This "refutation" piece by "Dr." Paul Offit is a terrible one done without any ounce of soul-reflection nor commentary on gain-of-function, Fauci's ties to EcoHealth Alliance and to Wuhan, no mention of the novel furin cleavage, no mention of University of North Carolina's Chapel-Hill gain-of-function research on coronavirus, etc. It shows why Paul Offit is a dinosaur and why we can't trust "scientists" who are already aligned with or have received significant monies from government scientific institutions. Great reforms are needed but it won't come by way of people like Paul Offit.
Sam, you can only make that statement if you pretend (like Dr. Offit did) that the gaps I brought up don't exist. These gaps are so basic that it is embarrassing that a scientist of Dr. Offit's experience would overlook them.
Actually the chapel hill experiments utilized newer genome sequencing protocol to study viruses, they didnt grow " new" viruses in a lab. It is a much safer way to study if subtle changes can infect a human cell line. BTW positive infection doesn't mean viral replication . So POSSIBLY NO GOF! but the conspiracy theorist always leave that fact out! The next steps were never taken to possibly have GOF. Take a microbiology or virology class better, its super helpful to weed through your B.S.
Let's be accurate here. UNC has been doing genomic modification to create chimeric coronaviruses from non-viable genetic viral material. Moreover, Ralph Baric of UNC is an expert on gain-of-function.
And you say "POSSIBLY NO GOF"? The heck does that mean. Did it happen or not?
Not at all. Your gaps are innuendo and speculation fueled by fear and hatred.
The phylogeny of the whole related group of viruses could never exist with a lab leak. Listen to the whole of the TWiV discussion and read the references if you can. You might learn something.
Again, you ignore the gaps I pointed out. How would you analysis change if the statements I made were correct?
Also, I disagree with your statement "The phylogeny of the whole related group of viruses could never exist with a lab leak." What makes you believe that?
I read it and that's how I found the gaps. Now you didn't address them either and you said nothing that advanced the argument. Care to make your case using *actual arguments*?
I have been researching and writing about this since the start and find it extraordinary that anyone would at this stage say with such crazy certainty that "there was no lab leak". We cannot be sure as yet that there was, but so much now points in that direction that most people who do not have an utterly biased agenda are open to the possibility. SO many people now consider a laboratory to be the most likely origin. There is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 made a zoonotic jump from an animal to humans. It's likely that the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan was a superspreader location, but no actual evidence that it was the epicenter of SARS-CoV-2 emergence.
twiv wasn't very effective either. they use sources attempting to do the same things paul is doing here. it used to be called boot strapping. a bunch of fake "scientific data" all created to give legitimacy to their conspiracy theory of "zoonotic origin". this virus came from a lab.
all the rest of pauls commentary is just pharmaceutical industry cope.
provide a link. I give a fair reading to everything. and don't be offended but it is easy to dismiss things the way you presented it. we have to convey a message in the same way offit does. you have to read what they say, recognize what they omit, and use their own information and studies to smash them.
I will indeed read your comment. but again, please don't use profanity or copy walls of text. people will dismiss that.
no. I'm not ignoring it. I responded to you. I'm sayiong that although this informationand topic can be animating, you shouldn't use profanity or copy and paste jobs because people will ignore you.
I read your post. yet, I want other people to take you seriously. it's hard to take this advice but I want people to listen and understand my messages and yours too. profanity and copy and paste jobs will make it easy for others to dismiss you.
do you understand the message I'm trying to convey?
What are your thoughts about the two lineages? I find it hypocritical that you concern yourself with “ad hominem” attacks directed personally but then call Paul Offit “a dinosaur”.
what about Jeffrey Sach's opinion - the individual who chaired the Lancet's commission investigating the origins of the virus?
despite the fence sitting in the published paper - he has since given many interviews in which he feels there is abundant evidence sars co v 2 originated in USA funded biotech research.
Jeffrey Sachs unilaterally disbanded the branch of that commission investigating origins because he didn't like what he thought they would find. A summary published in The Lancet is rather diplomatic in describing this: "The Commission began with a task force on the origins of the pandemic. But, regrettably, the divisive public discussion about the source of SARS-CoV-2 damaged the trust needed for the task force to complete its work. This Commission therefore has no additional new evidence to contribute to the ongoing investigation of the pandemic's origins."
see minute 14 in the above interview: Sachs says he initially thought it was likely a natural spillover event, and invited Peter Daszak to the commission -given his expertise- only to be outright lied to by Peter. Then Peter said he wouldn't show documents pertaining to EcoHealth Alliance's research programs once it was shown that EcoHealth was collaborating on research with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
put on your thinking cap...
for those willing to invest more time - here is a link to a 1h 40 minute presentation Sachs gave Nov 1 2022 titled: Origins of the Pandemic Webinar
"Prof. Jeffrey Sachs, Chair of the Lancet COVID-19 Commission, highlighted the Commission’s conclusion that there are two leading viable hypotheses – that the virus emerged from a zoonotic spillover from wildlife or a farm animal, or that the virus emerged from a research-related incident – and that neither hypothesis has been fully investigated nor dispositively proven. "
I challenge Dr. Offit to an open debate of ALL the evidence proving with 100% certainty that COVID-19 was created in the Wuhan lab, including reports from the US Senate and intel agencies:
How many US You investigators were on the ground in Wuhan to support and verify the conclusions Paul is leaning on? None? We’re just supposed to trust the CCP? Even the most ardent science denying pro-Pharma shills admit that we had no idea what research the CCP was conducting at the Wuhan Virology Lab, but then they turn around and can say with confidence that they did 100% NOT create the virus.
You have to be a brain dead idiot to believe this BS.
That's a lie, they frequently published research on what they researched. They have to Publish or Perish in China like we scientist do in US. Several non Chinese folks were on the ground at the wet market. But I guess only US investigators are honest is your argument?
You definitely know about shit it seems, judging by your production of said shit. I saw the testimony and have colleagues at NIH . I see a lot of shit on social media. Far less from the vast majority of good scientists who you and all of us owe a debt of gratitude. The misinformation grifters like Dr.Mercola and hordes of social media grifters are the ones who deserve jail time for killing over 300,000 vaccine hesitant people.
sorry, pal. the covid medical products harmed more people than they helped. anyone who produced them, pushed them, and supported policy mandates deserves jail time. you can freely attempt to justify the statement you made but allow me to convey the proper message here: "try it again".
That house meeting was all part of the political show, arranged to earn money from their grifted cult followers. They didn't even stay for the democrats questions, they left after they got a Instagram short video for the cult!
Are you suggesting that Fauci did not testify honestly? All I gave you were his own words. Although I do agree that 100% of what comes out of that slime balls mouth is shit. Prison would be too kind an outcome for him.
Q: We'll come back to it in the context of some other things, but I want to run 4 through some quick questions about kind of the initial outbreak, what you were hearing 5 out of China, what -- if you were aware of things that China was doing. So I talked about Dr. Yongzhen's lab getting shut down. You didn't have any awareness.
A No.
Q It was also reported that kind of the -- for lack of a better phrase, the original 10 COVID-19 whistleblower, Dr. Li Wenliang, who passed away from COVID, was forced to 11 sign a nondisclosure agreement to not publicly discuss the virus, and then there were 12 reports of China locking up journalists and gagging scientists. Did you have any awareness on any of that?
A You know, I was hearing indirectly -- you know, you hear all kinds of strange 15 things about what goes on in China and their lack of transparency. I mean, that's not an unusual thing. You know, there was lack of transparency early on with SARS when it was in Guangdong Province. The Chinese tend to be nontransparent even when they don't have to be nontransparent.
Fauci - “I don't have eyes onto or knowledge of the scope of what's going on in Wuhan, in China, or in any other place. The only thing that I had eyes on through my staff was what was done according to the subaward that was granted to the Wuhan. So I have no way of knowing, nor does anyone, I think, what's going on in other laboratories in China.”
I have unsubscribed from Beyond the Noise. This is the kind of thing John Tooby warned against in his article "Coalitional instinct" at Edge. https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27168.
False. Mr Offit only “debunked” a couple of arguments made by a nobody at the New York Times, which is not hard to do. No where is ANY “evidence” presented that either rules out the lab theory or proves “Proximal Origins”. Nobody with a brain believes that the US funded Wuhan lab was transparent about the experiments they were conducting, and he even stated that any evidence that would have proved the wet market theory was destroyed.
All of the animals that could have proven a zoonotic origin were destroyed, therefore there is no direct evidence either way. It’s just convenient to blame a laboratory leak.
that was an unverifiable claim. the ccp cannot be trusted. people were going to wet markets the next day and putting video on weibo of animals from the wuhan market that just went to another market. that went down the ccp memory hole too.
I watched the twiv episode and they didn't prove anything. they spent time using mockery. they also used holme's defenses which amount to opinion using "scientific" format.
this virus came from a lab. the implications of that, damage the credibility of paul and pharmaceutical industry sycophants and the pharmaceutical inidustry itself when they push their shoddily made medical products where they want to "create demand".
yes. I have. I have watched every single twiv episode. even the old ones. it took me more than a year to catch up but I had nothing but time after losing my job, being roundly mocked and ridiculed, and having irreparable damage done to my professional career.
I follow vincent racaniello closely. he is in the know and I suspect he's some kind of liutenant to frances collins, faucis and the people pushing much of this trash down our throats. not listening and understanding him/them is a mistake for anyone interested in public health going forward.
to be clear, twiv uses holmes as a primary source. in very case. holmes uses his opinion and anecdotes (which according to paul are not evidence). holmes wrote a fake scientifically formatted article to advance the zoonosis conspiracy theory and used other people who agree with him in advancing his theory to provide support and evidence.. paul is doing the same thing...
I would suggest that you listen to the evidence given by Steven Quay during the June 18 Senate hearing entitled 'Origins of COVID-19: An Examination of Available Evidence'. Quay provides accurate, unbiased information. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kbUDmJPwtU. If you watch the whole thing, you will note that Robert Garry, who has been interviewed on TWiV, comes across extremely badly in the hearing. Steven Quay's written testimony can be accessed here: https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/origins-of-covid-19-an-examination-of-available-evidence/
Coalitional instinct is a source of bias that every scientist must account for in their thinking. That a possible source of bias exists does not lead directly to the conclusion that said bias is influencing the conclusion at question. Do you have actual evidence contrary to what Paul offers here?
So says the all knowing one? Nice misinformation post. You proved his point. How would you ever know he didn't read the article? The answer is, YOU don't know!
Thank You, Thank You, Thank You for this article!!! I watched the TiwiTV Episode and found it to be very helpful, but it's also helpful to have these points in writing. I want to scream every time I hear people getting mad that the Lab Leak theory isn't getting enough attention and how congress is promoting it.
twiv didn't do anything but a retread of the holmes article and his opinion and anectodtes. all of that can be dismissed. most of the evidence used for their conspiracy theor of "zoonotic spillover" comes from holmes, scientists using holmes as a source then restating what holmes claimed as evidence.
this is what these scumbags do. holmes is a pharmaceutical sales rep essentially. then again so is paul. they want to force us through policy to consume shoddily made medical products that have horrific side effects.
HI Paul, here is an email I just sent to the TWIV special. I'll include it here for your perusal:
Wow. Just wow. And not in a good way. Wow. I don't even know where to start. Ad hominem attacks without substantive rebuttal to Chan. I was excited to hear any updates in the COVID field. But instead I got a junior high locker room. Is this really where "science" is headed? The hilarious thing about this experience for me is that none of you even realize how unprofessional your personal attacks are. "That's just wrong" or "she is ignorant" is not science. It's not even intelligent. It's just hand waving ad hominems. I'm not even a virologist, but I'm going to list some things for your consideration:
1. China has removed, deleted, and obstructed any evidence surrounding SARS COV-2 origins. This is indisputable even now in June 2024. Don't believe me? Google the AP report of the WHO. Why is this? Is it because it doesn't fit your predetermined narrative or will you be scientists and wonder with me? Don't you think if China leaders wanted to exonerate lab leak they would fall all over themselves to release this information? Hmm. Curious.
2. China was untruthful about the timeline for making the genetic sequencing of SARS-COV2 available. Why is this?
3. China has claimed to be "open and transparent" regarding any information despite being obviously just the opposite. Why is this?
4. Many early COVID cases are still unavailable to review because of obstruction (to this day) from China. How can any study be adequately done without research into these confiscated case reports? How can you even do a study without this vital information?
5. Lab leak was dismissed casually, out of hand because of the 2 separate lineages A and B were discovered in the market. Wow! 2 lightning strikes within 2 weeks of each other! This is no more plausible than a lab leak that mutated within 2 weeks of each other.
6. Research has revealed that the market was already teaming with human DNA/SARS COV2 when it was studied. Most freely admit the animal stalls were oversampled. "You get what you're looking for" also called ascertainment bias. Yeah, it's there.
7. Racoon dogs are the last hope for an intermediary. They live a LONG way from Asian rhinolophus bats. And yet, no SARS COV2 virus found on racoon dog DNA samples. Thats right, you do have one out of 15, but frankly, it was contamination.
8. Where did raccoon dogs/rhinolophus bats get the ability to mutate a furin cleavage site that codes to enter exclusively into human ACE2 receptors in the lungs and only kill people? (I guess rats did it in the 1300's, why not raccoon dogs--oh, that's right darn it, SARS-COV2 only kills people, unlike yersinia pestis).
9. We now know that raccoon dogs had very little correlation to SARS COV2 let alone transmission. The highest correlation in the seafood market was to seafood and cattle. Hmmm.
If this is where "science" is headed, then count me out. I found Chan's article actually quite balanced and measured. I found your rebuttal belittling, condescending, and uneducated. It did nothing to bolster the case against lab leak, and in fact soured my opinion of all of you as scientists.
Perhaps this is why 2/3 of Americans from both political parties now think that COVID came from a lab. That's a pretty steep uphill battle to continue disparaging people who think differently than yourselves. Try a little humility. Then you might get a little more respect from people. Just my 2 cents. --
I listened to the whole thing. the fact is that twiv only uses a retread of holmes intial claims and opinions. holmes weaves this into a "scientific article" that's just a word salad of a conclusion that is necessary for the pharmaceutical industry to bilk funding from the government.
this isn't going to work. what is presented as evidence is just thinly veiled opinion all supported by nothing but opinion.
She claimed SARS2 lacks a link to the wildlife trade when the earliest SARS2 cluster was associated with Huanan market, the earliest retrospectively identified case was associated with Huanan market, the earliest cases acquired in healthcare were associated with Huanan market, all genomic diversity of SARS2 at a time when there were circa 1000 cumulative infections in humans was found in Huanan market, and wild animals susceptible to SARS2 infection and capable of transmission were found in environmental samples from Huanan market together with SARS2.
Conversely, she says early SARS cases were much more associated with animals. She doesn't mention that these animals are very unlikely to be the proximal host of the 2002/3 SARS outbreak. On the earliest known case: "He had not traveled outside Foshan in the 2 weeks before his illness and had no contact history, but he had prepared food including chicken, domestic cat, and snake."
She says there's no link between Huanan market and areas further south such as Yunnan. The subset of the wildlife trade that's documented (the black market tends to be deficient in bookkeeping) includes a domesticated wildlife supplier from Yunnan. She doesn't mention that SAR/SARS2-like viruses were sampled in bats just outside Wuhan. She doesn't mention that SARS2-like viruses were sampled in trafficked pangolins at least four times in China and Vietnam.
Mockery is an appropriate response to someone who lies and omits very relevant evidence to tell people want they want to hear.
none of what youve claimed supports the holmes article and what it claims. it is opinion written as scientific fact and not a very good one. I'm not sure what else to tell you.
What you need to understand is that pharma has a transparency problem. Whether it’s OxyContin, Thalidomide, mRNA, they just don’t tell the truth, their business model relies on it. Anyone that argues that is just in denial, no other industry has been charged and found guilty of fraud even remotely close. To think that the industry with the worst record is also the only industry to be granted liability protection for harms caused by their products is insanity, how would they have any incentive to act honourably? Behaviour observed worldwide is simply a product of incentives and disincentives, it’s just basic logic, to think otherwise is just being in denial.
You never discussed why the Times published the article. Simple answer is to generate clicks and views! Like you said, a majority seem to believe lab leak regardless of the biological facts you discussed. The 2 lineages really sold zoontic to me. Plus the jumping back and forth between different mammals of this latest coronavirus. It took over 15 years to figure out how Sars 1 began and it was zoonotic! I doubt we will able to find ground zero of Sars Covid-19. The evidence was rightly destroyed by public health. Their attempt to slow the virus by destroying sick animals and attempt to disinfect the area. I really enjoyed Dr Rancanillo video on this times article, thanks for giving us the information Dr Offitt, and thanks for your service!
Yes, this is the question: Why did the Times publish Chan's op-ed, without also publishing an actual expert opinion from a leader in the field? It was stunningly irresponsible of them.
Also, curiously, last weekend they ran a wierd puff piece on RFK JR. and his ravens. What in the world was that about? An attempt to humanize someone whose rantings have resulted in the death of chuldren?
And as Trump continues to spiral down, further and further into dementia, shrieking and ranting about sharks, toilets, cancer from wind technology, thinking Jimmy Kimmel and Al Pacino are the same person, dreaming of dictatorship, etc. etc., November slips further and further away from his feeble, stubby-fingered, grasp.
that was the twiv claim. not sure how many clicks they got but what I do know is that covid came from a lab and trusting the ccp to give you good scientific data is a fools errand.
This is just an attempt to deflect from the fact that a bunch of sociopaths from the US funded and did research in Wuhan that was illegal in the US and may have caused the pandemic. We have to clean up the wet markets, but regardless of how it started we shouldn't be doing research that theoretically could start a pandemic either. We should also arrest, try and potentially jail anyone that lied to congress or destroyed evidence about any of this.
How about we start by prosecuting anyone that funds or does similar research going forward, prosecute anyone that broke any laws this time, including anyone that lied to congress about what they funded or were working on, anyone that destroyed emails or an evidence trail that would reveal what was going on, and those that worked to suppress the views of other experts that disagreed with the consensus? While we are doing that we can also work on the wet market.
I imagine the future grandkids of a US Congressman asking him “What did you do to stop the great pandemic of 2028 that came from wet markets in China and killed one billion people, grandad?” and getting the response: “Well, nothing relevant, I suppose… We wasted the Government’s time and money by trying to convict our best scientific minds and hopes of averting the pandemic for their terrible crime of maybe deleting some emails.”
it isn't a waste of money or time. covid proved that.
viruses are a state security issue. but what must be watched and monitored are the pharmaceutical industry and anyone with even remote knowledge of virus manipulation. these people should not be able to visit the toilet without an fbi or homeland security agent giving them an exam and searching their homes and computers.
Back here in the real world, the folks investigating SARS-like viruses with spillover potential were tragically underfunded in retrospect knowing the costs and likelihood of a SARS-like pandemic. Particularly, in pre-pandemic studies you can find advice to advocate PPE for animal handlers in wet markets that might've prevented the SARS2 pandemic and also work with a SARS2-like virus (not in Wuhan, by the way) that could've led to a Paxlovid-like drug much earlier with more focus.
we need a concerted effort to watch each and every scientist with even tangential knowledge of manipulation of virus in a lab. there must be oversight of them. the oversight must be so hard and so harsh that they can't pick up a pipette without the fbi, cia, or nsa's knowledge of it.
they shouldn't be able to use the bathroom without the state security apparatus knowing it. and I mean the world over.
Two U.S. federal agencies, the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), believe that COVID-19 most likely originated from a lab leak (as confirmed by FBI Director Christopher Wray in 2023). Are they also peddling in "conspiracy theories"? I don't know where the virus originated, but it seems disingenuous and strange to dismiss a possibility supported by two federal agencies as being based on conspiracy theories.
"US Federal Agencies" have no expertise in the subject matter. They've produced NO evidence to support their claims, which makes their assertions meaningless.
Science is based on evidence, such as that provided by Worobey and others, not beliefs.
Offit is just trying to deflect from the fact that a bunch of sociopaths from the US funded and did research in Wuhan that was illegal in the US and may have caused the pandemic. We have to clean up the wet markets, but regardless of how it started we shouldn't be doing research that theoretically could start a pandemic either. We should also arrest, try and potentially jail anyone that lied to congress or destroyed evidence about any of this.
Anthony Fauci is even now confessing to a possibility of a lab leak. I think by now, we have enough information out there to make our own adult decisions, not that any of them mater anyway. But at least if Im wearing a conspiracy theorist badge about it being leaked from a lab, I wearing it with lots of other people, including many prominent scientist, none of which worked for Eco Alliance. Maybe someday that animal we’ve been looking for for four years will pot out of the woods or a cave or somewhere and at last proclaim, “Here I am, what took all you smart people so long to identify me?”
From the June 2023 ODNI report, you can't cite the DOE and FBI as mutually supporting "a lab leak" when their conclusions of the most likely scenario aren't the same:
"The Department of Energy and the Federal Bureau of Investigation assess that a laboratory-associated incident was the most likely cause of the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2, although for different reasons."
I am sure Paul Offit the paid shill is aware that after the Covid select committee meetings in private have produced an outcome of funding being cut from Eco Health Alliance. Maybe he would be better off interviewing Dr.Andrew Huff the whistleblower that has been speaking out since 2020. I am pretty sure as a previous employee with a lot of evidence would be much better suited that Paul Offit to give his opinion.
Microbiologist Richard Ebright tweeted about the raccoon dog saga: “It would be laughable that this is being portrayed as a revelation…except that it is not a mere joke, but, rather, an active disinformation campaign by knowingly and willfully complicit journalists.”
Ebright told Yahoo News reporter Alexander Nazaryan: “The data do not indicate that a raccoon dog was infected with SARS-CoV-2, much less that a raccoon dog was infected with SARS-CoV-2 and then transmitted SARS-CoV-2 to a human.”
This "refutation" piece by "Dr." Paul Offit is a terrible one done without any ounce of soul-reflection nor commentary on gain-of-function, Fauci's ties to EcoHealth Alliance and to Wuhan, no mention of the novel furin cleavage, no mention of University of North Carolina's Chapel-Hill gain-of-function research on coronavirus, etc. It shows why Paul Offit is a dinosaur and why we can't trust "scientists" who are already aligned with or have received significant monies from government scientific institutions. Great reforms are needed but it won't come by way of people like Paul Offit.
It is you who is out to lunch. Give it up. There was no lab leak. This is and always was a wild type virus spillover event.
Sam, you can only make that statement if you pretend (like Dr. Offit did) that the gaps I brought up don't exist. These gaps are so basic that it is embarrassing that a scientist of Dr. Offit's experience would overlook them.
Actually the chapel hill experiments utilized newer genome sequencing protocol to study viruses, they didnt grow " new" viruses in a lab. It is a much safer way to study if subtle changes can infect a human cell line. BTW positive infection doesn't mean viral replication . So POSSIBLY NO GOF! but the conspiracy theorist always leave that fact out! The next steps were never taken to possibly have GOF. Take a microbiology or virology class better, its super helpful to weed through your B.S.
Let's be accurate here. UNC has been doing genomic modification to create chimeric coronaviruses from non-viable genetic viral material. Moreover, Ralph Baric of UNC is an expert on gain-of-function.
And you say "POSSIBLY NO GOF"? The heck does that mean. Did it happen or not?
Not at all. Your gaps are innuendo and speculation fueled by fear and hatred.
The phylogeny of the whole related group of viruses could never exist with a lab leak. Listen to the whole of the TWiV discussion and read the references if you can. You might learn something.
Again, you ignore the gaps I pointed out. How would you analysis change if the statements I made were correct?
Also, I disagree with your statement "The phylogeny of the whole related group of viruses could never exist with a lab leak." What makes you believe that?
The only "gaps" here are between your ears. What makes him believe that? Take his advice, read. You might learn something but I doubt it.
I read it and that's how I found the gaps. Now you didn't address them either and you said nothing that advanced the argument. Care to make your case using *actual arguments*?
I have been researching and writing about this since the start and find it extraordinary that anyone would at this stage say with such crazy certainty that "there was no lab leak". We cannot be sure as yet that there was, but so much now points in that direction that most people who do not have an utterly biased agenda are open to the possibility. SO many people now consider a laboratory to be the most likely origin. There is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 made a zoonotic jump from an animal to humans. It's likely that the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan was a superspreader location, but no actual evidence that it was the epicenter of SARS-CoV-2 emergence.
“Researching..”
Yeah, right…
These points have been refuted on various TWIV discussions. There are no citations or references here.
twiv wasn't very effective either. they use sources attempting to do the same things paul is doing here. it used to be called boot strapping. a bunch of fake "scientific data" all created to give legitimacy to their conspiracy theory of "zoonotic origin". this virus came from a lab.
all the rest of pauls commentary is just pharmaceutical industry cope.
Check this shit out…
March 19, 2018
Anthony Fauci, MD
National Institutes of Health
Director, National Institute for Allergy
and Infectious Diseases
Building 31, National Institutes of Health
31 Center Drive, Room 7A03
Bethesda, MD 20892-2520
Dear Dr. Fauci,
The NIH All of Us Research Program is a historic effort to gather data from over
a million participants to accelerate research and improve health. Lessons from the
All of Us (AoU) Program will transform the practice of medicine from a one-size-
fits-all paradigm to a more individualized approach. Currently readying for its
national launch, AoU Program research will help link the impacts of
environmental exposure, diet, and genetics to our understanding of health and
disease, which will subsequently impact recommendations for treatment and care.
On March 21-23, NIH is holding a stakeholder-driven All of Us Research
Priorities Workshop to identify key requirements for advancing precision
medicine research at NIH. The program is seeking public input on potential
research questions or use cases. Other funders (including other NIH Institutes and
Centers) may consider use cases that are not incorporated into the All of Us
protocol for additional funding opportunities. As these historic efforts get
underway, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) urges the National
Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to promote infectious
diseases (ID) research considerations as a critical component of the AoU
Research Program, and also consider ways to link current and future Institute
efforts with program data.
Precision medicine and ID research
Since the advent of the All of Us Research Program, IDSA has been ramping up
our ID precision medicine efforts and working to establish infectious diseases as
an AoU research priority. In 2016, the Society formed a working group that
surveyed the landscape of infections and precision medicine to consider research
recommendations at the intersection of both fields.
IDSA has also been invited to participate in the upcoming All of Us Research
Priorities Workshop. IDSA’s submitted use cases to the public portal may be
found here, here, and here. Attendees will review submitted use cases, identify
gaps, create new use cases, and identify data types common across multiple use
PAGE 2—IDSA Comments to NIAID RE NIH All of Us Research Priorities
cases. Factors that will determine whether a use case becomes part of the protocol include
impact, scope, scalability, budget, and value to participants. NIH will make all use cases
available on the All of Us website as a searchable reference and as a principal database for
informing the program’s plans.
ID precision medicine research questions consider different factors than other fields, such as
oncology, that are typically associated with personalized care. Infectious diseases treatment often
occurs in a time-pressured setting (e.g., initiating empiric therapy for pneumonia or sepsis).
Infectious diseases often intersect with other specialties. Additionally, the field stands to benefit
from the increased study of the microbiome – a current NIAID priority that can be realized
through AoU – as well as continued human genome research. These considerations should be
integrated into AoU research priorities at the program’s outset.
It is critical that IDSA, NIAID, and other stakeholders work together to emphasize the
importance of ID precision medicine research as NIH prioritizes efforts in this area. AoU data
can be harnessed to improve ID patient care, diagnostics, vaccines, pharmacogenomics, and drug
development. Suggested research topics at the intersection of ID and precision medicine include:
• Using precision medicine to predict patients at risk for post-infectious complications of
vector-borne illnesses;
• Identifying the metabolic features of patients who develop mild vs. severe manifestations
of influenza;
• Improving precision management of acute infections and sepsis (as a major burden to
healthcare systems);
• Using AoU data to track and test individual responses to population-level emerging
infection interventions;
• The “other” genome: microbiota and the pathogenesis of infectious diseases;
• Using precision medicine to determine optimal antiretroviral therapy in aging people
living with HIV;
• Exploring precision vaccinology to determine who may benefit from particular vaccines,
doses, and/or formulations;
• Discovering microbial causes of illnesses previously not considered to be infectious
diseases.
As the AoU Research Program matures, the integration of electronic medical record (EMR)-
generated and big data platforms will aid in the advancement of precision medicine. The NIAID
Genomics Centers for Infectious Diseases (GCID) can leverage these advances to improve
innovative applications of genomic ID technologies and more efficiently sequence microbial
isolates, host microbiomes, and invertebrate vectors of infectious diseases. Likewise, the Clinical
Genomics Program builds upon large-scale gene sequencing analysis to better understand,
diagnose, and treat immune system disorders, and the program’s combined focus on genetics and
immunology and multi-disciplinary approach align with the AoU research philosophy. NIAID
should harness AoU program data to help researchers study the etiology of antimicrobial
resistance, autoimmune disorders, host responses, and host-pathogen interactions.
PAGE 3—IDSA Comments to NIAID RE NIH All of Us Research Priorities
IDSA will continue to emphasize the importance of infectious diseases precision medicine
research as AoU shifts its focus from data collection to research considerations. We applaud
NIAID’s work in this area to date and recommend that the Institute join IDSA in championing
critical ID research questions as NIH prioritizes its efforts in this area. We look forward to
continued dialogue as this important issue evolves and appreciate your consideration.
Sincerely,
Paul G. Auwaerter, MD, MBA, FIDSA
President, IDSA
cringe copypasta and profanity. not interested,
??? I’m on your side of this debate Omar.
are you? then cease with the profanity.
provide a link. I give a fair reading to everything. and don't be offended but it is easy to dismiss things the way you presented it. we have to convey a message in the same way offit does. you have to read what they say, recognize what they omit, and use their own information and studies to smash them.
I will indeed read your comment. but again, please don't use profanity or copy walls of text. people will dismiss that.
Don’t fret. Omar flips around more than a stranded salmon.
You’re ignoring this information because I said Shit? That’s about brilliant. 👍
no. I'm not ignoring it. I responded to you. I'm sayiong that although this informationand topic can be animating, you shouldn't use profanity or copy and paste jobs because people will ignore you.
I read your post. yet, I want other people to take you seriously. it's hard to take this advice but I want people to listen and understand my messages and yours too. profanity and copy and paste jobs will make it easy for others to dismiss you.
do you understand the message I'm trying to convey?
It also doesn't mention the Annunaki from the planet Nibiru
What are your thoughts about the two lineages? I find it hypocritical that you concern yourself with “ad hominem” attacks directed personally but then call Paul Offit “a dinosaur”.
I wish that the response to han's scientifically unsound essay would get even more push-back in high profile sites. Thank you
what about Jeffrey Sach's opinion - the individual who chaired the Lancet's commission investigating the origins of the virus?
despite the fence sitting in the published paper - he has since given many interviews in which he feels there is abundant evidence sars co v 2 originated in USA funded biotech research.
Jeffrey Sachs unilaterally disbanded the branch of that commission investigating origins because he didn't like what he thought they would find. A summary published in The Lancet is rather diplomatic in describing this: "The Commission began with a task force on the origins of the pandemic. But, regrettably, the divisive public discussion about the source of SARS-CoV-2 damaged the trust needed for the task force to complete its work. This Commission therefore has no additional new evidence to contribute to the ongoing investigation of the pandemic's origins."
thanks for the quote. So what import do you place on what he has said since?
Here is an article published in Aug 2022:
https://www.jeffsachs.org/interviewsandmedia/64rtmykxdl56ehbjwy37m5hfahwnm5
Why the Chair of the Lancet’s COVID-19 Commission Thinks The US Government Is Preventing a Real Investigation Into the Pandemic
here is the TLDR - "Prof. Jeffrey Sachs says he is “pretty convinced [COVID-19] came out of US lab biotechnology” "
here is a 22 minute interview Sachs gave in summer of 2023:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=morj-3rdWwM
see minute 14 in the above interview: Sachs says he initially thought it was likely a natural spillover event, and invited Peter Daszak to the commission -given his expertise- only to be outright lied to by Peter. Then Peter said he wouldn't show documents pertaining to EcoHealth Alliance's research programs once it was shown that EcoHealth was collaborating on research with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
put on your thinking cap...
for those willing to invest more time - here is a link to a 1h 40 minute presentation Sachs gave Nov 1 2022 titled: Origins of the Pandemic Webinar
https://www.jeffsachs.org/recorded-lectures/9lt7e84stbwjxylz3l8rfx4kld7rj5
"Prof. Jeffrey Sachs, Chair of the Lancet COVID-19 Commission, highlighted the Commission’s conclusion that there are two leading viable hypotheses – that the virus emerged from a zoonotic spillover from wildlife or a farm animal, or that the virus emerged from a research-related incident – and that neither hypothesis has been fully investigated nor dispositively proven. "
notice any interesting coincidences?
March 19, 2018
Anthony Fauci, MD
National Institutes of Health
Director, National Institute for Allergy
and Infectious Diseases
Building 31, National Institutes of Health
31 Center Drive, Room 7A03
Bethesda, MD 20892-2520
Dear Dr. Fauci,
The NIH All of Us Research Program is a historic effort to gather data from over
a million participants to accelerate research and improve health. Lessons from the
All of Us (AoU) Program will transform the practice of medicine from a one-size-
fits-all paradigm to a more individualized approach. Currently readying for its
national launch, AoU Program research will help link the impacts of
environmental exposure, diet, and genetics to our understanding of health and
disease, which will subsequently impact recommendations for treatment and care.
On March 21-23, NIH is holding a stakeholder-driven All of Us Research
Priorities Workshop to identify key requirements for advancing precision
medicine research at NIH. The program is seeking public input on potential
research questions or use cases. Other funders (including other NIH Institutes and
Centers) may consider use cases that are not incorporated into the All of Us
protocol for additional funding opportunities. As these historic efforts get
underway, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) urges the National
Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to promote infectious
diseases (ID) research considerations as a critical component of the AoU
Research Program, and also consider ways to link current and future Institute
efforts with program data.
Precision medicine and ID research
Since the advent of the All of Us Research Program, IDSA has been ramping up
our ID precision medicine efforts and working to establish infectious diseases as
an AoU research priority. In 2016, the Society formed a working group that
surveyed the landscape of infections and precision medicine to consider research
recommendations at the intersection of both fields.
IDSA has also been invited to participate in the upcoming All of Us Research
Priorities Workshop. IDSA’s submitted use cases to the public portal may be
found here, here, and here. Attendees will review submitted use cases, identify
gaps, create new use cases, and identify data types common across multiple use
PAGE 2—IDSA Comments to NIAID RE NIH All of Us Research Priorities
cases. Factors that will determine whether a use case becomes part of the protocol include
impact, scope, scalability, budget, and value to participants. NIH will make all use cases
available on the All of Us website as a searchable reference and as a principal database for
informing the program’s plans.
ID precision medicine research questions consider different factors than other fields, such as
oncology, that are typically associated with personalized care. Infectious diseases treatment often
occurs in a time-pressured setting (e.g., initiating empiric therapy for pneumonia or sepsis).
Infectious diseases often intersect with other specialties. Additionally, the field stands to benefit
from the increased study of the microbiome – a current NIAID priority that can be realized
through AoU – as well as continued human genome research. These considerations should be
integrated into AoU research priorities at the program’s outset.
It is critical that IDSA, NIAID, and other stakeholders work together to emphasize the
importance of ID precision medicine research as NIH prioritizes efforts in this area. AoU data
can be harnessed to improve ID patient care, diagnostics, vaccines, pharmacogenomics, and drug
development. Suggested research topics at the intersection of ID and precision medicine include:
• Using precision medicine to predict patients at risk for post-infectious complications of
vector-borne illnesses;
• Identifying the metabolic features of patients who develop mild vs. severe manifestations
of influenza;
• Improving precision management of acute infections and sepsis (as a major burden to
healthcare systems);
• Using AoU data to track and test individual responses to population-level emerging
infection interventions;
• The “other” genome: microbiota and the pathogenesis of infectious diseases;
• Using precision medicine to determine optimal antiretroviral therapy in aging people
living with HIV;
• Exploring precision vaccinology to determine who may benefit from particular vaccines,
doses, and/or formulations;
• Discovering microbial causes of illnesses previously not considered to be infectious
diseases.
As the AoU Research Program matures, the integration of electronic medical record (EMR)-
generated and big data platforms will aid in the advancement of precision medicine. The NIAID
Genomics Centers for Infectious Diseases (GCID) can leverage these advances to improve
innovative applications of genomic ID technologies and more efficiently sequence microbial
isolates, host microbiomes, and invertebrate vectors of infectious diseases. Likewise, the Clinical
Genomics Program builds upon large-scale gene sequencing analysis to better understand,
diagnose, and treat immune system disorders, and the program’s combined focus on genetics and
immunology and multi-disciplinary approach align with the AoU research philosophy. NIAID
should harness AoU program data to help researchers study the etiology of antimicrobial
resistance, autoimmune disorders, host responses, and host-pathogen interactions.
PAGE 3—IDSA Comments to NIAID RE NIH All of Us Research Priorities
IDSA will continue to emphasize the importance of infectious diseases precision medicine
research as AoU shifts its focus from data collection to research considerations. We applaud
NIAID’s work in this area to date and recommend that the Institute join IDSA in championing
critical ID research questions as NIH prioritizes its efforts in this area. We look forward to
continued dialogue as this important issue evolves and appreciate your consideration.
Sincerely,
Paul G. Auwaerter, MD, MBA, FIDSA
President, IDSA
Alina's surname is Chan, not han! Her article is certainly not scientifically unsound. I have been researching and writing about the possible lab origin of Covid-19 since the start and know what I am talking about. It is not Chan's work that is scientifically unsound, it is this awful piece by Paul Offit. Does he not even realise how discredited the work by Worobey et al. that he cites actually is? I write about the challenges to Worobey's claims in the following article https://changingtimes.media/2022/10/12/investigators-challenge-claims-that-covid-19-began-in-the-huanan-seafood-market/ and in this one: https://changingtimes.media/2024/02/07/statisticians-challenge-claims-that-covid-19-began-in-the-huanan-seafood-market/. As for Offit praising Vincent Racaniello, Racaniello is extremely biased.
That was clearly a typo by Carol.
And it’s Chan who is biased, not Offit or Racaniello.
I challenge Dr. Offit to an open debate of ALL the evidence proving with 100% certainty that COVID-19 was created in the Wuhan lab, including reports from the US Senate and intel agencies:
http://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-real-covid-timeline
I also bet 1 million dollars that he can't prove that it is a 100% natural virus.
Considering his foreseeable lack of answer, you know where truth is.
"debate me bro!" Hilarious.
"BELIEVE me Bro!" Hilarious.
When you read something I'll consider believing you read something.
paul wont debate anything. if ever he tried he would be obliterated even in a field/subject he claims to be an expert in
And another Debate Me Broer breaks wind.
I suppose. to me it seems as if that's cope because offit COULDN'T debate a topic on which he's devoted his life.
yet to be clear, paul doesn't have to do anything and in fact shouldn't. paul is not very credible.
so I can be a "debate me broer". paul is just unbelievably discredited.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
WHOOOPS!
100% certainty is not very scientific, i believe. Sounds like implausible.
And I bet you 10 million dollars that you can't prove that it is a 100% a bioengineered virus…. …Proving the futility of such stupid bets as yours.
How many US You investigators were on the ground in Wuhan to support and verify the conclusions Paul is leaning on? None? We’re just supposed to trust the CCP? Even the most ardent science denying pro-Pharma shills admit that we had no idea what research the CCP was conducting at the Wuhan Virology Lab, but then they turn around and can say with confidence that they did 100% NOT create the virus.
You have to be a brain dead idiot to believe this BS.
That's a lie, they frequently published research on what they researched. They have to Publish or Perish in China like we scientist do in US. Several non Chinese folks were on the ground at the wet market. But I guess only US investigators are honest is your argument?
No, I wouldn’t trust US investigators to be honest either. Fauci testified under three weeks ago that show how full of shit you are.
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Fauci-Part-1-Transcript.pdf
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Fauci-Part-2-Transcript.pdf
You definitely know about shit it seems, judging by your production of said shit. I saw the testimony and have colleagues at NIH . I see a lot of shit on social media. Far less from the vast majority of good scientists who you and all of us owe a debt of gratitude. The misinformation grifters like Dr.Mercola and hordes of social media grifters are the ones who deserve jail time for killing over 300,000 vaccine hesitant people.
sorry, pal. the covid medical products harmed more people than they helped. anyone who produced them, pushed them, and supported policy mandates deserves jail time. you can freely attempt to justify the statement you made but allow me to convey the proper message here: "try it again".
That house meeting was all part of the political show, arranged to earn money from their grifted cult followers. They didn't even stay for the democrats questions, they left after they got a Instagram short video for the cult!
Are you suggesting that Fauci did not testify honestly? All I gave you were his own words. Although I do agree that 100% of what comes out of that slime balls mouth is shit. Prison would be too kind an outcome for him.
Once again you twist what I said. But you are a twister, that's how you roll. There is irony in your prison ideas
March 19, 2018
Anthony Fauci, MD
National Institutes of Health
Director, National Institute for Allergy
and Infectious Diseases
Building 31, National Institutes of Health
31 Center Drive, Room 7A03
Bethesda, MD 20892-2520
Dear Dr. Fauci,
The NIH All of Us Research Program is a historic effort to gather data from over
a million participants to accelerate research and improve health. Lessons from the
All of Us (AoU) Program will transform the practice of medicine from a one-size-
fits-all paradigm to a more individualized approach. Currently readying for its
national launch, AoU Program research will help link the impacts of
environmental exposure, diet, and genetics to our understanding of health and
disease, which will subsequently impact recommendations for treatment and care.
On March 21-23, NIH is holding a stakeholder-driven All of Us Research
Priorities Workshop to identify key requirements for advancing precision
medicine research at NIH. The program is seeking public input on potential
research questions or use cases. Other funders (including other NIH Institutes and
Centers) may consider use cases that are not incorporated into the All of Us
protocol for additional funding opportunities. As these historic efforts get
underway, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) urges the National
Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to promote infectious
diseases (ID) research considerations as a critical component of the AoU
Research Program, and also consider ways to link current and future Institute
efforts with program data.
Precision medicine and ID research
Since the advent of the All of Us Research Program, IDSA has been ramping up
our ID precision medicine efforts and working to establish infectious diseases as
an AoU research priority. In 2016, the Society formed a working group that
surveyed the landscape of infections and precision medicine to consider research
recommendations at the intersection of both fields.
IDSA has also been invited to participate in the upcoming All of Us Research
Priorities Workshop. IDSA’s submitted use cases to the public portal may be
found here, here, and here. Attendees will review submitted use cases, identify
gaps, create new use cases, and identify data types common across multiple use
PAGE 2—IDSA Comments to NIAID RE NIH All of Us Research Priorities
cases. Factors that will determine whether a use case becomes part of the protocol include
impact, scope, scalability, budget, and value to participants. NIH will make all use cases
available on the All of Us website as a searchable reference and as a principal database for
informing the program’s plans.
ID precision medicine research questions consider different factors than other fields, such as
oncology, that are typically associated with personalized care. Infectious diseases treatment often
occurs in a time-pressured setting (e.g., initiating empiric therapy for pneumonia or sepsis).
Infectious diseases often intersect with other specialties. Additionally, the field stands to benefit
from the increased study of the microbiome – a current NIAID priority that can be realized
through AoU – as well as continued human genome research. These considerations should be
integrated into AoU research priorities at the program’s outset.
It is critical that IDSA, NIAID, and other stakeholders work together to emphasize the
importance of ID precision medicine research as NIH prioritizes efforts in this area. AoU data
can be harnessed to improve ID patient care, diagnostics, vaccines, pharmacogenomics, and drug
development. Suggested research topics at the intersection of ID and precision medicine include:
• Using precision medicine to predict patients at risk for post-infectious complications of
vector-borne illnesses;
• Identifying the metabolic features of patients who develop mild vs. severe manifestations
of influenza;
• Improving precision management of acute infections and sepsis (as a major burden to
healthcare systems);
• Using AoU data to track and test individual responses to population-level emerging
infection interventions;
• The “other” genome: microbiota and the pathogenesis of infectious diseases;
• Using precision medicine to determine optimal antiretroviral therapy in aging people
living with HIV;
• Exploring precision vaccinology to determine who may benefit from particular vaccines,
doses, and/or formulations;
• Discovering microbial causes of illnesses previously not considered to be infectious
diseases.
As the AoU Research Program matures, the integration of electronic medical record (EMR)-
generated and big data platforms will aid in the advancement of precision medicine. The NIAID
Genomics Centers for Infectious Diseases (GCID) can leverage these advances to improve
innovative applications of genomic ID technologies and more efficiently sequence microbial
isolates, host microbiomes, and invertebrate vectors of infectious diseases. Likewise, the Clinical
Genomics Program builds upon large-scale gene sequencing analysis to better understand,
diagnose, and treat immune system disorders, and the program’s combined focus on genetics and
immunology and multi-disciplinary approach align with the AoU research philosophy. NIAID
should harness AoU program data to help researchers study the etiology of antimicrobial
resistance, autoimmune disorders, host responses, and host-pathogen interactions.
PAGE 3—IDSA Comments to NIAID RE NIH All of Us Research Priorities
IDSA will continue to emphasize the importance of infectious diseases precision medicine
research as AoU shifts its focus from data collection to research considerations. We applaud
NIAID’s work in this area to date and recommend that the Institute join IDSA in championing
critical ID research questions as NIH prioritizes its efforts in this area. We look forward to
continued dialogue as this important issue evolves and appreciate your consideration.
Sincerely,
Paul G. Auwaerter, MD, MBA, FIDSA
President, IDSA
Q: We'll come back to it in the context of some other things, but I want to run 4 through some quick questions about kind of the initial outbreak, what you were hearing 5 out of China, what -- if you were aware of things that China was doing. So I talked about Dr. Yongzhen's lab getting shut down. You didn't have any awareness.
A No.
Q It was also reported that kind of the -- for lack of a better phrase, the original 10 COVID-19 whistleblower, Dr. Li Wenliang, who passed away from COVID, was forced to 11 sign a nondisclosure agreement to not publicly discuss the virus, and then there were 12 reports of China locking up journalists and gagging scientists. Did you have any awareness on any of that?
A You know, I was hearing indirectly -- you know, you hear all kinds of strange 15 things about what goes on in China and their lack of transparency. I mean, that's not an unusual thing. You know, there was lack of transparency early on with SARS when it was in Guangdong Province. The Chinese tend to be nontransparent even when they don't have to be nontransparent.
Fauci - “I don't have eyes onto or knowledge of the scope of what's going on in Wuhan, in China, or in any other place. The only thing that I had eyes on through my staff was what was done according to the subaward that was granted to the Wuhan. So I have no way of knowing, nor does anyone, I think, what's going on in other laboratories in China.”
I have unsubscribed from Beyond the Noise. This is the kind of thing John Tooby warned against in his article "Coalitional instinct" at Edge. https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27168.
You're abusing science.
And people who claim it was laboratory leak aren’t abusing science?
Richard Feynman said that if observations do not match a hypothesis then the hypothesis is wrong.
Albert Einstein said that it would take just one person to demonstrate that his general theory of relativity is wrong from observation.
The hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from a laboratory.
Observations suggest that that hypothesis is false.
False. Mr Offit only “debunked” a couple of arguments made by a nobody at the New York Times, which is not hard to do. No where is ANY “evidence” presented that either rules out the lab theory or proves “Proximal Origins”. Nobody with a brain believes that the US funded Wuhan lab was transparent about the experiments they were conducting, and he even stated that any evidence that would have proved the wet market theory was destroyed.
I refer you to TWiV podcasts on YouTube that discuss the origins of the virus.
In other words, you’ve got nothing. Thanks for playing.
All of the animals that could have proven a zoonotic origin were destroyed, therefore there is no direct evidence either way. It’s just convenient to blame a laboratory leak.
that was an unverifiable claim. the ccp cannot be trusted. people were going to wet markets the next day and putting video on weibo of animals from the wuhan market that just went to another market. that went down the ccp memory hole too.
I watched the twiv episode and they didn't prove anything. they spent time using mockery. they also used holme's defenses which amount to opinion using "scientific" format.
this virus came from a lab. the implications of that, damage the credibility of paul and pharmaceutical industry sycophants and the pharmaceutical inidustry itself when they push their shoddily made medical products where they want to "create demand".
Did you watch all of the relevant episodes as listed?
yes. I have. I have watched every single twiv episode. even the old ones. it took me more than a year to catch up but I had nothing but time after losing my job, being roundly mocked and ridiculed, and having irreparable damage done to my professional career.
I follow vincent racaniello closely. he is in the know and I suspect he's some kind of liutenant to frances collins, faucis and the people pushing much of this trash down our throats. not listening and understanding him/them is a mistake for anyone interested in public health going forward.
to be clear, twiv uses holmes as a primary source. in very case. holmes uses his opinion and anecdotes (which according to paul are not evidence). holmes wrote a fake scientifically formatted article to advance the zoonosis conspiracy theory and used other people who agree with him in advancing his theory to provide support and evidence.. paul is doing the same thing...
TWiV is not a reliable source of information about the possible origin of SARS-CoV-2. There is huge bias in those discussions.
I would suggest that you listen to the evidence given by Steven Quay during the June 18 Senate hearing entitled 'Origins of COVID-19: An Examination of Available Evidence'. Quay provides accurate, unbiased information. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kbUDmJPwtU. If you watch the whole thing, you will note that Robert Garry, who has been interviewed on TWiV, comes across extremely badly in the hearing. Steven Quay's written testimony can be accessed here: https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/origins-of-covid-19-an-examination-of-available-evidence/
The referenced article doesn’t address the issue of zoonotic transmission or virology. It’s an anthropologist addressing social evolution in primates.
Coalitional instinct is a source of bias that every scientist must account for in their thinking. That a possible source of bias exists does not lead directly to the conclusion that said bias is influencing the conclusion at question. Do you have actual evidence contrary to what Paul offers here?
He warned against reasonable consideration of facts?
Sounds like you didn't read the post.
So says the all knowing one? Nice misinformation post. You proved his point. How would you ever know he didn't read the article? The answer is, YOU don't know!
Because it's not reasonable to have read the post and still think a lab leak is credible. You have to have an open mind though for sure!
You won’t be missed.
Thank You, Thank You, Thank You for this article!!! I watched the TiwiTV Episode and found it to be very helpful, but it's also helpful to have these points in writing. I want to scream every time I hear people getting mad that the Lab Leak theory isn't getting enough attention and how congress is promoting it.
If the TWiV podcast presented so much “evidence” of the Proximal Origins conspiracy theory, why did Dr prOffit choose not to include any?
twiv didn't do anything but a retread of the holmes article and his opinion and anectodtes. all of that can be dismissed. most of the evidence used for their conspiracy theor of "zoonotic spillover" comes from holmes, scientists using holmes as a source then restating what holmes claimed as evidence.
this is what these scumbags do. holmes is a pharmaceutical sales rep essentially. then again so is paul. they want to force us through policy to consume shoddily made medical products that have horrific side effects.
it's disgusting.
It's a plausible hypothesis and plenty of experts (including in the US gov) think it is probably true. It's certainly not a crazy 'conspiracy theory'.
the conspiracy theory is the "zoonotic spillover".
HI Paul, here is an email I just sent to the TWIV special. I'll include it here for your perusal:
Wow. Just wow. And not in a good way. Wow. I don't even know where to start. Ad hominem attacks without substantive rebuttal to Chan. I was excited to hear any updates in the COVID field. But instead I got a junior high locker room. Is this really where "science" is headed? The hilarious thing about this experience for me is that none of you even realize how unprofessional your personal attacks are. "That's just wrong" or "she is ignorant" is not science. It's not even intelligent. It's just hand waving ad hominems. I'm not even a virologist, but I'm going to list some things for your consideration:
1. China has removed, deleted, and obstructed any evidence surrounding SARS COV-2 origins. This is indisputable even now in June 2024. Don't believe me? Google the AP report of the WHO. Why is this? Is it because it doesn't fit your predetermined narrative or will you be scientists and wonder with me? Don't you think if China leaders wanted to exonerate lab leak they would fall all over themselves to release this information? Hmm. Curious.
2. China was untruthful about the timeline for making the genetic sequencing of SARS-COV2 available. Why is this?
3. China has claimed to be "open and transparent" regarding any information despite being obviously just the opposite. Why is this?
4. Many early COVID cases are still unavailable to review because of obstruction (to this day) from China. How can any study be adequately done without research into these confiscated case reports? How can you even do a study without this vital information?
5. Lab leak was dismissed casually, out of hand because of the 2 separate lineages A and B were discovered in the market. Wow! 2 lightning strikes within 2 weeks of each other! This is no more plausible than a lab leak that mutated within 2 weeks of each other.
6. Research has revealed that the market was already teaming with human DNA/SARS COV2 when it was studied. Most freely admit the animal stalls were oversampled. "You get what you're looking for" also called ascertainment bias. Yeah, it's there.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10515900/#SD2 (supplement 2)
7. Racoon dogs are the last hope for an intermediary. They live a LONG way from Asian rhinolophus bats. And yet, no SARS COV2 virus found on racoon dog DNA samples. Thats right, you do have one out of 15, but frankly, it was contamination.
8. Where did raccoon dogs/rhinolophus bats get the ability to mutate a furin cleavage site that codes to enter exclusively into human ACE2 receptors in the lungs and only kill people? (I guess rats did it in the 1300's, why not raccoon dogs--oh, that's right darn it, SARS-COV2 only kills people, unlike yersinia pestis).
9. We now know that raccoon dogs had very little correlation to SARS COV2 let alone transmission. The highest correlation in the seafood market was to seafood and cattle. Hmmm.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.04.25.538336v1https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06043-2
If this is where "science" is headed, then count me out. I found Chan's article actually quite balanced and measured. I found your rebuttal belittling, condescending, and uneducated. It did nothing to bolster the case against lab leak, and in fact soured my opinion of all of you as scientists.
Perhaps this is why 2/3 of Americans from both political parties now think that COVID came from a lab. That's a pretty steep uphill battle to continue disparaging people who think differently than yourselves. Try a little humility. Then you might get a little more respect from people. Just my 2 cents. --
Offit eviscerates Chan’s claims by simply stating :”Chan says…” and then providing evidence she is wrong.
Ive only listened to 15 min of the TWiV so far, but I’d be surprised if anything they said would count as an ad hominem attack.
Perhaps you should refresh your recollection of the definition. Saying someone is wrong doesn’t count.
not only was it ad hominem it was mockery.
I listened to the whole thing. the fact is that twiv only uses a retread of holmes intial claims and opinions. holmes weaves this into a "scientific article" that's just a word salad of a conclusion that is necessary for the pharmaceutical industry to bilk funding from the government.
this isn't going to work. what is presented as evidence is just thinly veiled opinion all supported by nothing but opinion.
She claimed SARS2 lacks a link to the wildlife trade when the earliest SARS2 cluster was associated with Huanan market, the earliest retrospectively identified case was associated with Huanan market, the earliest cases acquired in healthcare were associated with Huanan market, all genomic diversity of SARS2 at a time when there were circa 1000 cumulative infections in humans was found in Huanan market, and wild animals susceptible to SARS2 infection and capable of transmission were found in environmental samples from Huanan market together with SARS2.
Conversely, she says early SARS cases were much more associated with animals. She doesn't mention that these animals are very unlikely to be the proximal host of the 2002/3 SARS outbreak. On the earliest known case: "He had not traveled outside Foshan in the 2 weeks before his illness and had no contact history, but he had prepared food including chicken, domestic cat, and snake."
She says there's no link between Huanan market and areas further south such as Yunnan. The subset of the wildlife trade that's documented (the black market tends to be deficient in bookkeeping) includes a domesticated wildlife supplier from Yunnan. She doesn't mention that SAR/SARS2-like viruses were sampled in bats just outside Wuhan. She doesn't mention that SARS2-like viruses were sampled in trafficked pangolins at least four times in China and Vietnam.
Mockery is an appropriate response to someone who lies and omits very relevant evidence to tell people want they want to hear.
none of what youve claimed supports the holmes article and what it claims. it is opinion written as scientific fact and not a very good one. I'm not sure what else to tell you.
covid came from a lab.
https://www.projectveritas.com/news/melissa-strickler-pfizer
What you need to understand is that pharma has a transparency problem. Whether it’s OxyContin, Thalidomide, mRNA, they just don’t tell the truth, their business model relies on it. Anyone that argues that is just in denial, no other industry has been charged and found guilty of fraud even remotely close. To think that the industry with the worst record is also the only industry to be granted liability protection for harms caused by their products is insanity, how would they have any incentive to act honourably? Behaviour observed worldwide is simply a product of incentives and disincentives, it’s just basic logic, to think otherwise is just being in denial.
You never discussed why the Times published the article. Simple answer is to generate clicks and views! Like you said, a majority seem to believe lab leak regardless of the biological facts you discussed. The 2 lineages really sold zoontic to me. Plus the jumping back and forth between different mammals of this latest coronavirus. It took over 15 years to figure out how Sars 1 began and it was zoonotic! I doubt we will able to find ground zero of Sars Covid-19. The evidence was rightly destroyed by public health. Their attempt to slow the virus by destroying sick animals and attempt to disinfect the area. I really enjoyed Dr Rancanillo video on this times article, thanks for giving us the information Dr Offitt, and thanks for your service!
Yes, this is the question: Why did the Times publish Chan's op-ed, without also publishing an actual expert opinion from a leader in the field? It was stunningly irresponsible of them.
Also, curiously, last weekend they ran a wierd puff piece on RFK JR. and his ravens. What in the world was that about? An attempt to humanize someone whose rantings have resulted in the death of chuldren?
Has the Grey Lady fallen down the rabbit hole?
Children, not chuldren, obviously. The heat is messing with Apple's dictation AI :(
No. “The Grey Lady” simply got direction that it’s time to kick the demented dullard off the ticket.
You may be right that RFK Jr. appeals to Trump voters, but I'm not sure if it's enough for Republicans to kick him off the ticket.
It’s not about RFK, you dumbfuck, it’s about the Alzheimer’s patient pretending to be President.
And as Trump continues to spiral down, further and further into dementia, shrieking and ranting about sharks, toilets, cancer from wind technology, thinking Jimmy Kimmel and Al Pacino are the same person, dreaming of dictatorship, etc. etc., November slips further and further away from his feeble, stubby-fingered, grasp.
Got it. Well Trump can play act at being President all he wants, but it won't get him reelected in November.
You’d better get ready for it. The rest of the country is turning their back on the psychotic, fascist Socialist Democrats.
that was the twiv claim. not sure how many clicks they got but what I do know is that covid came from a lab and trusting the ccp to give you good scientific data is a fools errand.
This is just an attempt to deflect from the fact that a bunch of sociopaths from the US funded and did research in Wuhan that was illegal in the US and may have caused the pandemic. We have to clean up the wet markets, but regardless of how it started we shouldn't be doing research that theoretically could start a pandemic either. We should also arrest, try and potentially jail anyone that lied to congress or destroyed evidence about any of this.
How about we start by prosecuting anyone that funds or does similar research going forward, prosecute anyone that broke any laws this time, including anyone that lied to congress about what they funded or were working on, anyone that destroyed emails or an evidence trail that would reveal what was going on, and those that worked to suppress the views of other experts that disagreed with the consensus? While we are doing that we can also work on the wet market.
Hope you can escape your rabbit hole someday
I imagine the future grandkids of a US Congressman asking him “What did you do to stop the great pandemic of 2028 that came from wet markets in China and killed one billion people, grandad?” and getting the response: “Well, nothing relevant, I suppose… We wasted the Government’s time and money by trying to convict our best scientific minds and hopes of averting the pandemic for their terrible crime of maybe deleting some emails.”
it isn't a waste of money or time. covid proved that.
viruses are a state security issue. but what must be watched and monitored are the pharmaceutical industry and anyone with even remote knowledge of virus manipulation. these people should not be able to visit the toilet without an fbi or homeland security agent giving them an exam and searching their homes and computers.
Back here in the real world, the folks investigating SARS-like viruses with spillover potential were tragically underfunded in retrospect knowing the costs and likelihood of a SARS-like pandemic. Particularly, in pre-pandemic studies you can find advice to advocate PPE for animal handlers in wet markets that might've prevented the SARS2 pandemic and also work with a SARS2-like virus (not in Wuhan, by the way) that could've led to a Paxlovid-like drug much earlier with more focus.
again,
we need a concerted effort to watch each and every scientist with even tangential knowledge of manipulation of virus in a lab. there must be oversight of them. the oversight must be so hard and so harsh that they can't pick up a pipette without the fbi, cia, or nsa's knowledge of it.
they shouldn't be able to use the bathroom without the state security apparatus knowing it. and I mean the world over.
who watches the watchers though?
Two U.S. federal agencies, the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), believe that COVID-19 most likely originated from a lab leak (as confirmed by FBI Director Christopher Wray in 2023). Are they also peddling in "conspiracy theories"? I don't know where the virus originated, but it seems disingenuous and strange to dismiss a possibility supported by two federal agencies as being based on conspiracy theories.
The information you cite was labeled “low confidence”. It was a release of political communications, none scientific in nature.
what is "low confidence" is the "zoonotic spillover" conspiracy cult theory
"US Federal Agencies" have no expertise in the subject matter. They've produced NO evidence to support their claims, which makes their assertions meaningless.
Science is based on evidence, such as that provided by Worobey and others, not beliefs.
Worobey's reports on this matter have been discredited. https://changingtimes.media/2022/10/12/investigators-challenge-claims-that-covid-19-began-in-the-huanan-seafood-market/ and https://changingtimes.media/2024/02/07/statisticians-challenge-claims-that-covid-19-began-in-the-huanan-seafood-market/.
Exactly.
Offit is just trying to deflect from the fact that a bunch of sociopaths from the US funded and did research in Wuhan that was illegal in the US and may have caused the pandemic. We have to clean up the wet markets, but regardless of how it started we shouldn't be doing research that theoretically could start a pandemic either. We should also arrest, try and potentially jail anyone that lied to congress or destroyed evidence about any of this.
Anthony Fauci is even now confessing to a possibility of a lab leak. I think by now, we have enough information out there to make our own adult decisions, not that any of them mater anyway. But at least if Im wearing a conspiracy theorist badge about it being leaked from a lab, I wearing it with lots of other people, including many prominent scientist, none of which worked for Eco Alliance. Maybe someday that animal we’ve been looking for for four years will pot out of the woods or a cave or somewhere and at last proclaim, “Here I am, what took all you smart people so long to identify me?”
From the June 2023 ODNI report, you can't cite the DOE and FBI as mutually supporting "a lab leak" when their conclusions of the most likely scenario aren't the same:
"The Department of Energy and the Federal Bureau of Investigation assess that a laboratory-associated incident was the most likely cause of the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2, although for different reasons."
I am sure Paul Offit the paid shill is aware that after the Covid select committee meetings in private have produced an outcome of funding being cut from Eco Health Alliance. Maybe he would be better off interviewing Dr.Andrew Huff the whistleblower that has been speaking out since 2020. I am pretty sure as a previous employee with a lot of evidence would be much better suited that Paul Offit to give his opinion.
I don't know what's happened to the NYT these days, but it's really bad. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-new-york-times-promotes-lab-leak-conspiracy-theories/
https://vigilantnews.com/post/1-in-a-billion-chance-covid-emerged-from-nature-scientist-tells-lawmakers/
Whatever Paul.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-new-evidence-from-the-wuhan-market-tells-us-about-covids-origins1/
Heavens, you can't seriously be referencing an article about the racoon dogs. The journalists who got caught by this one are embarrassed, to say the least! I write about the whole raccoon dog saga at the end of this article: https://changingtimes.media/2023/03/21/biden-signs-legislation-to-declassify-information-about-covid-origins/
Microbiologist Richard Ebright tweeted about the raccoon dog saga: “It would be laughable that this is being portrayed as a revelation…except that it is not a mere joke, but, rather, an active disinformation campaign by knowingly and willfully complicit journalists.”
Ebright told Yahoo News reporter Alexander Nazaryan: “The data do not indicate that a raccoon dog was infected with SARS-CoV-2, much less that a raccoon dog was infected with SARS-CoV-2 and then transmitted SARS-CoV-2 to a human.”