I hadn’t been saying much about @EcoHealthNYC for a reason. I don’t have many mentors, but a man I respect as my mentor was on the board: a heroic figure to me & to others. So I had hoped that the situation there was under adult supervision.

I appear to have had misplaced hopes.
In a different world, these issues would first be dealt w/ behind the scenes so as to avoid destruction to our infrastructure. I assume @EcoHealthNYC is a typical proxy for the government which uses outside contractors to evade restrictions on government. But this is way beyond.
No one has much commented on how high-powered the board has been. You have a director of the NSF as a board member for example.

No one is asking the hard questions yet. Like Epstein, this story doesn’t add up: I fear we don’t look for answers when we know many of them already.
If I were a reporter, I would ask the board members about @EcoHealthNYC’s BioWarfare responsibilities given its @doddtra relationship. I would ask the 77 Nobel laureates about who organized the letter supporting the funding of Dr Daszak.

Journalists: Break a sweat. What is this?
This is a big deal. Treat Dr Daszak & Dr Fauci as they deserve: central figures in some story involving grey area BioWarfare strategy and responsibilities that we ordinary humans don’t understand because no one will explain it.

The strategy failed: duh. Time to declassify it. 🙏

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Eric Weinstein

Eric Weinstein Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @EricRWeinstein

8 Oct
Consensus positions are almost always flawed.

Notice there’s no “Electron Consensus”. No “Genetic Code Consensus”. No “Periodic Table Consensus”. Why? Because the phenomena are so agreed upon you don’t have to rope folks into statements.

Not true of climate, trans, or vaccines.
I’m not saying all consensus is totally off: We’re almost certainly heating the planet. Some folks born into one sex have always perceived themselves to be the other. The vaccines do have real benefits.

Consensus is what is used to exaggerate the *certainty* of those positions.
Scientists don’t sit around coming to consensus. They sit around doing science. The urge to convert science into to simplified political narrative to penalize deviation is what results in our authoritarian wars of consensus.

Consensus is actually a sign of scientific insecurity.
Read 5 tweets
6 Oct
I have been warning you about Peer Review. Because almost no one says this, it sounds crazy.

Dr Daszak & @EcoHealthNYC have been thoroughly Peer Reviewed and are endorsed by the highest levels of scientists. It’s ‘preposterous’ to question a decision to terminate their funding. Image
I will be held up by PhDs as crazy for saying what I am about to say:

Peer Review is INCREDIBLY dangerous. Modern Peer Review really begins in the 1960s. It has more to do with Ghislaine Maxwell’s father & Permagon Press than science. 77 Nobel laureates are wrong. We are right.
Further the CCP supplies labor for these Nobel laureates to run their teams. Our labor program is disguised as “Graduate Study” and “Post-Doctoral training” so as to avoid unionization, wage scrutiny, and “Labor Certification”.

Our professors are not acting as scientists here.
Read 6 tweets
1 Oct
Kayfabe and Trust Erosion in Institutions:

How @NBCNews shows you reality and how they tirelessly hold power to account:

What they actually see and repackage for you:
How they debunk you, using a straw man when you see through their cheap Potemkin village so easily and impudently choose to speak out about it:
Read 5 tweets
1 Oct
Beautiful example of the skeptic/fact checking scam.

Step 1: We all find out that Pfizer is developing an oral protease inhibitor for COVID.

Step 2: Random Internet accounts jump to conclusions that this is simply rebranded Ivermectin.

Step 3: Fact checkers report it isn’t.
Of course this isn’t the issue. As I said before the issue is to understand the relationship between Ivermectin and Pfizer’s protease inhibitor. That is the pathways, the structure, relative efficacy, relative safety profile, breadth of the relative spectrums of applicability.
But the idea is that @snopes gets to ignore that. Some of you said “Pfizermectin” and you were told that it is structurally different. How true that is, we don’t yet know. But more importantly Snopes is now allowed to IGNORE the REAL questions. As they did in Wuhan and lab leak.
Read 6 tweets
23 Sep
One of the top risks we face as a species bizarrely seems to center around an odd man determined to stop the next pandemic.

It’s imperative that this man be stopped from trying to stop pandemics.

Someone needs to discover why this ecological charity is so close to the Pentagon.
The odds that @EcoHealthNYC is simply a well meaning US ecological charity doing basic work in trying to prevent pandemics by scouring the world for its most deadly animal pathogens and trying to make them as human friendly as possible with Pentagon funds…are perhaps not 100%.
If you haven’t dug into this organization, OneHealth, and it’s bizarre logic, you may find it disorienting.

It’s either reckless or working a grand behind the scenes strategy. And what it wants to do potentially affects whether you are going to be spending your life with a mask.
Read 4 tweets
21 Sep
Imagine:

A) “Reformed” Pakistan Backed Taliban as Secret US Regional Security Partner.

B) The Wuhan Laboratory as US Bioweapons Research Partner.

C) Jeffrey Epstein as Trusted Intelligence Partner.

D) EcoHealth alliance as Sensitive Information/Defense Conduit.

were correct.
You would have a pattern. The US government would be trying to get things done (e.g. keeping tabs on PRC Bioweapon research) without an ability to explain anything.

No one wants to explain: “The US protects pedophiles, works with fundamentalist killers, and empowers its rivals.”
But if you look at it, we don’t seem to be getting to the bottom of ANY of these various stories. It’s as if each story is just too uninteresting or draining to pursue for our Pulitzer hungry journalists. No one wants to hold truly in-depth hearings. Well, why aren’t we digging?
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(