPA PREEMPT, PREDICT and other initiatives of the same ilk are too important to be left in the hands of Fauci, Daszak, Lipkin and co.
"..those facts, among others, have only emerged due to the efforts of independent scientists, some of them doing research in a group they call DRASTIC"
The intel results are not much different from the assessment which I wrote for #DRASTIC with @RdeMaistre a year ago.
Daszak did 4 months of detention in 1986 for stealing a TV set, a hi-fi, a statue and some other items, so that he could indulge in his alcohol fuelled ‘fun’ at other people’s expense.
This fraud later managed to get hold of 100s millions of US taxpayers money.
I may be losing track, but it is at least his third retraction.
There is also on expression of concern for one of his papers.
@thackerpd @KatherineEban @emilyakopp
Here is an important reminder to the Kindergarten epidemiologists who aim to compare themselves to John Snow.
Epidemiology 101:
John Snow never considered his map as proving anything. He relied on fortuitous control groups and cases reviews to establish causality
@mvankerkhove
See for instance this image and extract from a recent paper:
Confirmation of the centrality of the Huanan market among early COVID-19 cases
Reply to Stoyan and Chiu (2024) arxiv.org/pdf/2403.05859…
John Snow was not a colourist of maps, sorry.
I know that popular culture has transformed the Broad Street map into a meme, but that is totally wrong and can only hurt the discipline.
@RichardKock6 @JamieMetzl
1/5 It is difficult to be more mistaken than Robert Garry below, when discussing a supposed essential finding of Worobey et al:
@TheJohnSudworth @MichaelWorobey @hfeldwisch
2/5 As a matter of fact, that pattern is exactly the one expected if proximity to the market was used as a criteria when identifying cases (as is amply recorded).
Going further, there is no easy way to explain that pattern otherwise.
Polling must have been done before Oct 2023, so before:
- Key Science erratum for Pekar et al (invalidated their model)
- Peer reviewed paper showing key statistical flaw in Worobey et al
- DEFUSE draft showing planned work at P2 in China and more
3/26 Then we need cumulative numbers to express the results in a natural way:
- For 19% of experts, a research accident is at least 50% likely
- For 44.6% of experts, a research accident is at least 20% likely
- For 61.3% of experts, a research accident is at least 10% likely