X Close

The secret messages behind the lab-leak cover-up Beijing was helped by a cabal of conspiring scientists

The search for Covid's origin continues. Lauren DeCicca/Getty Images

The search for Covid's origin continues. Lauren DeCicca/Getty Images


July 28, 2023   9 mins

“What happened to Oppenheimer damaged our ability as a society to debate honestly about scientific theory,” wrote Kai Bird, author of the biography on which Christopher Nolan’s new film is based. “Yet too many of our citizens still distrust scientists and fail to understand the scientific quest, the trial and error inherent in testing any theory against facts by experimenting. Just look at what happened to our public health civil servants during the recent pandemic.”

Bird is right about the need for faith in scientists as we hurtle into a technological revolution based on artificial intelligence — and indeed, to point out how their efforts depend on rigorous testing of theories with facts. Unfortunately, the behaviour of a few key scientific figures in the pandemic, seemingly desperate to appease China and protect their ties to high-risk research, has done the precise opposite.

This is, one prominent US biologist told me, “the biggest scientific scandal of our lifetime”, involving a deliberate attempt to suppress debate on a health catastrophe that killed almost 15 million people in two years. It revolves around a landmark commentary in Nature Medicine stating firmly that the five authors “do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible”. This was published in March 2020 — barely six weeks after the stumbling World Health Organization had declared an international emergency.

Now, hundreds of private messages between four of these five scientists, exchanged as they wrote and published this article, have emerged — and they are astonishing. The “super secret” discussions show this arrogant quartet boasting about success, misleading the media, sneering at journalists and making fun of other experts, even a world-renowned epidemiologist co-opted as the fifth author. They condemn China “for trying to rewrite what happened” and disclose Beijing sequenced the genome for SARS-CoV-2 — the virus that causes Covid — just before the rest of the world discovered from a Taiwanese tip-off that the disease had erupted in Wuhan.

Most significantly, these discussions on Slack expose the quartet’s deep fears that Sars-CoV-2 could have been tied to laboratory research — along with overt signs of pressure from “higher ups” to squash such suggestions. Clearly these scientists were concerned the disease was engineered. They dismiss the well-worn theory about the virus arising in a Wuhan animal market on several occasions, one calling it a “red herring”. Yet they abruptly switched direction in public despite the lack of discernible new evidence. They carried on debating their suspicions in private after the article’s publication — even as they attacked claims about a possible lab leak in public and their statement was used to condemn such “conspiracy theories”.

“Let’s face it, unless there is a whistleblower from the WIV [Wuhan Institute of Virology] who is going to defect and live in the West under a new identity we are NEVER going to know what happened in the lab,” wrote Eddie Holmes, a British virologist based in Australia with strong contacts in China, at one point a month after publication. “That’s my thinking too,” responded lead author Kristian Andersen, a Danish evolutionary biologist — although he admitted that he was “worried” US diplomatic cables showing concerns over biosecurity in Wuhan, which had been disclosed by The Washington Post, “might have something”.

It is hard to overstate the influence of this single article, accessed almost six million times and cited by 5,942 other specialist papers. The journal’s editor João Monteiro tweeted out a link saying: “Let’s put conspiracy theories about the origin of #SARSCoV2 to rest and help to stop spread of misinformation.” China’s ministry of foreign affairs welcomed its “evidence” — as did the Communist Party chief at WIV. It was highlighted in the White House by Anthony Fauci, the US infectious diseases expert and adviser to several presidents. Sir Jeremy Farrar, now the World Health Organization’s chief scientist, told me it was “the most important research on the genomic epidemiology of the origins of this virus” more than one year later as he insisted “no scientific evidence I have seen to date points to outbreak linked to a laboratory”.

It subsequently emerged through leaks and freedom of information requests that this pair, along with Francis Collins, head of the biggest US science funding body, were involved behind the scenes in the article. Farrar, then director of the Wellcome Trust, was tasked with hosting a teleconference on February 1 involving the five authors and six other experts including Sir Patrick Vallance, the UK government’s chief scientific adviser until three months ago. After the call, Farrar confessed he was “50:50” on whether Covid came from a lab — and later was found to have told Collins that Wuhan engaged in “Wild West” research practices. His office admitted to me eventually, after a barrage of emails, that he helped “convene” the Nature Medicine authors.

As Vallance once wrote in another science journal, “inferences should be drawn from attempts to hide interactions”. Unfortunately, the lab leak theory was snarled in tribal politics after it was flagged by Donald Trump, creating a toxic climate for those of us probing the origins in the pandemic’s early days. Now, this article is at the centre of a House subcommittee investigation after Republicans summoned the two US-based authors — Andersen and Bob Garry, a microbiologist in New Orleans — to answer questions earlier this month on their deliberations. Afterwards, the cache of documents and messages were detected in the committee papers and on its website by members of Drastic, a group of independent researchers that has uncovered many key nuggets in this quest for the truth about a deadly disease.

Andersen set up what he called the “super secret” Slack group under the intriguing original name of “project-wuhan-engineering” with Holmes and Andrew Rambaut, an evolutionary biologist at Edinburgh University, on the day of the teleconference. Farrar, portrayed as a driving force behind the paper, urged everyone to keep their deliberations confidential in that first discussion. A few days later, he signed a letter with two Wellcome Trust colleagues in The Lancet journal hitting out at “conspiracy theories suggesting that Covid-19 does not have a natural origin”. It was later found to have been covertly organised by British scientist Peter Daszak, who runs a body that funnelled substantial US funding for research into bat coronaviruses to WIV.

The Dane declared to his colleagues that the question they needed to answer was whether Covid emerged due to “evolution or engineering” since both were “really rather plausible” — as remains the case today. Andersen added that Garry would not want the virus to have arisen from “GOF escape” — a reference to controversial Gain of Function research, which boosts the infectivity of viruses and was banned for four years in the US. “The main thing still in my mind is that the lab escape version of this is so friggin’ likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario,” he said.

The fact they were discussing the concept of a lab leak “shows how plausible it is”, added Rambaut the next day. But the Scottish-based expert urged them to change tack. “I personally think we should get away from all the strange coincidence stuff. I agree it smells really fishy but without a smoking gun it will not do us any good,” he wrote. “The truth is never going to come out (if [lab] escape is the truth). Would need to be irrefutable evidence. My position is that natural evolution is entirely plausible and we will have to leave it at that. Lab passaging might also generate this mutation but we have no evidence that that happened.”

Rambaut said revealingly that due to “the shit show that would happen if anyone serious accused the Chinese of even accidental release, my feeling is we should say given there is no evidence of a specifically engineered virus, we cannot possibly distinguish between natural evolution and escape so we are content with ascribing it to natural processes”. Andersen responded that he agreed this was “a very reasonable conclusion” despite hating “when politics is injected into science”. And this seemed to become their eventual template.

Much of their subsequent discussion, interspersed with banter, is technical. They discuss RaTG13, the closest known relative to Sars-Cov-2 that was collected by scientists at WIV from a mine hundreds of miles from Wuhan and is linked to the deaths from a mysterious Covid-like respiratory virus of three miners clearing bat guano from a cave. They puzzle over the infamous furin cleavage site, which allows more efficient entry into human cells and is not found on similar types of coronaviruses. “Bob [Garry] said the insertion was the 1st thing he would add,” wrote Holmes. “Yeah,” responded Andersen. “The furin site would be the first thing to add for sure.”

Garry even explains at one point how easy it would be — even for a graduate student — to make such a virus by inserting a furin cleavage site into a bat virus such as RaTG13 in cell culture. “It’s not crackpot to suggest this could have happened given the GoF research we know is happening,” he adds.

Justin Kinney, a quantitative biologist at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York and co-founder of the advocacy group Biosafety Now, said he was struck by how strongly the Slack messages made the case for a laboratory origin for Covid. He pointed to a decade-old paper shared among the quartet detailing experiments on bovine coronaviruses, which found that when inserted in different human cells they developed a strikingly similar furin cleavage site. Kinney claims knowledge of this paper flew in the face of their claim in Nature Medicine that such cleavage sites had only been observed after prolonged experiments on avian flu. “Bovine coronavirus is much more closely related and this took place after minimal passage in cell culture,” he said.

The discussions show how Farrar strengthened one key phrase — and that the force of their entire argument was beefed up after an initial draft was rejected by Nature, a more prestigious journal. Last month, Garry admitted to a BBC podcast “maybe we went a little too far” by taking such a strident position. Kinney, who wants the paper to be retracted, believes they succumbed to the intensity of pressure from a variety of directions, including from funders with the cash and power to determine the future of their careers — and that this cover-up could have disastrous consequences for their profession. “Science must be honest,” he said. “The logic in the paper is so weak, the conflicts of interest are not revealed and it now seems clear that the authors did not fully believe their own claims.”

Emails show the team consulted with Ron Fouchier, a Dutch scientist who pushed the boundaries of Gain of Function work with experiments on avian flu. “Molecular biologists like myself can generate perfect copies of viruses without leaving a trace,” he told them baldly. There is also mention of “intel” in the background — and at one point, members of the quartet accuse “Ron” of leaking details of their activities to a journalist.

Perhaps the most damning aspect of these revelations is how their private debate over the origins carried on after publication of their seismic statement. The March article stated that their “analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus”. Yet Andersen wrote on 16 April that he was “still not fully convinced that no culture was involved”. When Holmes pushed back, warning such fears could lead to an end of Gain of Function research, the Danish biologist replied that the top bat researcher at WIV was carrying out “a lot of work that involved isolating and culturing SARS-like viruses in BSL 2” — a reference to the sort of low-level biosecurity comparable to that found in a dental surgery. He linked to four papers on this “concerning work”. And he said again the next day that “we can’t fully disprove [cell] culture… we also can’t fully rule out engineering”.

Later that month, this same scientist told a journalist that the odds of Covid’s accidental release in Wuhan were “a million to one”. And he told those politicians that after considering all the evidence, their group concluded that “culturing” — which can make a virus more infectious and better-adapted for human transmission — had not occurred since the virus most likely spilled over naturally from wildlife. “By the time we published our final version of Proximal Origin I no longer believed that a culturing scenario was plausible,” he stated in written evidence. The evidence now seems to challenge this pivotal claim to Congress.

Andersen claimed they reached this conclusion through scientific inquiry rather than under pressure from Fauci or other funders. Yet he told the others at the outset “it’s well above my pay grade to call the shots on a final conclusion”. The messages show that just before the paper was submitted for publication it was shared with Farrar and Collins, at the time heads of the two most significant funding bodies in Western science. They were “very happy”, reported back Holmes. Coincidentally, Andersen works at Scripps Research in California, a non-profit lab given $8.9 million for work on infectious disease outbreaks from the grant body headed by Collins five months after the statement’s publication — although he insisted to the Congressional subcommittee that this funding decision was agreed before the pandemic.

We still do not know for sure the origins of that destructive pandemic. But we do know it was an extraordinary coincidence that Covid emerged in the Chinese city containing the biggest repository of bat coronaviruses in Asia, a place with known safety concerns conducting high-risk research to boost the infectivity of mutant bat viruses in humanised mice. We know China covered up the outbreak, hid key data, lied to other countries and refused to allow proper investigation. And we know that accidents and human error can occur during research. So as Andersen said to his pals, the possibility of some kind of lab incident was “friggin’ likely”.

It looks beyond doubt that Beijing’s cover-up was aided by an outrageous attempt to suppress global debate, led by the Western scientists we should have been able to trust to search for the truth and guide an unshackled debate based on hard facts. They were assisted by patsy politicians, supine journalists and complicit scientific publications. This murky affair appears to be the most terrible betrayal of science — and indeed of democracy — that was far darker and more disturbing than those sinister events that felled Oppenheimer seven decades ago.


Ian Birrell is an award-winning foreign reporter and columnist. He is also the founder, with Damon Albarn, of Africa Express.

ianbirrell

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

90 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Emre S
Emre S
1 year ago

It is a mistake to put science on a pedestal. Science is performed by scientists and like all other human activity it’s liable to fall victim to things like greed, vanity, and dishonesty.

RM Parker
RM Parker
1 year ago
Reply to  Emre S

Agreed – human, all too human. The flip side of this is that most people don’t recognise that such expert consensus is the lowest quality form of data: essentially, it’s –

“Yeah, Bloke said. You know, Bloke. Down the pub.”

“Oh, well, if Bloke said…”

I’ve been saying for a long time that the weight of (admittedly poor quality) material evidence would suggest a genetically modified origin for the SARS CoV2 virus, but then I’m just a jobbing medical laboratory scientist and so whilst I didn’t face any consequences for holding that opinion, my opinion didn’t count fur much either.
What has puzzled and frankly scared me is the way that these people have allowed “cherry picking” and suppression of data, in ways for which they’d castigate their own undergraduates.
Pi55-poor performance from people of whom I’d have expected so much better: but yes, we’re all human and deification of individuals on any basis is likely to end in tears. Anyone should be open to being questioned, scientists most of all (since questioning is our job).

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  RM Parker

Come on, it is more than that.
This people were effectively giving cover for CCP.
Question is what to do with them?
On one hand we wish they suffered consequences of their actions and not get promoted to fancy jobs like Farrt.
Then, West needs research in this area because China is not going to stop.
Finally, whatever the origin of covid the West response was mad and completely out of proportion to actual threat.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

Protection of CCP was nothing but a happy coincidence.. Protection of US military viral weapons research was what it was all about..
The idea may have been to reduce the world population by 90% leaving only the 1% + the “dogs” (ala Animal Farm) ie 9% to firstly kill off any uwanted survivors and then serve them – 9 slaves per head being deemed adequate..
Yhey may now be considering Nuclear War?
I say “may be” lest you call me a conspiracy theorist! ..only kidding ..or am I?

Chuck Pezeshki
Chuck Pezeshki
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

This article makes it sound hard.
It’s not that hard.
https://empathy.guru/2022/03/15/the-memetics-of-bioweapons-and-why-they-matter/

Michael McElwee
Michael McElwee
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Yes, the article does not ask if the lab leak was merely accidental.

Chuck Pezeshki
Chuck Pezeshki
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

This article makes it sound hard.
It’s not that hard.
https://empathy.guru/2022/03/15/the-memetics-of-bioweapons-and-why-they-matter/

Michael McElwee
Michael McElwee
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Yes, the article does not ask if the lab leak was merely accidental.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

Protection of CCP was nothing but a happy coincidence.. Protection of US military viral weapons research was what it was all about..
The idea may have been to reduce the world population by 90% leaving only the 1% + the “dogs” (ala Animal Farm) ie 9% to firstly kill off any uwanted survivors and then serve them – 9 slaves per head being deemed adequate..
Yhey may now be considering Nuclear War?
I say “may be” lest you call me a conspiracy theorist! ..only kidding ..or am I?

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  RM Parker

Come on, it is more than that.
This people were effectively giving cover for CCP.
Question is what to do with them?
On one hand we wish they suffered consequences of their actions and not get promoted to fancy jobs like Farrt.
Then, West needs research in this area because China is not going to stop.
Finally, whatever the origin of covid the West response was mad and completely out of proportion to actual threat.

Alex Carnegie
Alex Carnegie
1 year ago
Reply to  Emre S

a.k.a. Alex Carnegie

Scientists are human too. No kidding.

It is just as well that HG Wells’ expectation that democracy would be replaced by the rule of a high minded scientific elite proved mistaken. The famous feuds between various powerful scientists in subsequent decades – Oppenheimer vs. Teller, Tizard vs. Cherwell, etc – demonstrated that his heroes had feet of clay.

Individual scientists will always be driven by a mix of admirable and base motives but the scientific method will continue to the engine of progress provided certain minimum professional standards are observed. The growing proportion of scientific papers whose results cannot be replicated – suggesting the authors are either deluded or dishonest – indicates there is a real problem. If it is unsurprising that 30% of pharma related papers are suspect, it is disappointing that so also are 10% of those from many other disciplines. It appears that the micro-politics of seeking grants, tenure, etc are eroding integrity. If bankers stole or mislaid money from “only” 10% of their clients there would be outrage.

There needs to be a drive to strengthen basic integrity as otherwise science will lose its authority in society. The Wuhan cover up is only one example. Perhaps it would help if scientists as well as doctors had a professional association which regularly “struck off” those who fall short of minimum standards. It would be interesting to see which of the various characters in the Wuhan story would survive.

Last edited 1 year ago by Alex Carnegie
Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

This sounds admirable but very naive.
“Short of minimum standards”.
Great in theory, but who decides?
One of the characters in this covid dishonesty was promoted to top science post in WHO.
What do you think young scientists starting on career path make of it?
How do you brake monopoly of views in many science areas, like climate research?
Let’s forget science. Look at society and politics.
We know why blacks and Muslims underachieve, but you are not allowed to call it.
Instead it is all about bad white people.
And we import this moaning savages by the boatload every day.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

Uh oh.. I thing your fig leaf just fell off!

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

Uh oh.. I thing your fig leaf just fell off!

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

…ah but who would the strikers off be? ..and who would bribe them, threaten them etc? The stakes are so high, the greed so strong and the ruthlessness so devoid of morality and ethics I cannot see any way back. It is more likely things will get far worse in this Godless, hate filled, soulless, hollowed out world of ours.. utter destruction is at hand.. we’re doomed, doomed I tells ye.

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

This sounds admirable but very naive.
“Short of minimum standards”.
Great in theory, but who decides?
One of the characters in this covid dishonesty was promoted to top science post in WHO.
What do you think young scientists starting on career path make of it?
How do you brake monopoly of views in many science areas, like climate research?
Let’s forget science. Look at society and politics.
We know why blacks and Muslims underachieve, but you are not allowed to call it.
Instead it is all about bad white people.
And we import this moaning savages by the boatload every day.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

…ah but who would the strikers off be? ..and who would bribe them, threaten them etc? The stakes are so high, the greed so strong and the ruthlessness so devoid of morality and ethics I cannot see any way back. It is more likely things will get far worse in this Godless, hate filled, soulless, hollowed out world of ours.. utter destruction is at hand.. we’re doomed, doomed I tells ye.

Andrew Dalton
Andrew Dalton
1 year ago
Reply to  Emre S

Yep. Science has been mixing with politics, money and business for a long time now. And, at risk of over-egging the painting metaphor, politics, money and business are stronger pigments than knowledge.

Kent Ausburn
Kent Ausburn
1 year ago
Reply to  Emre S

You are correct, and I say this as a PhD Geologist who spent way too much time in the halls of academia and the research community. Further, we should keep all of this in mind when considering proclamations relating to the other heavily politicized science controversy of our day, global warming.

Last edited 1 year ago by Kent Ausburn
Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Emre S

I am disappointed with author comments about deadly pandemic. Total nonsense.
Then linking this basic scientific dishonesty to Oppenhaimer is appalling.
Yes, Oppenhaimer was instrumental in creation of fission bomb.
But his misguided attempts to stop development of fusion bomb and naive schoolboy politics of “let’s cooperate with the Soviets” were idiocy of the highest order.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

..its wisdom like yours that has us where we are.. wisdom, realism, pragmatism, elitism and economic opportunity have replaced ethics, morality, decency, selflessness. That in turn being the logical result of replacing love with fear, cooperation with domination, joy with pleasure and compassion with hatred? And all that because we replaced God with an idol, the golden calf of Scientism?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

..its wisdom like yours that has us where we are.. wisdom, realism, pragmatism, elitism and economic opportunity have replaced ethics, morality, decency, selflessness. That in turn being the logical result of replacing love with fear, cooperation with domination, joy with pleasure and compassion with hatred? And all that because we replaced God with an idol, the golden calf of Scientism?

John Sullivan
John Sullivan
1 year ago
Reply to  Emre S

This was *not* science, it was (neo-Marxist globalist) politics.

And it still is. In an otherwise decent article, even Birrell spouts the ridiculous claim of “a health catastrophe that killed almost 15 million people in two years.” Lockdowns killed people. The poisonous jabs killed, and are killing, people. The virus killed *some* people, for a few months in Q2 2020.

All this has been known – and suppressed – for years. Farrar’s role in the utter farce has been known for years.

https://twitter.com/EyesOnThePriz12/status/1322915340398022656

Yet Farrar is now chief scientist at the WHO. “Conspiracy”, what conspiracy?

All the current chatter is simple deflection, while the tyrannical globalist coup gathers pace. Millions of lives have been lost or ruined in the “Covid” fiasco, but the #ClimateScam will ultimately be orders of magnitude more destructive – and no one is organising any united opposition. In fact, many of the idiots now “waking up” to the Covid crimes happily believe all the ludicrous “burning planet” propaganda. Including the author.

https://twitter.com/ianbirrell/status/1684106093071327232

Last edited 1 year ago by John Sullivan
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Emre S

…I would add the words “cowardice and group think” to that list of deficiencies.. To assume scientists are better than the rest of us is a grave error.. to assume they’re even as good as us is a mistake since many are atheists and so lack a moral foundations as well.
BTW Covid started out in Chapel Hill Labs, UNC (University of North Carolina)… check it out!

RM Parker
RM Parker
1 year ago
Reply to  Emre S

Agreed – human, all too human. The flip side of this is that most people don’t recognise that such expert consensus is the lowest quality form of data: essentially, it’s –

“Yeah, Bloke said. You know, Bloke. Down the pub.”

“Oh, well, if Bloke said…”

I’ve been saying for a long time that the weight of (admittedly poor quality) material evidence would suggest a genetically modified origin for the SARS CoV2 virus, but then I’m just a jobbing medical laboratory scientist and so whilst I didn’t face any consequences for holding that opinion, my opinion didn’t count fur much either.
What has puzzled and frankly scared me is the way that these people have allowed “cherry picking” and suppression of data, in ways for which they’d castigate their own undergraduates.
Pi55-poor performance from people of whom I’d have expected so much better: but yes, we’re all human and deification of individuals on any basis is likely to end in tears. Anyone should be open to being questioned, scientists most of all (since questioning is our job).

Alex Carnegie
Alex Carnegie
1 year ago
Reply to  Emre S

a.k.a. Alex Carnegie

Scientists are human too. No kidding.

It is just as well that HG Wells’ expectation that democracy would be replaced by the rule of a high minded scientific elite proved mistaken. The famous feuds between various powerful scientists in subsequent decades – Oppenheimer vs. Teller, Tizard vs. Cherwell, etc – demonstrated that his heroes had feet of clay.

Individual scientists will always be driven by a mix of admirable and base motives but the scientific method will continue to the engine of progress provided certain minimum professional standards are observed. The growing proportion of scientific papers whose results cannot be replicated – suggesting the authors are either deluded or dishonest – indicates there is a real problem. If it is unsurprising that 30% of pharma related papers are suspect, it is disappointing that so also are 10% of those from many other disciplines. It appears that the micro-politics of seeking grants, tenure, etc are eroding integrity. If bankers stole or mislaid money from “only” 10% of their clients there would be outrage.

There needs to be a drive to strengthen basic integrity as otherwise science will lose its authority in society. The Wuhan cover up is only one example. Perhaps it would help if scientists as well as doctors had a professional association which regularly “struck off” those who fall short of minimum standards. It would be interesting to see which of the various characters in the Wuhan story would survive.

Last edited 1 year ago by Alex Carnegie
Andrew Dalton
Andrew Dalton
1 year ago
Reply to  Emre S

Yep. Science has been mixing with politics, money and business for a long time now. And, at risk of over-egging the painting metaphor, politics, money and business are stronger pigments than knowledge.

Kent Ausburn
Kent Ausburn
1 year ago
Reply to  Emre S

You are correct, and I say this as a PhD Geologist who spent way too much time in the halls of academia and the research community. Further, we should keep all of this in mind when considering proclamations relating to the other heavily politicized science controversy of our day, global warming.

Last edited 1 year ago by Kent Ausburn
Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Emre S

I am disappointed with author comments about deadly pandemic. Total nonsense.
Then linking this basic scientific dishonesty to Oppenhaimer is appalling.
Yes, Oppenhaimer was instrumental in creation of fission bomb.
But his misguided attempts to stop development of fusion bomb and naive schoolboy politics of “let’s cooperate with the Soviets” were idiocy of the highest order.

John Sullivan
John Sullivan
1 year ago
Reply to  Emre S

This was *not* science, it was (neo-Marxist globalist) politics.

And it still is. In an otherwise decent article, even Birrell spouts the ridiculous claim of “a health catastrophe that killed almost 15 million people in two years.” Lockdowns killed people. The poisonous jabs killed, and are killing, people. The virus killed *some* people, for a few months in Q2 2020.

All this has been known – and suppressed – for years. Farrar’s role in the utter farce has been known for years.

https://twitter.com/EyesOnThePriz12/status/1322915340398022656

Yet Farrar is now chief scientist at the WHO. “Conspiracy”, what conspiracy?

All the current chatter is simple deflection, while the tyrannical globalist coup gathers pace. Millions of lives have been lost or ruined in the “Covid” fiasco, but the #ClimateScam will ultimately be orders of magnitude more destructive – and no one is organising any united opposition. In fact, many of the idiots now “waking up” to the Covid crimes happily believe all the ludicrous “burning planet” propaganda. Including the author.

https://twitter.com/ianbirrell/status/1684106093071327232

Last edited 1 year ago by John Sullivan
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Emre S

…I would add the words “cowardice and group think” to that list of deficiencies.. To assume scientists are better than the rest of us is a grave error.. to assume they’re even as good as us is a mistake since many are atheists and so lack a moral foundations as well.
BTW Covid started out in Chapel Hill Labs, UNC (University of North Carolina)… check it out!

Emre S
Emre S
1 year ago

It is a mistake to put science on a pedestal. Science is performed by scientists and like all other human activity it’s liable to fall victim to things like greed, vanity, and dishonesty.

Mike Downing
Mike Downing
1 year ago

I read ‘The real Anthony Fauci ‘ by Robert F Kennedy. This is a jaw-dropping exposé of how all research, labs and journals are dependent on money from Big Pharma, both here, in the US and worldwide. We simply can’t take anything these experts say at face value. I’m no conspiracy theorist, but I’ve a feeling the truth about the pandemic, it’s origins, the lockdowns and the ‘remedies ‘ will be far far worse than any conspiracist could dream up.

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike Downing

There are conspiracies and “conspiracy theorists” who expose them. Who else has the time and brains to run those foxy swindlers to earth?

David Yetter
David Yetter
1 year ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

This one, the suppression of the discussion of the likelihood of an engineered origin for the SarsCov-2 virus, we now know was a conspiracy, because we have the e-mail chains to prove it. There have also been conspiracies to censor other discussions on social media, which we also know about because we have e-mail chains that show the conspiring.
But there are also things that might look like conspiracies, and are just as harmful to the interests of the citizenry in the countries they involve, but aren’t conspiracies, simply a lot of people in positions charged with some public good acting in their own guild interests against the interests of the public, no conspiring necessary. This is what the phrase “Deep State” borrowed from Turkish politics refers, esp. as regards the security state, but applicable to bureaucracies in general. In science, the same phenomenon occurs via grant funding mechanisms that create herd mentalities out of self-interest, (cf. string theory, climate modeling). Again, no conspiring necessary.

David Yetter
David Yetter
1 year ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

This one, the suppression of the discussion of the likelihood of an engineered origin for the SarsCov-2 virus, we now know was a conspiracy, because we have the e-mail chains to prove it. There have also been conspiracies to censor other discussions on social media, which we also know about because we have e-mail chains that show the conspiring.
But there are also things that might look like conspiracies, and are just as harmful to the interests of the citizenry in the countries they involve, but aren’t conspiracies, simply a lot of people in positions charged with some public good acting in their own guild interests against the interests of the public, no conspiring necessary. This is what the phrase “Deep State” borrowed from Turkish politics refers, esp. as regards the security state, but applicable to bureaucracies in general. In science, the same phenomenon occurs via grant funding mechanisms that create herd mentalities out of self-interest, (cf. string theory, climate modeling). Again, no conspiring necessary.

Rocky Martiano
Rocky Martiano
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike Downing

One by one the ‘conspiracy theory’ dominoes are falling. If RFK is allowed a decent run at the presidential nomination, the real conspirators (Fauci, Collins, Birx, Farrar, Dasak et al) will be feeling very uncomfortable.

Last edited 1 year ago by Rocky Martiano
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Rocky Martiano

..I’d be pretty confident there’s a bullet with RFK’s name on it; or some trumped (!) up charges against him being compiled as we speak.. The lunatics took over the asylum decades ago and the thin veneer of decency and democracy are well worn off by now..
Armaggon awaits..

Michael McElwee
Michael McElwee
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

He keeps asking: “What happened to the anti-war movement.” A very dangerous question to ask, especially for a Kennedy. He’s a brave SOB. God’s speed to him.

Michael McElwee
Michael McElwee
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

He keeps asking: “What happened to the anti-war movement.” A very dangerous question to ask, especially for a Kennedy. He’s a brave SOB. God’s speed to him.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Rocky Martiano

..I’d be pretty confident there’s a bullet with RFK’s name on it; or some trumped (!) up charges against him being compiled as we speak.. The lunatics took over the asylum decades ago and the thin veneer of decency and democracy are well worn off by now..
Armaggon awaits..

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike Downing

There are conspiracies and “conspiracy theorists” who expose them. Who else has the time and brains to run those foxy swindlers to earth?

Rocky Martiano
Rocky Martiano
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike Downing

One by one the ‘conspiracy theory’ dominoes are falling. If RFK is allowed a decent run at the presidential nomination, the real conspirators (Fauci, Collins, Birx, Farrar, Dasak et al) will be feeling very uncomfortable.

Last edited 1 year ago by Rocky Martiano
Mike Downing
Mike Downing
1 year ago

I read ‘The real Anthony Fauci ‘ by Robert F Kennedy. This is a jaw-dropping exposé of how all research, labs and journals are dependent on money from Big Pharma, both here, in the US and worldwide. We simply can’t take anything these experts say at face value. I’m no conspiracy theorist, but I’ve a feeling the truth about the pandemic, it’s origins, the lockdowns and the ‘remedies ‘ will be far far worse than any conspiracist could dream up.

Jonathan N
Jonathan N
1 year ago

China will never allow the truth to come out on this. What we can acknowledge however is that the WHO has been thoroughly corrupted by China and Big Pharma, and we must resist the current push to make its pronouncements mandatory.

Jonathan N
Jonathan N
1 year ago

China will never allow the truth to come out on this. What we can acknowledge however is that the WHO has been thoroughly corrupted by China and Big Pharma, and we must resist the current push to make its pronouncements mandatory.

Nell Clover
Nell Clover
1 year ago

It is ironic that the man who coined the phrase and created the imagery of the pale blue dot that is now used by an elite to frighten us into submitting to their control had this to say in his book titled Pale Blue Dot:

“I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time – when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness…”

– Carl Sagan, astronomer, planetary scientist, cosmologist, astrophysicist, astrobiologist.

Last edited 1 year ago by Nell Clover
Nell Clover
Nell Clover
1 year ago
Reply to  Nell Clover

Correction: his book was Demon-Haunted World!

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Nell Clover

What is an Astrobiologist may I ask?

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
1 year ago

Look it up, Lazybones.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

I did and it seemed preposterous!

J B
J B
1 year ago

No, astrobiology it a real (albeit partly hypothetical) science. Bolstered since the late 90’s by the discovery of exoplanets (planets outside our solar system). 5470 exoplanets confirmed last time I looked, with nearly 10,000 candidates under investigation.Not saying many (or any) of them hold simple or complex life but their detection alone is fascinating stuff.
The Open University has lots of (free) material if you really want to investigate the details…
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/across-the-sciences/astrobiology-on-openlearn

Last edited 1 year ago by J B
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  J B

Many thanks, it is subject I have yet to explore.

Last edited 1 year ago by Charles Stanhope
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

In the words of my dead old mum RIP.. those engaged in Astrobiogenesis or whatever must “have very little to be doing!”

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

In the words of my dead old mum RIP.. those engaged in Astrobiogenesis or whatever must “have very little to be doing!”

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  J B

I thought exoplanets were planets capable of supporting life. Based on what we think is required to support life. Not to hot, not too cold, protection of outer huge planet to deflect cosmic debris and some chemicals allegedly required to create life.
This last bit always puzzled me.
Can’t we have intelligent life based on anything other than carbon and water?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

I think you’re getting it confused with Goldilocks and the 3 bears?

J B
J B
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

Exoplanets are planets that lie outside of our solar system.
Astrobiology is concerned with investigation of life elsewhere in the Universe. It does include the investigation of alternative, scientifically viable, biochemistries.
e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

I think you’re getting it confused with Goldilocks and the 3 bears?

J B
J B
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

Exoplanets are planets that lie outside of our solar system.
Astrobiology is concerned with investigation of life elsewhere in the Universe. It does include the investigation of alternative, scientifically viable, biochemistries.
e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  J B

Many thanks, it is subject I have yet to explore.

Last edited 1 year ago by Charles Stanhope
Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  J B

I thought exoplanets were planets capable of supporting life. Based on what we think is required to support life. Not to hot, not too cold, protection of outer huge planet to deflect cosmic debris and some chemicals allegedly required to create life.
This last bit always puzzled me.
Can’t we have intelligent life based on anything other than carbon and water?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

Most of modern pseudoscience is preposterous Charlie! It is based on ludicrous, untestible conjecture and some very dodgy maths!

J B
J B
1 year ago

No, astrobiology it a real (albeit partly hypothetical) science. Bolstered since the late 90’s by the discovery of exoplanets (planets outside our solar system). 5470 exoplanets confirmed last time I looked, with nearly 10,000 candidates under investigation.Not saying many (or any) of them hold simple or complex life but their detection alone is fascinating stuff.
The Open University has lots of (free) material if you really want to investigate the details…
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/across-the-sciences/astrobiology-on-openlearn

Last edited 1 year ago by J B
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

Most of modern pseudoscience is preposterous Charlie! It is based on ludicrous, untestible conjecture and some very dodgy maths!

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

I did and it seemed preposterous!

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago

Investigating life in the universe, I think.
Sagan was sent to Coventry for stating some unpalatable truths, what were they?

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
1 year ago

Look it up, Lazybones.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago

Investigating life in the universe, I think.
Sagan was sent to Coventry for stating some unpalatable truths, what were they?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Nell Clover

He was right except for one tiny error: the scientist saviours he hoped for turned out to be the instruments of evil he thought the tinfoil hat, astrological nutters would be.. how could they be the problem? .. they have zero power.
Carl was very naïve thinking scientists were all like himself, decent, moral;, broadminded, truthful even spiritual fgs.. boy did he get that wrong!

Nell Clover
Nell Clover
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

His point was no one group has a monopoly on morality and truth – including scientists – and he literally says in the quote that the only force preventing technological power concentrating into the hands of a few is the people – everyone – having the ability to set their own agendas and knowledgeably question everything. That isn’t an appeal to scientific saviours. It is the exact opposite. It is the appeal for a highly educated public.

Today the USA’s schools churn out young adults of whom nearly one quarter are illiterate and one third are innumerate. The USA today falls short of Sagan’s hope and it is no coincidence the levers of power are now firmly in the hands of a very few. He was if anything prophetic.

Nell Clover
Nell Clover
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

His point was no one group has a monopoly on morality and truth – including scientists – and he literally says in the quote that the only force preventing technological power concentrating into the hands of a few is the people – everyone – having the ability to set their own agendas and knowledgeably question everything. That isn’t an appeal to scientific saviours. It is the exact opposite. It is the appeal for a highly educated public.

Today the USA’s schools churn out young adults of whom nearly one quarter are illiterate and one third are innumerate. The USA today falls short of Sagan’s hope and it is no coincidence the levers of power are now firmly in the hands of a very few. He was if anything prophetic.

Nell Clover
Nell Clover
1 year ago
Reply to  Nell Clover

Correction: his book was Demon-Haunted World!

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Nell Clover

What is an Astrobiologist may I ask?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Nell Clover

He was right except for one tiny error: the scientist saviours he hoped for turned out to be the instruments of evil he thought the tinfoil hat, astrological nutters would be.. how could they be the problem? .. they have zero power.
Carl was very naïve thinking scientists were all like himself, decent, moral;, broadminded, truthful even spiritual fgs.. boy did he get that wrong!

Nell Clover
Nell Clover
1 year ago

It is ironic that the man who coined the phrase and created the imagery of the pale blue dot that is now used by an elite to frighten us into submitting to their control had this to say in his book titled Pale Blue Dot:

“I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time – when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness…”

– Carl Sagan, astronomer, planetary scientist, cosmologist, astrophysicist, astrobiologist.

Last edited 1 year ago by Nell Clover
Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago

And we are expected to believe scientists when it comes to global warming!

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Certainly NOT.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

Global warming itself is a certainty; what’s at issue is (a) to what extent it is man made vs natural and (b) what the outcomes will be.. But like all science it’s the best they can do in a far too complex situation.. It’s largely being cannibalised as a vehicle (!) to make trillions for the few and screw the rest of us!

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

We can certainly agree on that Liam.

Last edited 1 year ago by Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

We can certainly agree on that Liam.

Last edited 1 year ago by Charles Stanhope
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

Global warming itself is a certainty; what’s at issue is (a) to what extent it is man made vs natural and (b) what the outcomes will be.. But like all science it’s the best they can do in a far too complex situation.. It’s largely being cannibalised as a vehicle (!) to make trillions for the few and screw the rest of us!

Anton van der Merwe
Anton van der Merwe
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

While there is global warming and it is likely enhanced by humans, there is a huge amount of very BAD science in the field. This ranges from hugely exaggerating the negative impact of global warming to minimising the difficulties with renewables and exaggerating the risks of nuclear power.
On balance it is a greater risk to humans to try to replace fossil fuels with renewables that to continue using fossil fuels until we have an affordable replacement. Making nuclear more affordable would be easy. Just make the regulation rational. We currently value life lost to radioactivity from nuclear energy 100-10,000 times more than a life lost to air pollution from burning fossil fuels.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Certainly NOT.

Anton van der Merwe
Anton van der Merwe
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

While there is global warming and it is likely enhanced by humans, there is a huge amount of very BAD science in the field. This ranges from hugely exaggerating the negative impact of global warming to minimising the difficulties with renewables and exaggerating the risks of nuclear power.
On balance it is a greater risk to humans to try to replace fossil fuels with renewables that to continue using fossil fuels until we have an affordable replacement. Making nuclear more affordable would be easy. Just make the regulation rational. We currently value life lost to radioactivity from nuclear energy 100-10,000 times more than a life lost to air pollution from burning fossil fuels.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago

And we are expected to believe scientists when it comes to global warming!

Nicholas Coulson
Nicholas Coulson
1 year ago

We owe Ian Birrell a debt of thanks. He’s been one of the very few journalists who’s been onto this from the get-go (even if I think he’s rather grudging in his acknowledgement of the work done by the individuals who comprise DRASTIC, who uncovered and published much of the evidence in the teeth of massive headwinds). The NY Times is still in denial and publishing rubbish and the rest of the MSM has shown little interest until very recently, if at all. So thanks, Ian. You, Alina Chan, Matt Ridley and the DRASTIC crew are the only people to come out of this with honour. As for the scientists . . .

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago

I am sorry, but Deigin and few others published papers showing that lab leak was most likely cause of covid well before Mr Birrell and Matt Ridley.
But as you say, MSM are not interested.
Forgetting lab leak, China decision to allow spread of virous around the world was act of war, like Perl Harbour.
But our idiotic leaders in the West did nothing.

Nicholas Coulson
Nicholas Coulson
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

Point taken re Yuri Deigin and the timeline.
I think you’re half-right about China – what really shattered the West was the amazing success of China’s export of lockdown and its uncritical adoption (contrary to most previous planning) first by the Italians and then the rest of Europe with the honourable exception of Sweden. China sure didn’t let a crisis go to waste and we’ll be paying the price for decades. That was an act of war worthy of Sun Tzu.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

I would have thought it far, far more likely Western governments would do the opposite of CCP! ..unless of course it suited them, which it did. it’s not like the Chinese demanded the world do what it says! That’s America’s job! ..or was until the BRICS grew a pair!

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

I would have thought it far, far more likely Western governments would do the opposite of CCP! ..unless of course it suited them, which it did. it’s not like the Chinese demanded the world do what it says! That’s America’s job! ..or was until the BRICS grew a pair!

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

Credit to all the good guys then.. I believe China was little more than a lucky beneficiary of a bigger cover up to protect viral weapons research – look up Chapel Hill Labs (University of North Carolina) where work on GOF began.. then moved to China and of course Ukraine.. the cover up there being a factor of the NATO driven war.

Nicholas Coulson
Nicholas Coulson
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

Point taken re Yuri Deigin and the timeline.
I think you’re half-right about China – what really shattered the West was the amazing success of China’s export of lockdown and its uncritical adoption (contrary to most previous planning) first by the Italians and then the rest of Europe with the honourable exception of Sweden. China sure didn’t let a crisis go to waste and we’ll be paying the price for decades. That was an act of war worthy of Sun Tzu.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

Credit to all the good guys then.. I believe China was little more than a lucky beneficiary of a bigger cover up to protect viral weapons research – look up Chapel Hill Labs (University of North Carolina) where work on GOF began.. then moved to China and of course Ukraine.. the cover up there being a factor of the NATO driven war.

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago

I am sorry, but Deigin and few others published papers showing that lab leak was most likely cause of covid well before Mr Birrell and Matt Ridley.
But as you say, MSM are not interested.
Forgetting lab leak, China decision to allow spread of virous around the world was act of war, like Perl Harbour.
But our idiotic leaders in the West did nothing.

Nicholas Coulson
Nicholas Coulson
1 year ago

We owe Ian Birrell a debt of thanks. He’s been one of the very few journalists who’s been onto this from the get-go (even if I think he’s rather grudging in his acknowledgement of the work done by the individuals who comprise DRASTIC, who uncovered and published much of the evidence in the teeth of massive headwinds). The NY Times is still in denial and publishing rubbish and the rest of the MSM has shown little interest until very recently, if at all. So thanks, Ian. You, Alina Chan, Matt Ridley and the DRASTIC crew are the only people to come out of this with honour. As for the scientists . . .

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
1 year ago

Many of us fought tooth and nail to give credence to the lab leak theory being explored. Why? Because it was logical. We were called conspiracy theorists and racists.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

Crucifixion of truth tellers goes back to Jesus and beyond.. Greed, Group-think, Cowardice and Ego tripping trump (!) truth every time!

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

Crucifixion of truth tellers goes back to Jesus and beyond.. Greed, Group-think, Cowardice and Ego tripping trump (!) truth every time!

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
1 year ago

Many of us fought tooth and nail to give credence to the lab leak theory being explored. Why? Because it was logical. We were called conspiracy theorists and racists.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago

As Winston Spencer Churchill put it so well, “scientists should be on TAP not on TOP.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago

As Winston Spencer Churchill put it so well, “scientists should be on TAP not on TOP.

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago

Despite being caught out with written evidence that they lied to the U.S Congress, nothing will happen to any of these people. Modern scientists are a disgrace.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

‘‘Twas ever thus”.

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

What slight reputational damage they suffered will soon be forgotten by the grant givers.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

‘‘Twas ever thus”.

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

What slight reputational damage they suffered will soon be forgotten by the grant givers.

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago

Despite being caught out with written evidence that they lied to the U.S Congress, nothing will happen to any of these people. Modern scientists are a disgrace.

Daniel Lee
Daniel Lee
1 year ago

This is just the tip of the iceberg of politicized science. An unholy alliance of social engineering radicals, journalists, and compliant grant-seeking scientists has been pushing loaded scientific studies for decades on the environment, education, poverty, health care, sexuality and other fields. People have noticed that studies seem to mutate and even contradict themselves as political fashions change, with the result that trust in science is in the cellar.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Daniel Lee

Apart from the 1% at the top they all fear being ostracised, vilified, defunded, maybe murdered?

Stuart McCullough
Stuart McCullough
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Fewer even than 1% I think.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Remember Dr Kelly?

Stuart McCullough
Stuart McCullough
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Fewer even than 1% I think.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Remember Dr Kelly?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Daniel Lee

Apart from the 1% at the top they all fear being ostracised, vilified, defunded, maybe murdered?

Daniel Lee
Daniel Lee
1 year ago

This is just the tip of the iceberg of politicized science. An unholy alliance of social engineering radicals, journalists, and compliant grant-seeking scientists has been pushing loaded scientific studies for decades on the environment, education, poverty, health care, sexuality and other fields. People have noticed that studies seem to mutate and even contradict themselves as political fashions change, with the result that trust in science is in the cellar.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago

Newton was independent because he was financially supported by his farm and Darwin had a private income. Once a scientist depends upon funds not of their own they are not independent. Or to put it bluntly does the scientist have Foxtrot Yankee money?

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago

Newton was independent because he was financially supported by his farm and Darwin had a private income. Once a scientist depends upon funds not of their own they are not independent. Or to put it bluntly does the scientist have Foxtrot Yankee money?

Daoud Fakhri
Daoud Fakhri
1 year ago

Science, at heart, is the disinterested and impartial pursuit of understanding, knowledge, and ultimately truth about how the universe and everything in it works. Everything from the smallest subatomic particles to the largest black holes and galaxies. It is a noble and honourable pursuit, showing mankind at its finest.
Unfortunately, science is practised by scientists, who are flawed and imperfect creatures like the rest of us. And too often since 2020 we have seen scientists at their worst: jealous of colleagues, intolerant of dissenting opinions, subject to groupthink and confirmation bias, and most shockingly, willing to prioritise politics and ideology above the scientific method in a toxic mix of activism and Lysenkoism.
It’s about time we subjected scientists to the same level of scrutiny and scepticism that we routinely apply to politicians. Scientists and other experts now wield a huge amount of power and influence over the public, and they need to be held to account.

Last edited 1 year ago by Daoud Fakhri
Penny Rose
Penny Rose
1 year ago
Reply to  Daoud Fakhri

I completely agree. The problem is that because of the (admittedly stunning) scientific advances of the last two hundred years, and the decline of faith, people don’t want to think that those who have enhanced and extended their lives are not angels, but fallen humans with feet of clay.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Penny Rose

It’s the logical result of replacing a spiritual God with the god Science.. like the idol it has become.. it is the result of the Fall.. hence the name Apple!

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Penny Rose

It’s the logical result of replacing a spiritual God with the god Science.. like the idol it has become.. it is the result of the Fall.. hence the name Apple!

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Daoud Fakhri

Scientists are not as flawed as the rest of us…
they are much more flawed because they are at much greater risk than the rest of us. No other person is as likely to be utterly “cancelled” as a scientist; and their absolute openness to being corrupted through funding models makes them little more than prostitutes (selling their brains rather than the genitals). Just look at what has happened to the noble few who did speak out.. and their no.1 prosecutors? …their own colleagues!! Like a bunch of religious elders denouncing their own, unwilling to toe the line! Scientism is as wicked a religion as was ever devised.

Penny Rose
Penny Rose
1 year ago
Reply to  Daoud Fakhri

I completely agree. The problem is that because of the (admittedly stunning) scientific advances of the last two hundred years, and the decline of faith, people don’t want to think that those who have enhanced and extended their lives are not angels, but fallen humans with feet of clay.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Daoud Fakhri

Scientists are not as flawed as the rest of us…
they are much more flawed because they are at much greater risk than the rest of us. No other person is as likely to be utterly “cancelled” as a scientist; and their absolute openness to being corrupted through funding models makes them little more than prostitutes (selling their brains rather than the genitals). Just look at what has happened to the noble few who did speak out.. and their no.1 prosecutors? …their own colleagues!! Like a bunch of religious elders denouncing their own, unwilling to toe the line! Scientism is as wicked a religion as was ever devised.

Daoud Fakhri
Daoud Fakhri
1 year ago

Science, at heart, is the disinterested and impartial pursuit of understanding, knowledge, and ultimately truth about how the universe and everything in it works. Everything from the smallest subatomic particles to the largest black holes and galaxies. It is a noble and honourable pursuit, showing mankind at its finest.
Unfortunately, science is practised by scientists, who are flawed and imperfect creatures like the rest of us. And too often since 2020 we have seen scientists at their worst: jealous of colleagues, intolerant of dissenting opinions, subject to groupthink and confirmation bias, and most shockingly, willing to prioritise politics and ideology above the scientific method in a toxic mix of activism and Lysenkoism.
It’s about time we subjected scientists to the same level of scrutiny and scepticism that we routinely apply to politicians. Scientists and other experts now wield a huge amount of power and influence over the public, and they need to be held to account.

Last edited 1 year ago by Daoud Fakhri
Nic Cowper
Nic Cowper
1 year ago

Thank god this info is finally coming to light. Myself and other “conspiracy theorists” have known this for years. Still, as the saying goes “The truth is like a lion; you don’t have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself.”

Nic Cowper
Nic Cowper
1 year ago

Thank god this info is finally coming to light. Myself and other “conspiracy theorists” have known this for years. Still, as the saying goes “The truth is like a lion; you don’t have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself.”

Adrian Smith
Adrian Smith
1 year ago

Just another example of corporate and political interests using science as a drunk uses a lamppost ie more for support than illumination. We see it everywhere from dodgy science used to support the “Trans debate” to climate change / net zero.
Proper science using the scientific method relies on being continually questioned, so that the answers it provides can evolve to be less wrong over time. This does not sit easily alongside political and corporate objectives where the imperative is to try to control the masses with their version of “truth”.
Sadly politics and money always trumps scientific integrity.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Adrian Smith

..nor does it sit easily within the Scienehedron Elders.. Scientism, the religion, abhors its heretics like any other religion. And dogmatic certainty rules or you’re ostracised.. you kowtow or you’re defunded, fired or assassinated. You are vilified, ridiculed and “cancelled” BY YOUR OWN FELLOW SCIENTISTS!

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Adrian Smith

..nor does it sit easily within the Scienehedron Elders.. Scientism, the religion, abhors its heretics like any other religion. And dogmatic certainty rules or you’re ostracised.. you kowtow or you’re defunded, fired or assassinated. You are vilified, ridiculed and “cancelled” BY YOUR OWN FELLOW SCIENTISTS!

Adrian Smith
Adrian Smith
1 year ago

Just another example of corporate and political interests using science as a drunk uses a lamppost ie more for support than illumination. We see it everywhere from dodgy science used to support the “Trans debate” to climate change / net zero.
Proper science using the scientific method relies on being continually questioned, so that the answers it provides can evolve to be less wrong over time. This does not sit easily alongside political and corporate objectives where the imperative is to try to control the masses with their version of “truth”.
Sadly politics and money always trumps scientific integrity.

Tony Taylor
Tony Taylor
1 year ago

Looks like science is not a Nevil Shute novel after all. It’s more like a Michael Crichton or P.K. d**k – all cynicism, cover-ups and fame whores.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Taylor

Or even John Wyndham.

David Fawcett
David Fawcett
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Taylor

Take a look at the opening credits of the TV series Survivors, written by Terry Nation.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Taylor

Or even John Wyndham.

David Fawcett
David Fawcett
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Taylor

Take a look at the opening credits of the TV series Survivors, written by Terry Nation.

Tony Taylor
Tony Taylor
1 year ago

Looks like science is not a Nevil Shute novel after all. It’s more like a Michael Crichton or P.K. d**k – all cynicism, cover-ups and fame whores.

Andrew Wise
Andrew Wise
1 year ago

The louder they say “I’m following the science” the more worried you should be.
Absolute consensus is rare and even “scientific facts” like Newton laws are later challenged/ updated by further research (Einstein)
Challenging “the science” is what good science does.

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Wise

Except when it comes to climate change.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Wise

What were missing were accurate models, ie confidence limits on outcomes.. to be fair, the application of the precautionary principle in the face of many unknowns needs to be allowed for. In the absence of a magic bullet, everything is a trade off and a gamble.. The clear and obvious answer was to offer to isolate the vulnerable in remote refuges subject to strict controls which was doable.. and not to try and ‘isolate’ (starve) the virus which, obvious to all or should have been, was utterly impossible. The sole objective was to prevent overwhelming the NHS..

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Wise

Except when it comes to climate change.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Wise

What were missing were accurate models, ie confidence limits on outcomes.. to be fair, the application of the precautionary principle in the face of many unknowns needs to be allowed for. In the absence of a magic bullet, everything is a trade off and a gamble.. The clear and obvious answer was to offer to isolate the vulnerable in remote refuges subject to strict controls which was doable.. and not to try and ‘isolate’ (starve) the virus which, obvious to all or should have been, was utterly impossible. The sole objective was to prevent overwhelming the NHS..

Andrew Wise
Andrew Wise
1 year ago

The louder they say “I’m following the science” the more worried you should be.
Absolute consensus is rare and even “scientific facts” like Newton laws are later challenged/ updated by further research (Einstein)
Challenging “the science” is what good science does.

michael harris
michael harris
1 year ago

Fauci’s organisation NIAIDS was set up as an arm of NIH right after 9/11 and the less remembered anthrax envelopes sent to Washington politicians. Its remit was to defend against chemical and biological attacks. Of course in researching how to defend against virus attacks the organisation soon involved itself in GOF (creation of offensive weaponry). The groundwork was outsourced to Wuhan. These were still the days of imaginary cooperation between the US and the CCP against ‘terror’. Peter Daszak’s group had the stated aim of discovering all possibly lethal viruses in the wild. (it has, since covid, become the organisational version of a non-person).
Defense/Offense? The Department of Defense is better understood as the War Ministry. ‘Minipeace’ as per Orwell.
Things went t#ts up – they do this in our human world. The sh#t hit the fan and the partygoers were nowhere to be seen (what, me guv?). This also can occur in our nobler than the apes society.
Look cold and hard and cynical at whatever our rulers and explainers come up with now. Assume that many conspiracy theories will be tomorrow’s truths. Use reason to distinguish between these theories and lizard people stuff. (OK even lizard people stuff is a metaphor).

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  michael harris

Problem is not research.
If you don’t follow or be ahead of what China is doing, you are an idiot.
Question is why USA officials assumed that giving China help to develop lethal viruses is a good idea?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

Simple answer: it was seen as too dangerous so it ceased in Chapel Hill Labs (Uni of N.Carolina) and was moved to China, ie as far away as possible! Remember the US once backed Sadam Hussein, the Mujahadin, ISIS, Ortega, Drug cartels so why not China?

Last edited 1 year ago by Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew F

Simple answer: it was seen as too dangerous so it ceased in Chapel Hill Labs (Uni of N.Carolina) and was moved to China, ie as far away as possible! Remember the US once backed Sadam Hussein, the Mujahadin, ISIS, Ortega, Drug cartels so why not China?

Last edited 1 year ago by Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  michael harris

..for sure! David Icke has graduated from total nut job, to crazy speculator, to conspiracy theorist, to maybe a tiny bit of it is true, to wait a cotton pickin’ minute.. let’s look at that again!
I suspect DI will be largely exonerated in the not too distant future, such is the Godless, even Satanic world we now live in.

michael harris
michael harris
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

I said, Liam, ‘lizard people’ is a metaphor. And that lizard people stuff has to separated from conspiracy theories that might tomorrow be just news. Try the Hunter Biden, DOJ, FBI coverup evolution as a very recent example.

michael harris
michael harris
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

I said, Liam, ‘lizard people’ is a metaphor. And that lizard people stuff has to separated from conspiracy theories that might tomorrow be just news. Try the Hunter Biden, DOJ, FBI coverup evolution as a very recent example.

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  michael harris

Problem is not research.
If you don’t follow or be ahead of what China is doing, you are an idiot.
Question is why USA officials assumed that giving China help to develop lethal viruses is a good idea?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  michael harris

..for sure! David Icke has graduated from total nut job, to crazy speculator, to conspiracy theorist, to maybe a tiny bit of it is true, to wait a cotton pickin’ minute.. let’s look at that again!
I suspect DI will be largely exonerated in the not too distant future, such is the Godless, even Satanic world we now live in.

michael harris
michael harris
1 year ago

Fauci’s organisation NIAIDS was set up as an arm of NIH right after 9/11 and the less remembered anthrax envelopes sent to Washington politicians. Its remit was to defend against chemical and biological attacks. Of course in researching how to defend against virus attacks the organisation soon involved itself in GOF (creation of offensive weaponry). The groundwork was outsourced to Wuhan. These were still the days of imaginary cooperation between the US and the CCP against ‘terror’. Peter Daszak’s group had the stated aim of discovering all possibly lethal viruses in the wild. (it has, since covid, become the organisational version of a non-person).
Defense/Offense? The Department of Defense is better understood as the War Ministry. ‘Minipeace’ as per Orwell.
Things went t#ts up – they do this in our human world. The sh#t hit the fan and the partygoers were nowhere to be seen (what, me guv?). This also can occur in our nobler than the apes society.
Look cold and hard and cynical at whatever our rulers and explainers come up with now. Assume that many conspiracy theories will be tomorrow’s truths. Use reason to distinguish between these theories and lizard people stuff. (OK even lizard people stuff is a metaphor).

Howard Gleave
Howard Gleave
1 year ago

“This murky affair appears to be the most terrible betrayal of science.”

Sir Patrick Vallance does not emerge from this with much credit. He said during the pandemic that “science is self-correcting”. But it is only self-correcting if the scientific method of challenging hypotheses is permitted. And it wasn’t. It was suppressed. And the real reason, as this article illustrates, was concern for the careers of scientists fearful for their funding. A total disgrace. Rather than prioritising their fear of the “sh*t show” that would ensue from giving credence to the lab leak theory, the likely consequence of reckless gain of function research and lax bio security, they should have stuck to the principle “let justice be done, though the heavens fall”. The deaths of 15 million people should demand nothing less.

Howard Gleave
Howard Gleave
1 year ago

“This murky affair appears to be the most terrible betrayal of science.”

Sir Patrick Vallance does not emerge from this with much credit. He said during the pandemic that “science is self-correcting”. But it is only self-correcting if the scientific method of challenging hypotheses is permitted. And it wasn’t. It was suppressed. And the real reason, as this article illustrates, was concern for the careers of scientists fearful for their funding. A total disgrace. Rather than prioritising their fear of the “sh*t show” that would ensue from giving credence to the lab leak theory, the likely consequence of reckless gain of function research and lax bio security, they should have stuck to the principle “let justice be done, though the heavens fall”. The deaths of 15 million people should demand nothing less.

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
1 year ago

Did anyone follow the money? These conspiring scientists must be the recipients of a shitload of grant money from various sources, enough to make worthwhile risking exposure .

Last edited 1 year ago by Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
1 year ago

Did anyone follow the money? These conspiring scientists must be the recipients of a shitload of grant money from various sources, enough to make worthwhile risking exposure .

Last edited 1 year ago by Jerry Carroll
Edward De Beukelaer
Edward De Beukelaer
1 year ago

One overlooked issue relating to Covid, and AMR (antimicrobial resistance) is that there will always infectious agents around and however much we know about them, they will always tend to cause illness. There is far too little interest in looking what to do to make people and animals more resilient to infectious agents. Much illness is caused by our immune systems not acting appropriately to normal daily infectious pressures: acting too much or in the wrong way (or in some cases acting insufficiently). This is about developing a societal outlook on fostering health and achieving resilience (of the people, not just the health systems). (note vaccinating, although can play its role in medicine = not the same as fostering health)
The research into this is less technical (as in laboratory technical) and therefore less exciting (les sexy…) and does not promise good financial returns for firms to invest in.(lab equipment, medicines, …) also, when people get healthy they do not need to take medication…
As long as we let most medical research being directed by investment funds (with an investment-return priority approach) there will be more covid histories. Good for the ‘health’ (illness) industry and media…., less so for us…

stephen archer
stephen archer
1 year ago

Excellent comment, as is Howard Gleave’s. It’s a pity you both posted so late since yours are head and shoulders above the most voted, who get theirs in early.

stephen archer
stephen archer
1 year ago

Excellent comment, as is Howard Gleave’s. It’s a pity you both posted so late since yours are head and shoulders above the most voted, who get theirs in early.

Edward De Beukelaer
Edward De Beukelaer
1 year ago

One overlooked issue relating to Covid, and AMR (antimicrobial resistance) is that there will always infectious agents around and however much we know about them, they will always tend to cause illness. There is far too little interest in looking what to do to make people and animals more resilient to infectious agents. Much illness is caused by our immune systems not acting appropriately to normal daily infectious pressures: acting too much or in the wrong way (or in some cases acting insufficiently). This is about developing a societal outlook on fostering health and achieving resilience (of the people, not just the health systems). (note vaccinating, although can play its role in medicine = not the same as fostering health)
The research into this is less technical (as in laboratory technical) and therefore less exciting (les sexy…) and does not promise good financial returns for firms to invest in.(lab equipment, medicines, …) also, when people get healthy they do not need to take medication…
As long as we let most medical research being directed by investment funds (with an investment-return priority approach) there will be more covid histories. Good for the ‘health’ (illness) industry and media…., less so for us…

John Callender
John Callender
1 year ago

Brilliant paper, many thanks! If the position of the CEO of NatWest is considered to be untenable after a breach of confidentiality involving a single customer, how can Farrar continue in his current role with the WHO?

michael harris
michael harris
1 year ago
Reply to  John Callender

Because…think who WHO is answerable to and who is its head and how he got that position.

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  John Callender

Because he follows WHO agenda.
Which is controlled by China.

michael harris
michael harris
1 year ago
Reply to  John Callender

Because…think who WHO is answerable to and who is its head and how he got that position.

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  John Callender

Because he follows WHO agenda.
Which is controlled by China.

John Callender
John Callender
1 year ago

Brilliant paper, many thanks! If the position of the CEO of NatWest is considered to be untenable after a breach of confidentiality involving a single customer, how can Farrar continue in his current role with the WHO?

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago

What is the ultimate power available to man? It isn’t nuclear weapons or modern warplanes or even communications technology. Those are just tools. The ultimate power is the power to decide what is ‘true’ and what is ‘false’. It is the ultimate wish of every tyrant who has ever lived, the ability to make declarations that carry the force of absolute, unquestioned, truth and have everyone march in lock step to those decrees. It doesn’t matter that the earth is actually round if everyone believes it to be flat. People will fear sailing off the edge of it whether it’s possible or not. It doesn’t matter if the climate is changing or not or what the actual consequences of a changed climate are. If everyone believes that the climate is changing and that it will lead to great catastrophe, they will embrace policies like NetZero. The reason science became what it is and was placed on the pedestal it has is because it relied on speaking truth to power, using gathered evidence to disprove the pronouncements of priests and tyrants. It required little more than the ability to read. Science was egalitarian. Anyone could do science. The experiments that schoolchildren can do at home with easily available materials were at one time cutting edge science that changed our civilization. In other words, those first few centuries of the scientific method was essentially gathering a lot of low hanging fruit. What counts as cutting edge science these days requires a high level of intelligence, near genius level mathematical aptitude, expensive computers, exotic materials, and/or a dozen or so other things I could name. In short, it requires a lot of money and resources, and those things generally have to come from powerful people or governments, who always have agendas of their own. Further, the processes used, the conclusions drawn, and the knowledge gained (if any) are far too complex for the average person to understand or critique. Even interpreting the science and understanding how the results actually affect people relies on expert opinion, and experts are as human and as susceptible to corruption as anyone else. Thus science becomes yet another tool of the powerful to exercise subtle and less than subtle control over the great mass of humanity. In short, science has been corrupted by human nature as thoroughly as organized religion has been and still is. It has become a de facto state religion with the added bonus of not having any sacred text to limit what the powerful can get away with and no higher power to appeal to. Scientists become what priests and prophets were to earlier civilizations, a source of information control that could be influenced or controlled in the same way as any other human being. Somewhat ironically, science may be able to supply our rulers with a power organized religion could not, the ultimate power, the ability to declare something, and have it be, for all intents and purposes, true, but only if science retains its image of incorruptible truth in the minds of the public, and that’s looking rather doubtful at the moment. Corrupted as it is, complex as it is, ‘science’ is bound to start making some pretty colossal errors that shatter the illusion of its infallibility.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago

What is the ultimate power available to man? It isn’t nuclear weapons or modern warplanes or even communications technology. Those are just tools. The ultimate power is the power to decide what is ‘true’ and what is ‘false’. It is the ultimate wish of every tyrant who has ever lived, the ability to make declarations that carry the force of absolute, unquestioned, truth and have everyone march in lock step to those decrees. It doesn’t matter that the earth is actually round if everyone believes it to be flat. People will fear sailing off the edge of it whether it’s possible or not. It doesn’t matter if the climate is changing or not or what the actual consequences of a changed climate are. If everyone believes that the climate is changing and that it will lead to great catastrophe, they will embrace policies like NetZero. The reason science became what it is and was placed on the pedestal it has is because it relied on speaking truth to power, using gathered evidence to disprove the pronouncements of priests and tyrants. It required little more than the ability to read. Science was egalitarian. Anyone could do science. The experiments that schoolchildren can do at home with easily available materials were at one time cutting edge science that changed our civilization. In other words, those first few centuries of the scientific method was essentially gathering a lot of low hanging fruit. What counts as cutting edge science these days requires a high level of intelligence, near genius level mathematical aptitude, expensive computers, exotic materials, and/or a dozen or so other things I could name. In short, it requires a lot of money and resources, and those things generally have to come from powerful people or governments, who always have agendas of their own. Further, the processes used, the conclusions drawn, and the knowledge gained (if any) are far too complex for the average person to understand or critique. Even interpreting the science and understanding how the results actually affect people relies on expert opinion, and experts are as human and as susceptible to corruption as anyone else. Thus science becomes yet another tool of the powerful to exercise subtle and less than subtle control over the great mass of humanity. In short, science has been corrupted by human nature as thoroughly as organized religion has been and still is. It has become a de facto state religion with the added bonus of not having any sacred text to limit what the powerful can get away with and no higher power to appeal to. Scientists become what priests and prophets were to earlier civilizations, a source of information control that could be influenced or controlled in the same way as any other human being. Somewhat ironically, science may be able to supply our rulers with a power organized religion could not, the ultimate power, the ability to declare something, and have it be, for all intents and purposes, true, but only if science retains its image of incorruptible truth in the minds of the public, and that’s looking rather doubtful at the moment. Corrupted as it is, complex as it is, ‘science’ is bound to start making some pretty colossal errors that shatter the illusion of its infallibility.

B. Mink
B. Mink
1 year ago

Sociopathic spin doctorates weaponizing their PhDs are wreaking havoc.

B. Mink
B. Mink
1 year ago

Sociopathic spin doctorates weaponizing their PhDs are wreaking havoc.

Micah Dembo
Micah Dembo
1 year ago

We are doomed to repeat the covid disaster again and again until we learn something about humans. Humans have a touch of evil in them, and they are curious little monkey.’s, who love to tinker in the lab. There is big money to be made from spreading disease and killing competitors, extortion, and generally monopolizing the use of violence or the means of violence. See the work of signore Machiavelli if you need further elucidation. Now we will be blackmailed by every idiot-terrorist with a cell culture facility who can afford some ms level biological technicians, with a few years of education. How to defend ourselves? We will need a total survelance state where the government controls our every move.

Micah Dembo
Micah Dembo
1 year ago

We are doomed to repeat the covid disaster again and again until we learn something about humans. Humans have a touch of evil in them, and they are curious little monkey.’s, who love to tinker in the lab. There is big money to be made from spreading disease and killing competitors, extortion, and generally monopolizing the use of violence or the means of violence. See the work of signore Machiavelli if you need further elucidation. Now we will be blackmailed by every idiot-terrorist with a cell culture facility who can afford some ms level biological technicians, with a few years of education. How to defend ourselves? We will need a total survelance state where the government controls our every move.

LCarey Rowland
LCarey Rowland
1 year ago

Thanks for your report. Long story short, it’s a clusterfurin. As writers, we find ourselves in a Mary Shelley moment, with far too many choices about whodunit, who cleaved this, who inserted that . . . to produce the Furinestein monster of 2020.
This is a timely read for me, as I am now laid low by the covid escapee, two years after the fateful lab-leaking strike. I can testify that whatever this micro-monster is, it is no walk in the park.
Let us hope and pray that, however this pandemic has originated, our scientists who tinker with such bio-constructs will have learned a lesson or two about the frightful potentialities of gain-of-Frankenfunction research.

LCarey Rowland
LCarey Rowland
1 year ago

Thanks for your report. Long story short, it’s a clusterfurin. As writers, we find ourselves in a Mary Shelley moment, with far too many choices about whodunit, who cleaved this, who inserted that . . . to produce the Furinestein monster of 2020.
This is a timely read for me, as I am now laid low by the covid escapee, two years after the fateful lab-leaking strike. I can testify that whatever this micro-monster is, it is no walk in the park.
Let us hope and pray that, however this pandemic has originated, our scientists who tinker with such bio-constructs will have learned a lesson or two about the frightful potentialities of gain-of-Frankenfunction research.

James P
James P
1 year ago

It’s amazing to me that anyone thought the lab leak idea was a conspiracy theory. Wuhan is a Chinese Communist facility (though it was funded in this instance by Fauci and his gang). Communists are reliably bad at doing stuff (think Lada’s, and most of the junk you can buy in dollar stores) and deeply, profoundly dishonest. These two facts alone pretty much scream “lab leak”. There was a time when we all knew this (OK maybe not Walter Duranty and the NYT, but everyone else).

James P
James P
1 year ago

It’s amazing to me that anyone thought the lab leak idea was a conspiracy theory. Wuhan is a Chinese Communist facility (though it was funded in this instance by Fauci and his gang). Communists are reliably bad at doing stuff (think Lada’s, and most of the junk you can buy in dollar stores) and deeply, profoundly dishonest. These two facts alone pretty much scream “lab leak”. There was a time when we all knew this (OK maybe not Walter Duranty and the NYT, but everyone else).

Rod McLaughlin
Rod McLaughlin
1 year ago

Great article, except for the bit about Oppenheimer. It’s a shame he wasn’t ‘felled’ by ‘sinister events’ before he started working for the government.

Rod McLaughlin
Rod McLaughlin
1 year ago

Great article, except for the bit about Oppenheimer. It’s a shame he wasn’t ‘felled’ by ‘sinister events’ before he started working for the government.