Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

The Long History Of Accidental Laboratory Releases Of Potential Pandemic Pathogens Is Being Ignored In The Covid-19 Media Coverage


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#18 montgomery

montgomery

    Suspended twice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 584 posts

Posted 13 July 2020 - 12:42 PM

What makes me tick is reading a lot of books and researching a lot of information that most people don't read or look at or even consider. This is what everyone should be doing and we might actually start to begin to have an educated public and maybe we won't be so naïve and be in a constant battle just to survive. Knowledge is power and without knowledge  we will all continue to be slaves.

Yeah I know you do lots of reading and you've told me to read all of David Icke's books too. 

Your voice of reason in the darkness of a fake media, a fake virus, and pretty much a totally fake world too!



#19 Thoth101

Thoth101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1192 posts

Posted 16 July 2020 - 03:36 AM

Yeah I know you do lots of reading and you've told me to read all of David Icke's books too. 

Your voice of reason in the darkness of a fake media, a fake virus, and pretty much a totally fake world too!

Sorry to burst your bubble. :lol:



#20 Thoth101

Thoth101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1192 posts

Posted 16 July 2020 - 04:35 AM

A Proposed Origin for SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 Pandemic

 

https://www.independ...id-19-pandemic/

 

Why has the provenance of RaTG13 and BtCoV/4991 been ignored?

The apparent origin of the COVID-19 pandemic is the city of Wuhan in Hubei province, China. Wuhan is also home to the world’s leading research centre for bat coronaviruses. There are two virology labs in the city, both have either collected bat coronaviruses or researched them in the recent past. The Shi lab, which collected BtCoV/4991 and RaTG13, recently received grants to evaluate by experiment the potential for pandemic pathogenicity of the novel bat coronaviruses they collected from the wild.

 

To add to these suggestive data points, there is a long history of accidents, disease outbreaks, and even pandemics resulting from lab accidents with viruses (Furmanski, 2014; Weiss et al., 2015). For these and other reasons, summarised in our article The Case is Building that COVID-19 Had a Lab Origin, we (a virologist and a geneticist) and others have concluded that a lab outbreak is a credible thesis. Certainly, a lab origin has at least as much circumstantial evidence to support it as does any natural zoonotic origin theory (Piplani et al., 2020; Segreto and Deigin, 2020; Zhan et al., 2020).

 

The media, normally so enamored of controversy, has largely declined even to debate the possibility of a laboratory escape. Many news sites have simply labelled it a conspiracy theory.

 

The principal reason for media dismissals of the lab origin possibility is a review paper in Nature Medicine (Andersen et al., 2020). Although by Jun 29 2020 this review had almost 700 citations it also has major scientific shortcomings. These flaws are worth understanding in their own right but they are also useful background for understanding the implications of the Master’s thesis.


Edited by Thoth101, 16 July 2020 - 04:36 AM.


#21 montgomery

montgomery

    Suspended twice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 584 posts

Posted 16 July 2020 - 10:59 AM

A Proposed Origin for SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 Pandemic

 

https://www.independ...id-19-pandemic/

 

Why has the provenance of RaTG13 and BtCoV/4991 been ignored?

The apparent origin of the COVID-19 pandemic is the city of Wuhan in Hubei province, China. Wuhan is also home to the world’s leading research centre for bat coronaviruses. There are two virology labs in the city, both have either collected bat coronaviruses or researched them in the recent past. The Shi lab, which collected BtCoV/4991 and RaTG13, recently received grants to evaluate by experiment the potential for pandemic pathogenicity of the novel bat coronaviruses they collected from the wild.

 

To add to these suggestive data points, there is a long history of accidents, disease outbreaks, and even pandemics resulting from lab accidents with viruses (Furmanski, 2014; Weiss et al., 2015). For these and other reasons, summarised in our article The Case is Building that COVID-19 Had a Lab Origin, we (a virologist and a geneticist) and others have concluded that a lab outbreak is a credible thesis. Certainly, a lab origin has at least as much circumstantial evidence to support it as does any natural zoonotic origin theory (Piplani et al., 2020; Segreto and Deigin, 2020; Zhan et al., 2020).

 

The media, normally so enamored of controversy, has largely declined even to debate the possibility of a laboratory escape. Many news sites have simply labelled it a conspiracy theory.

 

The principal reason for media dismissals of the lab origin possibility is a review paper in Nature Medicine (Andersen et al., 2020). Although by Jun 29 2020 this review had almost 700 citations it also has major scientific shortcomings. These flaws are worth understanding in their own right but they are also useful background for understanding the implications of the Master’s thesis.

Your first link: https://www.independ...id-19-pandemic/

Is written in part  by Dr. Latham and he has a reputation of quackery .https://geneticliter...dangers-claims/

 

Due to your track record Thoth, as well as Latham's, we'll have to be cautious of this one just being another conspracy theory.

 

Do you have any credible and squeaky clean sources to back up your theory?



#22 Thoth101

Thoth101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1192 posts

Posted 16 July 2020 - 10:59 PM

Your first link: https://www.independ...id-19-pandemic/

Is written in part  by Dr. Latham and he has a reputation of quackery .https://geneticliter...dangers-claims/

 

Due to your track record Thoth, as well as Latham's, we'll have to be cautious of this one just being another conspracy theory.

 

Do you have any credible and squeaky clean sources to back up your theory?

And a good Dr. that actually does research and cares about people you call a quack. I think it is time for you to hang it up Monty and go back to the drawing board because you are clearly confused.

 

Lets examine the team of your link Genetic Literacy Project.

 

Jon Entine, Executive Director
Not even a doctor and worked for the mainstream media-He spoke before the National Academy of Sciences and the Australian National Press Club on GMO safety. Before becoming a print journalist, Jon was a producer and executive for 20 years at NBC News and ABC News. And he also believes GMO's are safe.

 

Jon Entine was literally a key partner in Monsanto's public relations efforts.
https://usrtk.org/fo...ster-messenger/

 

Brian Muia, Director of Finance
He is shareholder and CPA at Jones and Kolb who are public accountants, He is a business man and that is it. He knows nothing about being a Doctor.

 

Cameron J. English, Managing Editor
Oh boy a science writer who is dedicated to misinformation around genetic engineering. So in other words he worked for Monsanto.

 

All and all The Genetic Literacy Project is a corporate front group that was formerly funded by Monsanto.

https://www.sourcewa...iteracy_Project

 

Ooops but Bayer bought Monsanto and now Bayer is getting sued.....

https://www.scientif...icides-company/

 

https://www.npr.org/...cancer-lawsuits

 

Your link is pretty much a PR form of what was once Monsanto. Maybe you should do a little research before you call a great Journalist Dr. a quack.

 

Where is Monsanto now? Oh wait they were bought out! Why don't you ask the Vietnam veterans about Agent Orange and Monsanto? What about the people that got cancer because of Monsanto's weed killer? What about the GMO's that effected farmers and they committed suicide because they didn't have enough money to buy the GMO Monsanto seeds every year. Oh yea that Monsanto. Great job on your website link Monty.


Edited by Thoth101, 17 July 2020 - 04:17 AM.


#23 Thoth101

Thoth101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1192 posts

Posted 17 July 2020 - 04:21 AM

A further note from your other favorite Doctor about Monsanto and your buddies at the Genetic Literacy Project:

 

A U.S. law firm has released secret documents providing disturbing evidence that agrochemical and biotech company Monsanto engaged in ghostwriting, orchestrated attacks against the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the hiding of scientific data, collusion with government regulators, and other corporate misconduct. Monsanto seemingly carried out these activities in an attempt to hide the serious public health consequences of its glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup. With Monsanto’s new owners Bayer recently suffering three landmark defeats in legal cases brought by patients who developed cancer after exposure to Roundup, the release of these latest documents will further strengthen the more than 18,400 additional lawsuits now outstanding against the company.

 

Published online by law firm Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, the newly released documents form part of a growing collection known as ‘The Monsanto Papers’. Containing internal Monsanto emails, text messages, company reports, studies, and other key memoranda, the documents provide damning evidence of the extent to which Monsanto apparently sought to mislead regulators and the public regarding the supposed safety of Roundup.

 

Colluding with media and regulators-

 

 

Providing evidence that Monsanto aimed to ensure the mainstream media wrote favorably about Roundup, the papers show the company was involved in several articles written by Reuters news agency reporter Kate Kelland. In one example, Kelland forwarded a draft of an article to Monsanto before it was published by Reuters. On another occasion, she wrote a story repeating talking points she had received from Monsanto executive Sam Murphey. Kelland’s story helped give rise to the idea that IARC had supposedly ignored data which, if it were considered, would have changed the classification of glyphosate.

 

The Monsanto papers also show the company colluded with government regulators. In one email, Monsanto toxicologist Donna Farmer admits the company was working behind the scenes to alter information on a government website about glyphosate. Other documents show how Monsanto influenced officials from the U.S. government’s Environmental Protection Agency.

 

Monsanto also engaged in deliberate attempts to discredit its critics. One person who was the focus of such attention was French scientist Gilles-Eric Séralini. In September 2012 Séralini had published a study in the Food and Chemical Toxicology journal which showed that rats fed genetically modified glyphosate-resistant corn have an increased incidence of tumors. Monsanto responded to the release of this study by devising a plan to undermine and discredit Séralini. Under mounting pressure, the journal subsequently retracted the study in November 2013 and stated that Séralini’s findings were unreliable. Notably, therefore, papers uncovered by the law firm show that Wallace Hayes, the journal’s editor-in-chief, once had a contractual relationship with Monsanto.

https://www.dr-rath-...ces-of-roundup/



#24 montgomery

montgomery

    Suspended twice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 584 posts

Posted 17 July 2020 - 09:31 AM

A further note from your other favorite Doctor about Monsanto and your buddies at the Genetic Literacy Project:

 

A U.S. law firm has released secret documents providing disturbing evidence that agrochemical and biotech company Monsanto engaged in ghostwriting, orchestrated attacks against the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the hiding of scientific data, collusion with government regulators, and other corporate misconduct. Monsanto seemingly carried out these activities in an attempt to hide the serious public health consequences of its glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup. With Monsanto’s new owners Bayer recently suffering three landmark defeats in legal cases brought by patients who developed cancer after exposure to Roundup, the release of these latest documents will further strengthen the more than 18,400 additional lawsuits now outstanding against the company.

 

Published online by law firm Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, the newly released documents form part of a growing collection known as ‘The Monsanto Papers’. Containing internal Monsanto emails, text messages, company reports, studies, and other key memoranda, the documents provide damning evidence of the extent to which Monsanto apparently sought to mislead regulators and the public regarding the supposed safety of Roundup.

 

Colluding with media and regulators-

 

 

Providing evidence that Monsanto aimed to ensure the mainstream media wrote favorably about Roundup, the papers show the company was involved in several articles written by Reuters news agency reporter Kate Kelland. In one example, Kelland forwarded a draft of an article to Monsanto before it was published by Reuters. On another occasion, she wrote a story repeating talking points she had received from Monsanto executive Sam Murphey. Kelland’s story helped give rise to the idea that IARC had supposedly ignored data which, if it were considered, would have changed the classification of glyphosate.

 

The Monsanto papers also show the company colluded with government regulators. In one email, Monsanto toxicologist Donna Farmer admits the company was working behind the scenes to alter information on a government website about glyphosate. Other documents show how Monsanto influenced officials from the U.S. government’s Environmental Protection Agency.

 

Monsanto also engaged in deliberate attempts to discredit its critics. One person who was the focus of such attention was French scientist Gilles-Eric Séralini. In September 2012 Séralini had published a study in the Food and Chemical Toxicology journal which showed that rats fed genetically modified glyphosate-resistant corn have an increased incidence of tumors. Monsanto responded to the release of this study by devising a plan to undermine and discredit Séralini. Under mounting pressure, the journal subsequently retracted the study in November 2013 and stated that Séralini’s findings were unreliable. Notably, therefore, papers uncovered by the law firm show that Wallace Hayes, the journal’s editor-in-chief, once had a contractual relationship with Monsanto.

https://www.dr-rath-...ces-of-roundup/

Yeah, just like I thought, you're starting up another conspiracy theory. Well I'm not going along with it until you can show who created the fake photos of the airplane wreckage at the Pentagon. What is your very best theory on that? Or give me two or three choices because it doesn't matter who so much as it matters that they are obviously faked and photoshopped. Right?