EXCLUSIVE: ‘This is playing with fire – it could spark a lab-generated pandemic’: Experts slam Boston lab where scientists have created a new deadly Covid strain with an 80% kill rate
Are we really performing gain of function (read BIOWEAPON) research in our universites, bragging about it on line – EXPLAINING TO THE WORLD HOW WE DID IT?
In the new research, which has not been peer-reviewed, a team of researchers from Boston and Florida extracted Omicron’s spike protein — the unique structure that binds to and invades human cells.
I can’t believe how stupid this is. From the abstract linked above.
In K18-hACE2 mice, while Omicron causes mild,51 non-fatal infection, the Omicron S-carrying virus inflicts severe disease with a mortality52 rate of 80%. This indicates that while the vaccine escape of Omicron is defined by53 mutations in S, major determinants of viral pathogenicity reside outside of S.
Didn’t we just learn that CREATING AND studying deadly disease in laboratories is bad? DID WE NOT JUST FIGURE THAT OUT.
The University of Boston refuted that the experiments are gain of function, adding that the research was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) and the Boston Public Health Commission.
A spokesperson said: ‘This research mirrors and reinforces the findings of other, similar research performed by other organizations.
‘Ultimately, this research will provide a public benefit by leading to better, targeted therapeutic interventions to help fight against future pandemics.
So, I’m going to build the largest anti-matter weapon ever conceived IN MY BASEMENT, in the hopes that IT FURTHERS OUR UNDERSTANDING OF DEFENDING AGAINST ANTI-MATTER WEAPONS, (that don’t currently exist) and this has a BENEFICIAL cost-benefit ratio.
NOBODY, is this stupid.
NOBODY
The 80% fatality virus didn’t exist, now it does. The virus cannot be stopped, AS WE HAVE JUST DEMONSTRATED. This variant is vastly more deadly and ITS CREATION HAS BEEN PUBLISHED.
AND THE IDIOTS ARE CLAIMING EVEN THIS IS NOT GAIN OF FUNCTION
Maybe I don’t understand. Maybe only this is gain of function:
the Air Vent 
Jesus.
When someone’s even more unhinged that Alex (wrongest man on the Internet) Berenson, you know it’s time for him to step in from the ledge:
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/urgent-can-we-please-not-freak-out/comments?utm_medium=reader2
Jeff –
> EXPLAINING TO THE WORLD HOW WE DID IT?
I have a question here. Do you really think that someone who has the technical ability and resources to do this, needs to rely on that article to “explain [to them] how do do it?”
BOOM
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11327741/Top-NIH-director-admits-Boston-lab-created-new-Covid-strain-did-NOT-clear-research-agency.html
Wow.
POLITICIANS ARE UPSET!
GRAB THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN!
HEAD FOR THE BUNKERS!
ANTIFA IN PORTLAND NOW KNOW HOW TO DO GAIN OF FUNCTION!
IT’S NOT JUST THE DAILY MAIL THAT’S, UPSET!
AND THEY QUOTE EXPERTS!
RAND PAUL IS TOO!
HE CARES ABOUT THE PEOPLE!
What’s up with the filter?
I tried putting up multiple other technical explanations laughing at the freakout, but they keep getting caught in the spam filter. There are more put looks like I can’t post ’em.
I’ll try another:
Which makes the funniest point.
THE FREAKOUT US ABOUT MODELS.
HEAD FOR THE BUNKERS!! THE MODELS ARE COMING! THE MODELS ARE COMING!
You don’t need a level 3 biolab to make models Josh. You are not even reading the paper.
You are an idiot, and a loud one.
And the whitewashing begins.
Lol. Keep freaking out about models.
Despite technical explanations provided why the hysteria is inane.
Hilarious.
Dig the other explanations out of moderation if you need more.
Wronger than the wrongest man on the Interwebs. Congratulations.
You won’t even read the paper. Don’t pretend you aren’t a know-nothing.
Because it can be done certainly does not mean it should be. I consider Covid to very likely be the exact result of such GOF research. (Millions dead and, as a result of Government action, the global economy severely threatened, and economic collapse often also leads to war.) If Kay Sarah, is the official and unofficial reaction, then humanity is likely to face unending pandemic destruction. There is no end to the harms that can be imagined, which to the Fauci like proponents of GOF research means there is no end to deadly pathogens that MUST be created so that we can then create antidotes for them. So while the fear reaction this time MAY, or may not be overblown, the acceptance of such research will certainly end in a catastrophe. Genetic research is an immensely growing area of study. China and many ME folk study such things in western schools. After all, the evidence is Covid 19 was developed in collaboration with China!
This version of GOF Omnicron does appear to be far more deadly than Omnicron, or any other version out there. AFAIK none of the versions had a CFR greater than one, and Omnicron was far below 1% Looking at the study there still appears to be about a six day incubation. The concern of OAS and this version, should it escape, being particularly deadly to the vaccinated is a VERY real possibility. OAS is very hard to prove on a case by case basis, yet the negative efficacy of the vaccines, both for prevention of infection and mortality morbidity, is very real after several months. There are indications of OAS already. So a CFR of 5%, in a slow to manifest highly infectious version of Covid would be an unmitigated disaster. Mocking this possibility with inane sarcasm is incredibly foolish and stupid.
David,
Do you recall when they were claiming how difficult it would be to move the spike protein and others were claiming that the connection between the spike and the virus in covid was lab developed. Turns out, the university of Boston just repeated that process in a lab that likely costs less than some of my production lines. They report an 80% kill rate but some people are pretending to not understand what is different from the original covid virus.
This one uses the most infectious spike protein evolved around the vaccines and (just by logic) at least partially around natural immunity, combined with the most deadly version of the virus body. The researchers have zero idea how deadly this is to humans, as the paper shows, but the carelessness and hubris that led them to combine the most infectious spike with the deadliest virus body with ZERO approval or oversight is insanely reckless. Then they publish the results so that any lab capable of the splice can reproduce its result.
I bet a lot of money that most “researchers” are smart enough not to attempt such stupidity. It is absolutely a bioweapon lab and it needs to be closed and the researchers and school prosecuted.
> It is absolutely a bioweapon lab and it needs to be closed and the researchers and school prosecuted.
Yes. More regulation and government intervention. That’s what will save us.
You certainly don’t want people building nuclear weapons in their basements do you Josh? Why would you allow people to build gain-of-function bioweapons unsupervised. Even with exaggerated covid numbers cut to 1/3 the nuclear weapon would be less dangerous.
A little common sense wouldn’t hurt you one bit.
Good point, Jeff. What we need is to further empower government institutional regulation. Put scientists in jail if they step pit of line and don’t follow government decrees.
You know, like the CCP
You don’t make any sense. I need a license for a pistol or a car or a haircut but no license to for bioweapon gain of function research.
MASS FORMATION PSYCHOSIS!
Jeff –
You make total sense. You want more government involvement in what scientists do, so they can regulate more strictly what research does and doesn’t get conducted.
The CCP is a great model for what you want.
Legendary stupidity.
I totally get what you’re going for. You want the government to clamp down on any research that you, based on your conspiratorial, emotional feelings, particularly on topics where you have no background or expertise, don’t like. And you want scientists who you think are working on things you deem inappropriate, to be thrown into jail.
Makes total sense.
Apparently, you think the CCP is on the right track.
And Jeff –
I just want to make sure you know that I completely understand.
You feel scared. And you want government, like a big daddy, to step up and protect you, by putting baddies in jail.
It’s a very understandable emotional reaction.
You’re the dumas with 5 shots, three masks who stayed home cause you were told.
I get that you’re also afraid of vaccines, and afraid of wearing masks. They are also understandable, emotional reaxfomna.
Emotional reactions.
The vax was useless for me because I had covid before it was cool. The mask was useless for everyone. Course you wouldn’t know that because you aren’t bright enough to read the science.
And keep your chin up.
There’s a good chance that because of the actions of brave and heroic patriots like yourself, big daddy Trump, the fearless leader, will be back in power and and will use the government to throw all those baddies like Fauci into jail, like he’s long promised.
Then you’ll be able to be safe again from all those massive conspiracies.
Hopefully the days of killing of tens of millions through mass vaccinations with dangerous drugs, intended to control the sheeple and ensure big profits for big Pharma, are coming to an end.
Oh. And just so I know, since you seem into the whole Plandemic thingy, are you on board with the Bill Gates/microchip part of that?
Jeff –
> The vax was useless for me because I had covid before it was cool.
From what I’ve read, infection-induced immunity from infection, like vaccination-induced immunity from infection, is time-limited. However, from what I’ve read the level of immunity (to infection) provided by infections is more variable (harder to assess) than that from vaccinations, and the degree of immunity provided is quite variable among those infected, more so than those vaccinated.
Sure, it seems there are tradeoffs if you want to be comparing. There seems to be some evidence – not wholy conclusive because it’s mostly from observational population-level, epidemiological reverse engineering – that there may be some advantages to infection-induced immunity in terms of duration of immunity from infection and/or protection against severe disease or death. But it’s always a matter weighing costs and benefits, and in that light it’s worth asking whether the point is really comparative tradeoffs versus the benefits of hybrid immunity. If you think being infected is good enough for you given all the relevant factors (including the time-limitation and variability), go for it. But your comment that suggests you think it’s a binary framework, also suggest a facile logic. Not everything in this works is zero sum. I know that’s hard for some people to grasp.
> The mask was useless for everyone. Course you wouldn’t know that because you aren’t bright enough to read the science.
I’ve read a fair amount of the literature since the beginning of the pandemic. I also know people who actually study the mechanics of transmission of respiratory viruses.
From my looking around, anyone who makes absolute declarations, as you just did above, isn’t actually familiar with the full range of the literature – as taken as a whole, the evidence is pretty ambiguous.
Again, the uncertainty would be expected, as trying to understand the mechanics of COVID transmission at population levels would necessarily involve integrating numerous potentially confounding variables with very high ranges of uncertainty, and setting up an experimental paradigm for empirical study, as we might hope to see with a longitudinal RCT, would necessarily be extremely complicated.
My own take is that even looking at it as a low probability but potentially high impact factor risk assessment, given the potential for population-level compounding of individual-level risk, and given the absolutely trivial downsides of wearing a mask, when I’m going to be in enclosed spaces (particularly those with poor ventilation) for extended period of time with many people who may be infected, I’d rather wear a mask – primarily because I wouldn’t want to unknowingly infect someone else who is high risk or who might then infect someone who is high risk. As someone who has regular contact with highly vulnerable mother-in-law (we built an apartment for her thar adjoins to our house), I’m sensitive to that issue. If wearing a mask has any benedit to me in the sense of preventing me from infection (understanding their theoretical benefit is primarily as source control), so much the better. It’s a trivial inconvenience and I find the whining about what burden it is to wear a mask, to be laughable nonsense from people with an enormously over-developed sense of entitlement, or more likely just one of the many on both sides who think arguing about COVID, as a way to advance their ideological agenda, is a worthwhile expenditure of their time.
By far the most thoughtful response you’ve achieved yet. Of course, you found the wrong conclusion twice but that is to be expected from someone who considers news articles to be scientific ‘literature’.
There are now many, many dozens of papers which show the superiority of natural immunity over mRNA now. The papers on variability of natural immunity were only anti-body concentration focused which depends on how sick you get and does NOT directly correlate to long term immunity. A fact lost on many physicians as well so don’t feel too bad. I believe these were created for the benefit of large pharma as they don’t make sense from a true immunity standpoint. One hundred percent of properly constructed papers based on re-infection show the superiority of natural immunity both in safety and length. This is because the whole virus is used to generate the immune response rather than only the spike protein. This is as expected based on the most basic of medical immunology.
I am correct on this.
On masks, “as a low probability but potentially high impact” . Is a nice feeling but has nothing related to the science. In science, you hypothesize, test and conclude. Masks themselves became highly political so the ‘science’ hypothesized that particles may be too small to be captured by a mask so numerous filter studies were done. They used droplet sized particles and 100 percent of these studies showed that masks had significant efficacy. These did not test the efficacy of viral transmission from one person to another.
There were several papers post-sars and pre-covid which did test efficacy of masks at preventing transmission. 100 percent of these showed masks did nothing to prevent transmission. During covid, I read at least a dozen of the papers which looked at efficacy of masks in reducing transmission. I’m sorry to say that none of these showed any efficacy although I found two that claimed N95 masks showed a little efficacy AND FAILED TO PRESENT ANY DATA TO SUPPORT THAT. There was a Bangledesh paper that claimed microscopic efficacy of masks across hundreds of thousands of people but it included hand washing, masks, distancing, awareness and care in the same single variable and blamed the near zero change (only for people over 50) entirely on masks. Like you, at least they tried to be sciencie. In other words ‘fake conclusion’.
So the true story of masks is 100 percent of masks passed the filter studies, 100 percent of masks failed the efficacy of disease transmission studies. There are no exceptions.
Conlcusion: Wear your mask in your closed room if you like, cut a hole in it and suck your thumb too. Both help equally well.
I am correct on this too.
Jeff –
As is apparently typical of you, you’re wrong yet again. In this case, not necessarily that you come to the categorically wrong conclusion, but because you’re overly certain about highly uncertain issues and reach those certain conclusions despite the uncertainty.
> There are now many, many dozens of papers which show the superiority of natural immunity over mRNA now.
That conclusion is not uniform across all the studies that have been done.
> The papers on variability of natural immunity were only anti-body concentration focused which depends on how sick you get and does NOT directly correlate to long term immunity.
I never said that how you feel correlates to long term certainty. But what you apparently don’t know that the correlation between the amount neutralizing antibodies and the degree of uncertainty is not a firmly established phenomenon, empirically. And it should be plainly obvious, anyway, that the amount of neutralizing antibodies created will be more highly variable with infection-induced immunity than with induced, even though that vaccine-induced it will also be highly variable because of the obvious differences dues to variety of factors, none the least the high range of difference in different people’s immune systems.
> A fact lost on many physicians as well so don’t feel too bad.
Why would your ignorance and laughable overconfidence make me feel bad?
> I believe these were created for the benefit of large pharma as they don’t make sense from a true immunity standpoint. One hundred percent of properly constructed papers based on re-infection show the superiority of natural immunity both in safety and length.
Again, there is ambiguity in the literature. And much of the literature is inherently problematic in the way that it tries to infer biological facts from reverse engineering from population-level epidemiology. To reach the level of certainty you express, you need supporting evidence from lab-based research to explain the theorized causal mechanisms.
> This is because the whole virus is used to generate the immune response rather than only the spike protein. This is as expected based on the most basic of medical immunology.
There is plenty of immunological research that opens a window of uncertainty into your conclusions. You can repeat all the rightwing tropes you want. I’ve heard them all and read rightwing fanatics repeat them ad nauseam for a couple of years now. That doesn’t make them true, nor does it negate the research I’ve read on these topics.
> I am correct on this.
lol.
> On masks, “as a low probability but potentially high impact” . Is a nice feeling but has nothing related to the science. In science, you hypothesize, test and conclude.
Proper science incorporates understanding the uncertainties involvoed
> Masks themselves became highly political so the ‘science’ hypothesized that particles may be too small to be captured by a mask so numerous filter studies were done.
There’s actually a pretty high range of uncertainty regarding (1) the size of the particles that are infectious. The very definition itself, of what particles are considered as “aerosolized” is pretty uncertain. I’ve also read much in the way of rightwing tropes on this issue as well, spouted by people who don’t actually know about the issues, (1) there’s also a great deal of uncertainty related to the mechanics of how infectious particles travel through the air under a variety of conditions (such as ambient currents, temperature, humidity, etc).
> They used droplet sized particles and 100 percent of these studies showed that masks had significant efficacy. These did not test the efficacy of viral transmission from one person to another.
Apparently you’re completely unaware of the uncertainty and the arbitrariness of what “droplet size” even means. Given such, you obviously are not widely read on the topic. That you reach your level of certainty despite now being very well informed seems unfortunate but apparently typical for you.
> There were several papers post-sars and pre-covid which did test efficacy of masks at preventing transmission. 100 percent of these showed masks did nothing to prevent transmission.
Look, I’ve heard all this crap over and over from people who think they know what they’re talking about but don’t know what they’re talking about. You don’t know wtf you’re talking about but you’re sure that you do.
I’m not going to bother trying to change your mind because it would be a waste of time. I attempted to actually discuss an issue with you, but you’re making it clear that would be a total waste of time. You don’t know what you think you know. Such an attitude is a dime a dozen.
> I am correct on this too.
Lol.
It’s interesting how consistently you’re wrong about whether or not you’re wrong.
Immunology studies were clear on natural immunity vs the shot. Very clear. You haven’t read any but you are so damned sure I’m wrong.
The droplet size studies all showed efficacy at filtration yet there is no reduction in infection. Hmmm, what is going on there.
Chicken brain.
Jeff –
You’re just wrong. If you’d really done a thorough literature search you’d know that there’s a range of ambiguity in the findings. So you may think you’ve done a thorough search, but you haven’t. Jkn it going to bother trying to straighten you out because you’re obviously totally certain even though your wrong.
If you do a through search, you’ll see that I’m right. I would say that preponderance of research shows a superiority to infection-induced immunity – at least with respect to infection but less so in terms of immunity to severe illness – but there’s absolutely a variety of findings.
If course that’s on top of the methodological weaknesses with using population-level epidemiological studies to infer firm conclusions about this kind of immunology.
And of course that’s on top of the most important aspect regarding your original comment – which is that where’s little doubt that hybrid immunity is superior to infection-induced only.
> The droplet size studies all showed efficacy at filtration yet there is no reduction in infection. Hmmm, what is going on
What’s going on is that there’s a lot of uncertainty a context where something like RCTs (like the Bangladesh study or Danmask) is very, very complex.
Your use of “droplet” in such a facile manner makes it clear that you also don’t understand the issues regarding the uncertainty and arbitrariness, in the context of particle size and aerisolized transmission with respiratory viruses.
All I can say is if you educate yourself, you’ll benefit from the experience of having done so.
Another vacuous comment, words without meaning, NPC, or poorly coded AI like.
‘Tis not me that needs an education Josh. You are just hand waiving about uncertainty.
Jeff –
I’m certainly no expert. But I’ve done enough reading to know that anyone who say that there’s no evidence of superior benefits – in particular regarding severe disease and death – to vaccination-enduced immunity either is highly “motivated” to filter the evidence or doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
And it’s just plain logic about the limits of reverse engineering all of this from population level epidemiological data.
And you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about if you don’t think there’s an advantage to hybrid immunity.
Likewise, you clearly aren’t familiar with or are willfully ignorant of the evidence on aresolized/droplet transmission.
I’d give you links, but you’re making the bizarre claim that (1) you’re familiar with the literatures and, (2) there isn’t contradictory evidence. Since I know such evidence exists, there’s clearly no point in giving you links.
At the point where you acknowledge that the certainty of your conclusions is misplaced, I’ll be happy to give you links.
> or poorly coded AI like.
You got it David. I’m a bot. They should have known there’s no fooling a genius like you.
I don’t need links to articles you cannot understand Joshua.
> I don’t need links to articles you cannot understand Joshua.
Whatever you need to tell yourself. Jeff, to convince yourself that you’re not wrong.
I was obsessed with learning about covid because I have a lot of employees to care for. I did huge amounts of research and work to keep them safe. We had work protocols in place in March before you leftists even began to consider telling anyone what to do. None of our protocols included masks, until the dumases forced the issue. I had already figured out the truth well before then.
I would bet a lot of money that I’ve read more covid mask and immunity papers than you have read papers. Link away bud. No papers about papers please. Those I reject out of hand.
Jeff –
> I would bet a lot of money that I’ve read more covid mask and immunity papers than you have read papers. Link away bud. No papers about papers please. Those I reject out of hand.
I have no idea how much you’ve read. I know I’ve read quite a bit (from early on in the pandemic – both at the epidemiological level as well as emperical, lab-based research). And for just one example (there are many), what you’ve said about the size of infectious particles (and the implications of that for the efficacy of masks, particularly for source control) signals ignorance on your part given what I’ve read. Keep in mind, I’m not saying they’re 100% effective, or anything like that. It that any particular research is or isn’t correct. I’m referring to your absolutist statements that masks couldn’t have any relative benefit (particularly as source control) at population levels under specific circumstances like indoors with a lot of people in poorly ventilated areas).
And no, I’m not linking any papers because you claim you’re so widely read yet you seem ignorant of much of the evidence that I know exists.
Until you reconcile that fundamental problem there’s no point in linking papers. I’m not here to prove you wrong. I’m here to learn by sharing information. If you display that kind of ignorance, there’s nothing for me to learn from you
Studies on general masks show zero benefit with respect to transmission, that is what the studies say. There are no exceptions.
before you came here Joshie, you thought sea level rise was accelerating.
Jeff –
You’re so twisted into knots hyiu can’t even write an internally coherent statement.
> Studies on general masks show zero benefit with respect to transmission, that is what the studies say. There are no exceptions.
“on general…There are no exceptions.”
Sad.
Besides, this…
> show zero benefit with respect to transmission…
Is just silly and suggests that you don’t even understand science.
Some lab-based studies have shown a potential for some benefits in terms of the mechanics of infectious particles, depending on the size of particles, ambient conditions, humidity, etc. Some epidemiological studies have shown some potential for benefits at the population level. Neither type of study can “prove” they’re effective for preventing all transmission under all circumstances and expectation that they might is just inane as would be holding studies to that type of standard. Studies can’t control for all confounding variables – the best they can do is inform about probabilities.
But keep posting. The more you do the more you show gaps in your understanding.
This blog is still up:
https://nerdhaspower.weebly.com/
I’ve not visited for a while but my recollection is that the author was right on the frontline of this area of research. Check the about page.
I read your link. It is well written and I find myself further emotionally convinced that COVID was lab made. Unfortunately, my lack of expertise leaves me looking to others for their understanding and that really is tough for me. That the governments of the world have steadfastly refused to investigate what would be the greatest biological accident (on purpose?) in history feels a lot like how they investigated election fraud in the US.
they didn’t.
Great link.
Jeff, they also refuse to investigate VAERS, which was made to point the way to potential harms. They were forced to partially admit the well known heart issues, (yet appear to weekly come out with new theories of why young people have heart issues, the latest being the stress of video games) yet VARES has at least six other adverse events that appear in higher numbers than the heart issues. AFAIK they have done ZERO studies of like demographics, vaccinated versus unvaccinated , in any of these VARES red flag areas. And those VAERS red flags are many times larger than all other vaccines.
It would be very simple to review hospital records for these red flagged morbidity mortality increased adverse events, and compare vaccinated versus unvaccinated. The control group is there by the hundreds of millions all over the world. The vaccination status is known. These studies can still be done retroactively. From there thousands of detailed autopsies should have been done. (The few done showed a very high percentage of vaccine harm)
Yet none of these studies are done.
Autopsies are routinely denied.
As you say, no real investigation of Covid origins.
No investigation of voter fraud. (Yet lots of refusal to look at it.)
Suppression and demonization of ALL promising prophylactic treatments.
Refusal to see or admit that CAGW policy is what drove energy cost through the roof. (Instead there is a doubling down on promoting CAGW and the money and policy that goes with it)
Unfettered importation of millions of illegal immigrants, many of whom hate the nation they are moving to to live in. Both in the US, and in Europe.
Zero study of 10 plus percent increased mortality, vaccinated vs unvaccinated.
Abandonment of ME war zones leaving many many billions of dollars of military equipment with radical Islamists.
Suppression of all development of US natural gas, coal, nuclear and hydro energy.
Depletion of US strategic oil reserves right before the situation globally is likely to go from bad to extremely bad.
Begging the Saudis to produce more.
Likely blowing up Europe’s supply of LNG from Russia, at a time of desperate need.
The destruction of the family, the entire woke insanity, the sex change mutilations for anyone, let alone children, the demonization of conservatives, the lack of prosecution of ANTIFA and BLM crimes that were infinitely worse than Jan 5th trespassing.
(Many more inane things are not typed for some brevity.)
These are not, IMV blunders, these folk have some insane malthusian philosophy combined with a Blackbard like “rule the world” they break power lust.
Sheesh, I remember when the CAGW insanity was a main concern. The world is in for a very bumpy ride.
I love that list. It’s simply too real. I’ve never seen a country reverse itself from these sorts of problems and am not sure it can be done.
David A and Jeff – this 30 min presentation is well worth watching:
“How flawed statistics have manipulated the Covid narrative”
Professor Norman Fenton
Presentation to UK Doctors For Patients, 14 September 2022
https://www.bitchute.com/video/CtF8dVZtYw8e/
Prof Fenton and his team were early observers of all cause mortality being higher in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated.
https://www.normanfenton.com/
This 30 min presentation is worth watching:
“How flawed statistics have manipulated the Covid narrative”
Presentation to UK Doctors For Patients, 14 September 2022
Professor Norman Fenton
https://www.bitchute.com/video/CtF8dVZtYw8e/
https://www.normanfenton.com/about
> Prof Fenton and his team were early observers of all cause mortality being higher in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated.
Perfect.
This blog is just perfect.
Jeff: If you haven’t seen it, you might enjoy this film on the life and work of James Randi:
I saw it the other day as a freebie on Amazon. Excellent in my opinion and also showed his personal life which was news to me.
One of the strong takeaways for me is the reaction of people, both as individuals and also collectively, to the inescapable reality that they had been (and can be) fooled. It’s been out a while (it was filmed before he died), so apologies if you’ve seen it.
(Btw: I’m reply to myself just to try and limit narrowing of the WordPress comment thread)
Hmmm – Amazon link looks like it hasn’t worked – try this or IMDB etc:
https://watchdocumentaries.com/an-honest-liar/
Curious –
If you want to go down that conspiracy rabbit hole, you should go here as well:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350523980_The_Wuhan_Laboratory_Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2_and_the_Validity_of_the_Yan_Reports_Are_Further_Proved_by_the_Failure_of_Two_Uninvited_Peer_Reviews_Opening_Statement
Or you could go with Jeffrey Sachs, whose conspiracy is that it was a US bioweapon not a CCP bioweapon.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/jeffrey-sachs-lessons-from-the-covid-commission-lab/id1450540825?i=1000581778581
So little time, so many conspiracy theories.
https://alexwasburne.substack.com/p/a-synthetic-origin-of-sars-cov-2
Hat tip Jo Nova via Matt Ridley:
https://joannenova.com.au/2022/10/blockbuster-fingerprint-genetic-evidence-strongly-suggests-covid-was-bio-engineered/
Since you saw fit to offer that link, I’m sure you’ve looked at these responses in disagreement (there are more, of course) and ascertained why they’re scientifically in error:
None of tour own words — again.
Lol.
Feel free tibemkfjten us with uuiir expert opinion on these very technical details.
But I have to say, with your track record of displaying ignorance of the relevant scientific literature while stating definitive conclusions about masks and different kinds of immunity, you don’t exactly inspire much confidence.
Feel free tibemkfjten = feel free to enlighten…
It’s also interesting that in response to curious posting a link, I posted some links – but you only have something to say when I do it.
Looks like maybe I’m living rent free in your head. Do you mind if I get cable installed and order out for pizza?
For those with an account, or an app to get around paywalls:
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2022/10/22/a-new-paper-claims-sars-cov-2-bears-signs-of-genetic-engineering
Keep in mind, Washburn published analysis that showed how COVID reached “natural epidemic endpoints” in winter 2020-21.
Doesn’t prove he’s wrong about this, but suggests he might be prone to over-confidence about his ability to model complex phenomena in areas where he has strong ideological predispositions. Kinda like Nic Lewis.