𝗥𝗶𝗽𝘁 𝗡𝗲𝘄𝘀 𝗠𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮 𝗜𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱 🔉🌏 RT

The Irish Git (Telegram)

Commenting on the discovery that so many of the signatories were linked to China, they said: “This article is the first to show beyond reasonable doubt that our entire area of virus research has been contaminated politically. We bear the scars to show it.”

Other signatories with links to the Wuhan team include Prof Kanta Subbarao, who spoke at a conference in Wuhan – part organised by the Wuhan Institute of Virology – on emerging disease in 2016, while she was still chief of the NIAID’s Emerging Respiratory Viruses Section.

Dr John Mackenzie, of Curtin University of Technology in Australia, put his name to the letter, but failed to mention he was still listed as a committee member of the Scientific Advisory Committee of Centre for Emerging Infectious Diseases at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Five other signatories had all published articles with Prof Ralph Baric, who was collaborating with Shi Zhengli and the Wuhan Institute of Virology on research about genetically manipulating coronaviruses to see if they could be made to infect humans.

Crucially, Prof Baric was omitted from the list of signatures although he was initially asked to join the group by Mr Daszak. Emails have recently come to light between Mr Daszak and Prof Baric ahead of The Lancet letter showing that the pair decided to blur their association in case it looked “self-serving”.

Mr Daszak told Prof Baric he would distribute the letter in a way that “doesn’t link it back to our collaboration so we maximise an independent voice”.

Out of 27 signatories, only Prof Ronald Corley, of Boston University, appears to have no links to funders or researchers.

While an addendum was added to The Lancet letter in June this year, pointing out Mr Daszak’s links to Wuhan, no others revealed any conflict of interest at the time.

Molecular biologist Prof Richard Ebright, of Rutgers University, who has fought to uncover the truth behind the Covid pandemic, said: “For the June addendum, the Lancet invited the 27 authors of the letter to re-evaluate their competing interests.

“Incredibly, only Daszak appears to have done so. Conflicts of interest were not reported for any of the other 26 signers of the letter – not even those with obviously material undisclosed conflicts such as EcoHealth employees and Predict contractors.

“The standard remedy for fraudulent statements in scientific publications is retraction. It is unclear why retraction was not pursued.”

Several of those who signed the letters have since changed their stance, with Prof Peter Palese, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, now calling for a full inquiry.

Dr Charles Calisher, of Colorado State University, told The Telegraph that the letter never intended to suggest that Covid might not have a natural origin, rather that there was insufficient data.

Signatory Prof Stanley Perlman, of the University of Iowa, told The Telegraph: “It is difficult to eliminate a possible lab leak as part of the process, so this still needs to be considered.”

Prof Bernard Roizman has gone the furthest of all, telling the Wall Street Journal in May that he is now convinced the virus was accidentally released by a “sloppy” scientist.

Mr Daszak was removed from the UN’s Covid commission looking at the origins of the pandemic in June over his scientific impartiality. However he is still part of the World Health Organisation Covid investigation team.

Earlier this month, he co-authored an article in Nature with the WHO team claiming there was still little evidence for a lab leak theory and warning that it may soon be too late to get to the bottom of how the pandemic started.

Prof Dalgleish added: “It may now be too late to get to the bottom of what happened with the pandemic because of this stalling but I think enough evidence is out there. It may be that if they hadn’t been doing this work [a] pandemic might never have happened.”

When approached, the Lancet and Wellcome Trust...

View original post

187 views10:41