The question virology must answer is no longer “Can we secure the lab?” or “Is this research valuable?” but rather: “Can the benefit of this work morally justify the externalized, non-consensual exposure of billions of people to potentially irreversible harm?”

1) Trump administration has pivoted to investigate the much ballyhooed "Proximal Origin" paper by Scripps Research Kristian Andersen. Read DOJ's letter to Nature Medicine. Trump officials believe the paper was a quid pro quo for a Fauci grant. tinyurl.com/ykr7vxpv

Jay Bhattacharya confronts NIH bureaucrats with a fact that most Americans believe but that a complicit mainstream media has sheltered them from: NIH-sponsored research may have killed 1 million Americans

If we believe p-values reflect a good-faith statistical representation of reality, the replication rate should approach 95% … but most science is idiosyncratic in ways few appreciate (that lab’s HEK cells aren’t your lab’s HEK cells, etc.) also, there is the fraud.

Well at least Dr. Rasmussen is consistent in being completely incapable of interpreting abundant publicly available evidence to reconstruct historical events.

Starting to wonder if the real hope is a world that lets you -stay- or -become- freely.

We certainly have markers that correlate chronological age to a biological age estimate. But time likely writes itself into our expiration in ways we still do not understand. I’m confident we can “reverse” our “age scores” in the next 3yrs, but will that mean longer healthspan?