EMM386

@BillyBostickson @RedactedNews @MindNexusLive @DiedSuddenly_ The US Government purchased the actual weapon from Russia. There are many things going on these days that are "conspiracy-adjacent" but factual. Some decide to take them off the exit ramp into wild conspiracies. Best to stick to facts.

@RedactedNews @MindNexusLive @DiedSuddenly_ synthetic telepathy, cia torture device for their own agents? come on pull the other one! you seem to be deliberately trying to muddy the waters and obfuscate the facts that have emerged regarding Havana Syndrome.

🤯 Havana syndrome is real. It's happening to CIA agents, FBI agents, diplomats, & congressional members. @Mindnexuslive & @diedsuddenly_ join us with a MI6 whistleblower who says it's not an attack. It's a communication system. And it's been used on him.

@sigridbratlie @angie_rasmussen @Rebecca21951651 @gdemaneuf @grok @MichaelWorobey @jepekar Many are still saying they need the lab notebooks to prove anything. The problem is - there is zero chance of that. I wonder why.

Moreover; the authors are clearly happy to settle for an evidence-free assumption about a hypothetical but still elusive intermediate animal host having hosted the virus for such a brief period of time that it could not even be detected in their analysis, but exclude any possibility of a lab ‘intermediate host’ (cells/animals) because it wasn’t detected in their analysis. That is entirely contradictory! They are in essence saying: For natural zoonosis: «We found no signal on the stem branch. We conclude the intermediate host transit was too brief to detect. This is consistent with natural zoonosis» For lab passage: «We found no signal on the stem branch. We conclude there was no meaningful lab involvement. Lab origin is not supported» These two conclusions are drawn from identical evidence, I.e. the absence of a signal, but interpreted in diametrically opposite directions depending on which hypothesis is being evaluated: For one hypothesis, absence of signal is explained away as a detection limit. For the other, absence of signal is treated as informative negative evidence.

Rasmussen, the usual attack dog of the Morens/Daszak little cabal, doing her best to bail out the sinking zoonotic certitudes. She surely deserves a reward for her dedication.

@mattwridley UNC knows a lot about that furin motif.

Shi Zhengli did mention a cat virus that has an identical furin cleavage site. This code for a furin cleavage site was well known to the Wuhan Institute scientists.

There are tens of thousands of cities in China, And tens of thousands of food markets, But Covid started close to the lab with the world's biggest collection of sarbecoviruses, And the most active program of manipulating them That alone is reason for investigating the lab.

@mattwridley Chimeras don't specifically come from anywhere - except a lab. SARS-CoV-2 didn't come from 1,000 miles away - it came from Wuhan possibly "via ?". Is RBD/RBM possibly pangolin strain?

SARS-CoV-2 came from more than a thousand miles from Wuhan. How did it get there? The raccoon dogs in the food market in Wuhan were sourced locally. The only animals we know of that journeyed from bat caves in Yunnan and Laos to Wuhan were scientists.

@gdemaneuf Here's "clue #1" from Daszak to the NYT after the WHO trip. I am unsure which part of this is the clue he's referring to. Is it the weasels? Still waiting for the second clue.

She is talking about the new paper that says that SARS-CoV-2 may have evolved without an intermediate host. Convenient, given that no intermediate host has ever been identified.

Wait, does that mean that Worobey et al (2022) and the previous funny certitudes in the NY times about raccoon dogs being infected with SARS-CoV-2 were all wrong? Or that Debarre is full of it? I am getting confused with this 110th version of the self-evident zoonotic origin.

@JOHNJOHNSTONED @FarrarFoundati1 @JeremyFarrar @JuliaGillard @RickABright @LawrenceGostin @R_H_Ebright @JamieMetzl @mattwridley @BoehmeCatharina @doctorsoumya Spooks and burner phones ... oh my. From Farrar's book.

After supporting and funding the virologists and their GOF research, when he realised the high likelihood of a lab leak Farrar secretly led the lies and deception in January 2020 to cover up the laboratory origin. His cover was to pretend he was open to the idea of a lab origin, but as a good, independent scientist would do, was persuaded by the “weight of scientific evidence” to join the natural origin camp. Has he had time to review the subsequent data and the “weight of scientific evidence” and reconsider in which camp he now sits? Now that his deception has come to light, he can never again claim to have acted in good faith following the evidence. After the deliberate and very strategic lies have been exposed, how does he still maintain any semblance of credibility and his role at WHO?

@DopplerEffect93 @Rebecca21951651 @hkakeya "nothing unusual" in sarbecoviruses?

@Rebecca21951651 @hkakeya That literally tells you nothing. When they looked at the virus, there was nothing unusual about the furin cleavage site. Many coronaviruses have one.

Now, it seems that the only people left in the camp of a natural origin for COVID-19 are virologists heavily funded for their gain-of-function research and scientifically illiterate people deceived by them.

@DopplerEffect93 @Rebecca21951651 @hkakeya

Kristian Andersen promoting Bluesky post by Peter Daszak. Matt Ridley really riled up the frauds hanging out on Bluesky.

@BillyBostickson @owl_posting The only thing I would caution here is with language like "even if the models don’t get good at that sort of in-vivo prediction behavior" ... They will get that good - in short order (if they are not there already). Timelines collapsing. Guardrails bypassed trivially.

Fascinating analysis of the future and past of biosecurity Author @owl_posting forgot to mention South Africa's Project Coast for some reason, which should have been mentioned as it shows how compartmentalization can work to obscure nefarious activities. owlposting.com/p/reasons-to-b…

(Gift) Miami Herald Exclusive: Corrections officer tells FBI, federal judge, that boxes of documents were shredded at the Metropolitan Corrections Center after Epstein's death. Feds also talk about missing files miamiherald.com/news/local/cri…

@thackerpd Daszak saying he didn't organize the statement in Lancet is interesting. Because he did.

5) Daszak emailed the group that contacted my editors was "a really good move." I have no clue if any of these guys contacted my editors. I do know that other researchers complained. Complaints always follow when you expose corrupt scientists. Note that Fauci's employee David Morens is on the emails.

1) After I wrote a @bmj_latest investigation on virologists conspiring to label critics "conspiracy theorists" my reporting became a focus of NIH officials and researchers they funded. "Really disappointed they gave space to this scheister," wrote Peter Daszak of my BMJ piece.

@thematrixb0t It's not "leaked" it's right here: justice.gov/epstein/files/…

New leaked Epstein documents show the FBI removed the hard drive from the prison's camera system and wiped all footage from the night Jeffrey Epstein was murdered..

@BillyBostickson Careful with these - they are claiming silly things like "leaked" on these accounts that don't do simple basic research. Like the stuff DRASTIC was great at. Needs a new group name though. Available as part of DOJ release here: justice.gov/epstein/files/… "Tracking" 👍

Hmmm...yet again!

@thackerpd He has Baric telling him doing parts of DEFUSE under BSL-2 in Wuhan will cause US researchers to "freak out". But a lab incident? That is a bridge too far for Daszak apparently. For obvious reasons. He'll just say "never funded" and move right along.

@thackerpd Daszak is a strange character. He genuinely seems to believe his own propaganda (that lab leak is a conspiracy theory, as backwards as that is). He runs to Lancet at the start of the pandemic to put out disinformation after proposing DEFUSE to DARPA.

@justinmsizemore @NIH

Hvistendahl has moved on, but some of the matters described in this article remain unresolved. Are there reports or drafts @nih never disclosed? What exactly happened with the Year 4 report? I hope enterprising reporters push current @nih leadership to provide answers. 2/2

In 2022, @theintercept’s @marahvistendahl produced incredible reporting about the suspicious failure of certain @NIH funded scientists to disclose details of work they did in Wuhan in 2018-19. 1/2 theintercept.com/2022/03/03/wuh…

@justinmsizemore @NIH Year 4 and Year 5 (released late - post pandemic) both showing GoF.