I did not post that as a pro argument for the lab leak hypothesis. I posted that to illustrate that the authors of that Nature article themselves did not rule out it even after publishing that article under the pretence being scientific. It was a plain political decision. AFAIK the FDA is in court because of advising against it. The court has to clarify if they had overstepped their competences. According to the FDA it was just 'quips' and no real advice. Here is a moderated version of the first part
The 'attack' is actually in the name of proper science. I fully support the open letter to Nature I had posted. The subject is NOT the lab leak hypothesis. The subject is the Nature article and its contents! Thanks to the FOIA the public can now read the entire convo https://biosafetynow.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Proximal_Origin_Slack_OCRd.pdf Look, I don't know if it is a wise political decision to hide a lab leak and to support fake / an alternative. I am no politician. BUT you cannot abuse science to realize that, and you cannot denounce and discredit scientists which have evidences for a lab leak hypothesis. All the more not if you as a author still support the same after publishing a 'scientific' paper mimicking something completely different! Conclusions made at Nature: addition: But i.a. Andersen in the chat: This leaked doc speaks volumes! When you hear PRRA does it ring a bell???? The leaked chat begun being scientific, but resulted in a manipulated political drivel and materialized as Nature article. All the works later that had mentioning 'PRRA' have been discredited! (quote from an example: nucleotides 23547-23565 in the SARS-CoV-2 genome, in which the four bold codons yield PRRA, amino acids 681–684 of its spike protein). This is very rare in the NCBI BLAST database.)
Senator Paul Questions Moderna CEO Over COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects | C-SPAN.org Moderna paid NIH $400,000,000
Moral: the "conspiranoids" ones were right, again. Next time listen to them and begin to research what they claim and also the official narrative. Congrats to those who never took the deadly inoculations, especially your children.
The face of the Moderna CEO speaks volumes, too. He felt awkward... I will never forget the situation.... I recommended against the use at friend's family's kids..... All the public against me.... Most of them did not listen. They thought I must have been cuckoo.... I had no problem at adults. They can take own responsibility taking the shot.....but NOT kids! I was lost...and sad and helpless. I only can hope nothing serious will happen in the future. Most of the potential tissue damage at young people (hearts) can be compensated at young ages....but being older it ages, too... It's inconceivable that it's still recommended at some nations for kids 6 months of age and up... It's started now that things get reviewed. Will post more here. Curious what's about FDA and ivermectin court case...
Ach, the evidence... well, why didn't you say so?!? Btw, which "evidence" is that, for sure?!? Is it the "I have it, just can't share it with you right now - but TRUST ME, not those "other scientists", they are NOT the real, serious scientists, only I am!"??? This is the making of a cult, FFS!!!
On the off chance somebody thinks I'm joking... Different context ("There's no such thing as climate emergency "...) but here is the cult in making...
You do generalize and by that you lose focus on the particular matters I actually referred to. -The Nature paper -The payment of Moderna to the NIH -The court case FDA / IVM -The recommendations of the shot for kids even though scientific facts spoke another language. -Actually a pharmaceutical scandal of a gene based pro-drug, because that's what it really is. OK, let me generalize one time here, too (and integrate climate although it's off here): There is no cult behind. There is a narrative behind which benefits always a certain group of interests. And all is fueled by the mainstream media. And there is capital which distorts research and outcome. Even more, results which don't fit will be excluded in 'official' reporting. This is called: "Summary for Policymakers" The original climate report, though, is 2500+ pages and actually very controversial! For instance you find the numbers of forest fire actually decreasing since the past....instead of you get videos of every fire. And even more the explanations: Sure they are man made. But in earlier times it was called arson, today it's called global warming. Global warming has never ignited a single fire. 99+% is arson! If an oil lobbyist would manipulate climate results to his own benefit he gets called names. But the lobbyists for green energies do manipulate in a far greater extent and the mainstream media is fueling that. There is no (climate) catastrophic. And also the anthropogenic part on global warming is in fact a very controversial scientific matter and not like the MSM are saying "it's clear".... The climate activists are doing it no better than the oil lobbyists, not one iota. Both manipulate to their benefits. It started with vaccines (studies) and continues with 'climate' (studies). You only get funds / capital continued when the outcome supports a narrative. Examples: When a doctor administered a shot he still gets and got paid for it. But when he had to report an adverse event to the databases he got NO cent for the reporting and a shot is administered within minutes, a complete report takes unpaid hours of work! This is a system flaw per se!!! OR: When your study shows that CO2 levels actually played no role (correlation), because you demonstrated that there was already a warming period (Keywords: Eric The Red, agriculture on Greenland) but low CO2 level and a slight decrease in temperature 40s to 70s (although rising CO2 levels there) then that study was your last which got funded. Means your daily income as '(climate) scientist' is dependent on what you find out! And being a doctor to report side effects of the mRNA drugs means also no payment for it. Doing good science means to me to question results, especially when they suffer from a hype. There was no cult, but religion. Their god was the holy syringe. And how performed their god compared to what they preached first and reality?!? Short: Exaggeration in the name of gaining powers over people. That's of course only my opinion.
Yes, of course... Except... https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/st...research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/ Generalize this... if you please... It's what the alphabet boys nicknamed "being X's willing and useful fools", when they really want you to be their willing and useful fool and never consider any real evidence, the history of a phenomenon and so on... And the manipulation is obvious, the very real (fossil fuel industry) interests are very obvious - but most people don't want to deal with the thruth.. It's much easier to invent great big conspiracies which don't have any real evidence behind them (that climate scientists would not have the spine to tell the truth) but most would much rather completely avoid the screaming seriously subsidised fossil fuel industry conspiracy right in front of them... So, no! You are generalising, Yen, sorry! This "logic" would not fool a 5 year old but somehow it's all the rage with AfD and similar irrational forces around the globe...
It's not AfD alone. Sahra Wagenknecht here has a similar view on vaccines and renewables! If she can manage to found a new party I bet it'll be a success. Your logic is flawed here. IMHO. If AfD is saying the cloudless sky at day is blue it is blue anyway. As being said. We could have it far easier. Fossil fuels are limited. Hence the principle of re-.... Leave the CO2 thingy alone. Do not exaggerate, keep the public in a reasonable mind state out of fears. Take them with you making clear resources are limited. Create confidence, create incentives, create interim solutions. Choose a reasonable period of time for the transition to renewables. Support different approaches. Research for energy STORAGE tech!!! Renewables are on/off sources dependent on sun and wind! And for new meds. Just stick to the 'old' pharmacovigliance we have worked out hard after the Thalidomide scandal. Create conditions where reporting of side effects are considered as valuable as to administer new meds. Regain proper science without censorship. Science grows best out of different perspectives and views. Make the pharma transparent and paying back funds after success. Support different approaches. Stick to established drugs first, test off label use before new drugs are really well tested. Is that too much to ask for? Unfortunately recently yes. To gain powers over others is predominating and as long as it does not change there is no insight. The interests of humanity have to step back in favour of capitalistic interests of certain groups.
There is obviously no censorship, else we wouldn't be able to read that nonsense everywhere we turn... Mind, the way those guys behave arrogantly to the bone, I am sure that if they were in charge there would have been real censorship!!! And where you should see conspiracies (Exxon) you're silent... Not just you... All the extremists politicians and their *affiliates*, from Trump onwards, claiming *alternative facts*... Oh, pleasaasee... One rose (Sarah, mind) doesn't cover this mountain of rubbish!!! While she may have way more rational objections from a general interest viewpoint, the AfD and the like always stink of their deep connections with the billionaire, partial, the rich class interests - always searching for a way to dominate and exploit, ever more!!! So, no - your logic here is deeply flawed and it's amazing that you can't/won't see it... P.S. I remember your rigid and rather unempathetic stance te. Thalidomide in a different context, when you were crudely telling them that retrospectively they have no rights... It's good to see the change trying to establish the criteria for pharma industry generally but it's strange that you want it now - retrospectively... We had no time for it when it was happening but you blindly insist... Without any clear alternative given... Weird...
I am working at preclinical research since the 90s. We ever insisted on proper pharmacoviglicance. Have to train myself once a year. And I know the entire process from first time lab dev to the final drug... Thalidomide even happened at a time where laws were far more loose....and therefore I argued that Grünenthal did not violate current legalities at the time when their Contergan got approved by the officials. Besides of that Thalidomide is no pro drug that has genetic effects... Can't help you if you cannot differentiate. Is it different drug or different legalities / 'times'.
Either way I carried in some brief ideas how things should work... Back to the FDA court case. The FDA now officially said that docs can prescribe IVM as off label use to treat COVID. Dunno if the court case is closed already or if they have to take responsibility for their "You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it!" IMO that main thing behind, and I have posted that somewhere already, is the following: It's a matter of the legality of an EUA (Emergency Use Authorization). It only can be granted IF there is nothing against (COVID) available. And IF there already is, it has to undergo an ordinary approval which is then only granted IF: The new drug is more effective with the same or better safety OR Equally effective with better safety, Short: 'Better' in a way. I think, and that's my personal assessment. If the FDA had granted off label use for IVM and other conventional drugs first, the vaccines have had no chance to get EUA. IVM has a far far better safety. That's no question. And concerning effectiveness. Well, we all know now how weak the vaccines really performed. (No protection against infection, only a short period of reducing severe outcomes due to mutations). I would even go that far: If we have had IVM and other off lable drugs just like Budesonide etc.. (had put more research into off lable use of conventional drugs generally) instead of the vaccines, the overall outcome of COVID would have been better. Far far less serious adverse events at all and a proven effectiveness when administered early. (IVM, Budesonide) And now I can close my cycle of arguments : IVM and the other drugs are cheap drugs.
It's maddening how quickly people choose to forget anything that doesn't fit the cheap and simplistic narrative... And no, Capitalism is not opposed with a cheaper drug here and there...
IMO it is. Not here and there, mainly here. Why that IVM censorship and discrediting without real facts at all?!?! Why twisted FDA (court case) and other authorities facts about ? BTW: I have not said that both couldn't have coexisted very early. The contrary is actuality true. It would have been the best. I only said if IVM had got EUA the vaccines had probably not. But there would have been IMO a legal solution. The vaccines get EUA, IVM and co. off label use. They don't need EUA, they are approved drugs already within their therapeutic dose range. And even if not, then they could have changed the laws as they did many times either way. But I say the fact that they didn't care about proper and full informed consent at all is a clear fact to me that they care for capital first, far less for anything else. An real informed consent for instance with conventional drugs, too Like: (just a crude imaginary example to be worked out) We have 2 different meds. One completely new vaccine based on mRNA's gene therapeutic properties to make proteins and for instance 2 off label drugs. Make clear all them have RCT studies where they are promising to work. Share all studies if asked for. Answer any question that can be answered. The vaccine is not fully approved, is experimental (because the recipe has changed during time without testing in humans first) has potential side effects (listing them) and is supposed to protect against severe outcomes. There are studies. Then we have IVM. IVM is approved already it has a very good safety (listing adverse events). It is supposed to protect and to work for speedier recovery, less chance of severe outcome. There are studies. And we have Budesonide for the lung, also already an approved drug. The adverse evens are low and well known (listing them). It's supposed to help against lunge issues (lung inflammation, breathing, O2 saturation). There are studies. Do you first want to take the vaccine, or wait and take later the other drugs. Or you want to try IVM prophylaxis? If taking the vaccine and should get sick anyway off label drugs such as IVM and Budesonide would have been additionally there for them, too! Suppressing them was a huge mistake! And only when having a honest and true informed consent the potential consumer is able to make a proper decision. The suppression and the lack of....both indicate dominant affinity to capital IMO. Except you would say: To leave out some facts here and there are politically justified. Then I would be out. I am no politician and for me there's no justification at all. As soon as there are news from the research, they have to be included.
You know, just by watching some of these vehement conspiraloons (and I don't put all of them in the same category - there were some very reasonable people amongst them with well reasoned grounds for asking all the right questions, questions of procedures, power allocation, decision making process, the inequity in all of this sorry saga, on so many levels) I wonder if they would have allowed their opponents to write and publish as much as they were allowed by the "authorities"...
The first FDA court trial is over. The judge accepted to open a further trial since FDA overstepped their competences. Here is the pdf https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/22-40802/22-40802-2023-09-01.pdf?ts=1693611027 So the thing isn't over yet. IMHO the FDA is the institution that caused the unreasonable vendetta against IVM AND the doctors using it. Some (physicians) have lost their jobs.....many more people could have been saved IF the FDA would have done their jobs as they are supposed to. IVM was available before the vaccines already. Also other drugs such as Budesonide and Fluvoxamine. Studies like RCTs and anecdotal evidences from professionals also available. The influence of the FDA is not restricted to the US alone. They have caused world-wide harm. Drugs like monoclonal antibodies and Remdesivir have been approved by studies which had a far far lower study power than IVM...we all know Remdesivir doesn't work at all, monoclonal ABs only at one particular variant. Both were expensive as hell and not available for a broad public. Off lable and established drugs, though, were available world-wide and for everybody. There is one important difference: Those were NEW and not off patent. A sole capitalist decision, far off from scientific reason. This FDAs behavior killed people unnecessarily.