Jump to content



Recommended Posts

It seems that the MSM media have suddenly taken on board the view that the whole "the virus escaped from a Wuhan Lab" thing may just have some credence. More than a few people are saying that those same MSM inhabitants were guilty of trump Derangement Syndrome. Namely, that because Trump said it, it must be wrong and we must all agree. Thus anyone who spoke in favour of it was part of the conspiracy theory lunatic fringe. There may be some measure of truth in that , but it would seem that the real reasons are the usual ones. Self interest. Someone covering up because their arse and livlihood were on the line.


For those of you who have sufficient intellect to understand mildly complex biological articles, the article by Nicholas Wade, a science writer, on the origins of Covid 19 make some interesting reading.

Its long, some sections require rereading to get the hang of it (at least it did for me), but takes away a lot of the emotive language that seems to get bandies about.

from Nicholas Wade


Here is one of the passages that support why the original idea was suppressed. Plain old self interest.

From early on, public and media perceptions were shaped in favor of the natural emergence scenario by strong statements from two scientific groups. These statements were not at first examined as critically as they should have been.

“We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin,†a group of virologists and others wrote in the Lancet on February 19, 2020, when it was really far too soon for anyone to be sure what had happened. Scientists “overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife,†they said, with a stirring rallying call for readers to stand with Chinese colleagues on the frontline of fighting the disease.

Contrary to the letter writers’ assertion, the idea that the virus might have escaped from a lab invoked accident, not conspiracy. It surely needed to be explored, not rejected out of hand. A defining mark of good scientists is that they go to great pains to distinguish between what they know and what they don’t know. By this criterion, the signatories of the Lancet letter were behaving as poor scientists: they were assuring the public of facts they could not know for sure were true.

It later turned out that the Lancet letter had been organized and drafted by Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York. Dr. Daszak’s organization funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. If the SARS2 virus had indeed escaped from research he funded, Dr. Daszak would be potentially culpable. This acute conflict of interest was not declared to the Lancet’s readers. To the contrary, the letter concluded, “We declare no competing interests.â€

Daszak is connected to Fauci in the under the table promotion of the so called gain of function research. He may yet be Fauci's achilles heel. It also is a black mark against The Lancet, once considered the epitome of unbiased scientific and medical research.


There is a much longer and more technical section on the letter from Nature medcine from a group of Virologists. This was not a technical article, so did not provide any research, just opinion. Wade takes this to task for some poor scientific statements.



These two articles were widely quoted in the MSM as they collectively joined the conspiracy bandwagon. Wade points out that most large MSM orgs have science writers with science quals like himself, but they either did not ask, or chose to ignore the the obvious questions about this second letter.


It highlights the group think that has pervaded so many of our organisations, but what is worse, is the systematic and deliberate cancelling, bullying, ostracising and harrassing of any one who questions the consensus. Who cares if its right or wrong, its the consensus.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 903
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As a sort of addendum to my post below, it should be pointed out that Peter Daszak was for some strange reason, one of the senior "experts" who made up the WHO investigative team that went to China to conduct its investigation into the origins of the virus. Conflict of interest? Move on, nothing to see here.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

If by the Fourth of July, America declares victory over the virus while there is a resurgence in the rest of the world and a mega pharma deal goes down at the same time involving Merck and/or GSK and/or Sanofi with ALNY in the middle of it all, we will know for sure this thing was a racket from the very start. The underlying premise that Covid is a bioengineered weapon released upon an unsuspecting population the same way the A-bomb was for the same purpose. To see what it does.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the country that brought you Corona 19, comes a new gift, a new strain of bird flu that has passed to humans.

From AP News

What may prove to be the first case of the H10N3 strain of bird flu passing to a human has been detected in China, reports said Tuesday, as local health authorities assured the world the risk of large-scale spread is “low.â€


Hmm, not sure if the rest of the world is going to take their assurances all that seriously these days.



Link to comment
Share on other sites



No bleeding risks were found to be associated with the Pfizer dose.


But a new and slightly increased risk of a rare autoimmune disorder was found following the AstraZeneca shot, as was evidence suggestive of other bleeding and vascular events.




not gonna touch AZ shots.....

haven't got luck to win the lotto , but instead hit this blood vascular jackpot . :lol:



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, EB, it is a right royal stuff up alright. I read somewhere that Dr Norman Swan - the ABC science dude - is saying that last year pfizer offered to supply enough vaccine to do the entire Australian population upfront but Morrison wanted to haggle. I had the AstraZenica jab a couple of weeks ago and it has been very rough. And the other thing is that with the pfizer vaccine you get the second jab 3 weeks after the first whereas with the AZ jab it is three months. So by having so many people being forced to have the AZ jab they have delayed full coverage by a couple of months
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think he did the right thing and got his jab so he could be in the tournament and the team bubble?


Nearly cost him his life if he did.


Another article says, he did die and they brought him back. Ronaldo got covid, recovered and then scored two goals in his next game. All within a week I believe.


Would you rather have the disease or the vaccine?




Christian Eriksen: Denmark midfielder suffered cardiac arrest, says team doctor</h1>
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Novavax vaccine highly effective


Novavax’s phase 3 trial included almost 30,000 participants in the U.S. and Mexico. Side effects for the shot, given as a two-dose regimen taken 21 days apart, included headache, muscle pain and fatigue.


While the company didn’t provide exact numbers on the side effect rates, Erck said on Bloomberg Television that the shot will “have probably the most benign safety profile of any vaccine.”




hi plastic

you think this is the better vacc right?? please give us more of safety side of info. thanks in advance!! :P



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...