The private conversations of the scientists who helped cover up the possibility of a lab leak origin of covid in 2020 are wild. Casually conspiring to manipulate public discussion is not a good look for The Science (tm).

Chairman Rep. Brad Wenstrup recently led an official, international visit to Taiwan, Cambodia, and Laos. As neighbors to China and partners to the U.S., each country provides a unique perspective on lessons learned during the pandemic and ways to improve worldwide public health.

Scientists prompted by Fauci, Collins, and Jeremy Farrar helped these funders of GOFROC and Wuhan's labs ghostwrite an article calling a lab origin "implausible" At that time, Kristian Andersen was privately confessing to his co-authors that a lab origin was "so friggin likely"

China's property sector looking at another massive default, this one should finish it off. finance.yahoo.com/news/china-van…

The pillars of China’s economy are cracking. fortune.com/2024/09/01/chi…

Many people like to discuss whether a lab vs. zoonotic origin is "more likely" without estimating likelihoods. When abandoning theoretical ecology & probabilistic models, it's best to just say "based purely on hunch and unquantified intuition, I think X is more likely"

Peter lobbied to close elementary schools, mask 2 year olds and fire people who already had COVID if they did not get a vaccine. He isn't being criticized bc he was a scientist but because he became a policy maker who got things wrong.

A page from Einstein's 1912 notebook with his works on relativity

In Baric's congressional testimony, he confesses that he found inspiration from feline coronaviruses called FIPVs FIPVs have the same PRRAR sequence as SARS-CoV-2

Chris Hendel Mun-Keat Looi The BMJ LOL 🤣😂 My PhD advisor always said that the real info is always in the footnotes: 🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨

1/ The covid origins debate continues in Norway. Gunnveig Grødeland and I argue in Aftenposten that the science has not been objective in the dismissal of a possible lab origin. aftenposten.no/meninger/kroni…

"[T]he…case against Fauci is strong: Not only was he an ardent supporter of research widely believed to be risky, but [also] he manipulated bureaucratic protocols in order to avoid scrutiny of that research, then responded evasively when called to account for his actions."

On Point talked to Dr John Moore who said amplifying the lab leak theory hurts virology and recruitment of talented scientists. I cited the existence of independent boards that inspect & investigate chemical, transportation & nuclear incidents. Do those hurt science & industry?

If I'm reading this right, Collins is still insisting that closing schools saved lives. Yet he doesn't mention Sweden, which did not close schools for kids under 16, and had among the lowest all cause excess mortality in the world. Closing schools harmed children for nothing.

DURC-PEPP research has become a scientific curiosity because of government funding. If there is a basic science question that can only be addressed by DURC-PEPP research, then the PI, research institution, and funding agency must make a compelling public health justification and

In addition to uncertain benefits and clear risks, DURC-PEPP research introduces unbearable liabilities as any entity that fails to take a clear posture against funding this work may find itself embroiled should its grantees accidentally cause a pandemic.

Dr. Fauci's advocacy for & support of research enhancing potential pandemic pathogens normalized - and proliferated - these dangerous research activities, ultimately embroiling NIH and NIAID in COVID origins investigations. I hope he regrets overturning the GOFROC moratorium

A study in contrast Anthony Fauci and NIAID are embroiled in controversy and his legacy will likely be tied to the research-related origin of SARS-CoV-2 Meanwhile, DARPA et al. have escaped controversy by their clear posture and firm ethics against ePPP research.

Science funders have tilted the scales against the theory that their funding caused a pandemic Powerful researchers marginalized any who presented evidence consistent with a lab origin Science has underserved the theory that the COVID-19 pandemic may be a scientific accident.

Proximal Origins - the paper claiming a lab origin was implausible when the authors privately believed it was "so friggin likely", a paper ghostwritten for funders of Wuhan's labs - is one of the biggest and consequential research ethics violations in modern history.