Covid-19 News

Quote from zorud

I must have missed to read that millions of oculations infected millions of people with Covid-19... ?? Or did I get you wrong?

I would ignore such comments as above. But the full risk of RNA vaccines will be seen in a few years and there will be long time damage as for all other drugs too. But it is currently no help to speculate about them.

Of course I would never vaccinate against corona due to the fact that I own enough ivermectin to treat an infection that turns bad. Here in Switzerland for 99% of all people corona is just - worst case - a bad cold. But for all with preconditions or people living in the fat states of America/UK,Brazil this is a different story.

We here in Switzerland had 7 deaths after Pfizer vaccinations. Norway some 25 within 2 weeks, some hundreds in USA. In Germany about 20 with Pfizer.

But Pfizer has a huge staff and tons of money that controls the press and blocks all negative communication.

7 Deaths after 2,3 mio. dose is not higher, than for many other drugs people take. You always face the risk of genetic incompatibilities among a certain population and the Astra Zeneca victims certainly have some genetic preconditions.

Quote from Wyttenbach

I would ignore such comments as above. But the full risk of RNA vaccines will be seen in a few years and there will be long time damage as for all other drugs too. But it is currently no help to speculate about them.

Think: neuropathology without viral replication in brain, have you read pathology studies?

Disease is not caused by viral replication alone.

Dr Jackie Stone... I guess she passed her IQ test at Harare Prison with flying colours.. probably Zimbabwean ones ..

Very educational: nebulised nanoparticle 15 microns.. silver zeta potential and colloid biophysics

"it's absolutely ridiculous that because of the lay and the academic and the physician perception of colloidal silver

that we are eliminating nanotechnology as as a potential

especially in a particular nanotechnology with silver

which is the biggest commercially used antimicrobial nanotechnology on the market ."

T cells induced by COVID-19 infection respond to new virus variants: U.S. study

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN2BM3BZ

A critical component of the immune system known as T cells that respond to fight infection from the original version of the novel coronavirus appear to also protect against three of the most concerning new virus variants, according to a U.S. laboratory study released on Tuesday.

Several recent studies have shown that certain variants of the novel coronavirus can undermine immune protection from antibodies and vaccines.

But antibodies - which block the coronavirus from attaching to human cells - may not tell the whole story, according to the study by researchers at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). T cells appear to play an important additionally protective role.

Our data, as well as the results from other groups, shows that the T cell response to COVID-19 in individuals infected with the initial viral variants appears to fully recognize the major new variants identified in the UK, South Africa and Brazil," said Andrew Redd of the NIAID and Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine who led the study.

The researchers analyzed blood from 30 people who had recovered from COVID-19 before the emergence of the new more contagious variants.

From those samples, they identified a specific form of T cell that was active against the virus, and looked to see how these T cells fared against the concerning variants from South Africa, the UK and Brazil.

They found the T-cell responses remained largely intact and could recognize virtually all mutations in the variants studied.

The findings add to a prior study that also suggested T cell protection appears to remain intact against the variants.

The NIAID researchers said larger studies are needed to confirm the findings. Continued monitoring for variants that escape both antibody and T cell protection is needed, Redd said.

The rise and fall of a coronavirus ‘miracle cure’

https://www.politico.eu/articl…acle-cure-ivermectin/amp/

In just 12 months, an affordable anti-parasitic has made its way from a humble head-lice treatment to being touted as a “miracle cure” for coronavirus — getting an audience before the U.S. Senate and making its way into official government guidelines.

Veterinarians have seen a rush on doses of ivermectin meant for large animals as people battle to get hold of doses meant for humans, while black markets cash in and a fervent media campaign pushes inconclusive research.

The Czech Republic now allows its off-label use, while Slovakia imports tens of thousands of doses. Promising research on the drug’s potential to treat and prevent coronavirus, combined with desperation over rising case numbers and deaths and a tidal wave of disinformation, has led to use of the drug skyrocketing in Central and Eastern Europe, as well as Latin America and South Africa.

Along with treating animal parasites, the medication has also been used for many years in pill and cream form for humans to treat a variety of conditions such as scabies, head lice and river blindness. It has long been hailed as a wonder drug, and the drug’s discoverers, William C. Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura, were awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize in medicine due to its ability to treat multiple diseases.

The catch: The world’s leading medicines regulators have consistently warned against its use for coronavirus. Last week, the European Medicines Agency stated that the evidence doesn’t support its use for coronavirus outside of clinical trials, and warned that toxicity at high doses “cannot be excluded.” The U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned on March 5 that overdosing on the drug could even lead to death, noting multiple reports of patients being hospitalized after self-medicating.

“All good conspiracy theories or lies have a bit of truth to it — that’s what makes them good,” said Carlos Chaccour, assistant research professor at Barcelona Institute for Global Health and one of the first researchers to raise concerns about the drug’s use for coronavirus.

In this case, it’s known that ivermectin has some antiviral properties — so researchers were right to investigate it at the start of the pandemic, he said.

In fact, Chaccour knows ivermectin better than most. He began work on the drug’s ability to kill malaria vectors in 2007, and when people began dying around the world from a new virus early in 2020, Chaccour turned to the area in which he is an expert.

His work both supports the possibility that ivermectin could be used against coronavirus and debunks dodgy studies on the drug. This has made him an enemy to both sides, and even led to his wife receiving threats. Chaccour said he’s been named “an assassin on the payroll from big pharma” and conversely “naive and advocate [for ivermectin].”Last month, to take a break from the frenzy, he even quit Twitter for Lent.

Getting off on the wrong foot

It all started in March 2020, when an in-vitro study from Australian scientists indicated that ivermectin was an inhibitor of coronavirus. But there was one big problem, said Chaccour: The scientists used concentrations so “huge” that they weren’t naturally found in humans.

Part of the research that emerged was a study using data from Surgisphere — the group behind the now infamous hydroxychloroquine study that was retracted by The Lancet after concerns about the data. However, the study didn’t make it beyond the pre-print stage, so even though some academics raised questions about the validity of the study, they were never officially acknowledged by a reputable journal.

At that time, the use of ivermectin remained mostly confined to Latin America. Peru had included the drug in its national therapeutic guidelines for coronavirus (which it later removed), while hundreds of thousands of people were administering it in Bolivia. Chaccour believes that the drug’s take-up there was linked to its widespread use for both animals and humans, combined with the presence of local manufacturers.

There were some pockets of use elsewhere as well. Hungary, for example, reported in November that veterinarians were seeing an increase in interest for ivermectin.

But that would all change when the drug was put on its most global platform yet — the U.S. Senate

Big Bad Pharma

The bombshell arrived on December 8, when U.S. physician Pierre Kory spoke before a Senate hearing on early outpatient treatment for coronavirus. Ivermectin, alongside other medicines such as vitamin C, zinc and melatonin, could “save hundreds of thousands of people,” he testified, citing more than 20 studies.

Kory also questioned why remdesivir — a pricey drug that has shown some limited efficacy in severely ill coronavirus patients — was able to secure a compassionate use authorization from U.S. regulators while ivermectin was not.

Kory’s appearance reverberated across the globe. A YouTube video of his testimony went so viral that it was removed under the platform’s COVID-19 disinformation policy. As Chaccour put it, the video immediately prompted some people to ask: “Why are they killing us if there’s this life saving drug out there? Why is Big Pharma pushing for their own solutions?”

“And that sparked the whole second wave of interest,” said Chaccour.

Many miles away, in South Africa, a black market for ivermectin soon emerged. In Romania, stocks of ivermectin at both human and veterinary pharmacies were reported to be depleted in January.

The implication that Big Pharma is blocking the use of ivermectin fits into the broader pattern of seeing “some sort of big conspiracy ‘against us ordinary people,’ ” explained Jonáš Syrovátka, program manager at the Prague Security Studies Institute.

Who’s most inclined to believe such disinformation? Researcher Dan Sultănescu, of Romania’s National School of Political and Administrative Studies’ Center for Civic Participation and Democracy, pointed to “people with lower degrees of trust.”

It’s not just about health, he noted — trust in Western institutions such as NATO and the EU also fell last year, a “period of vulnerability” for many countries, including his native Romania. People only listen to sources that they trust, and the media has become “the battleground right now,” as various groups with vested interests fight for coverage.

But in Slovakia and the Czech Republic, it wasn’t just a couple of doctors pushing ivermectin, but the government itself.

In January, the Slovakian health ministry began allowing the use of ivermectin for treating and preventing coronavirus. In March, while noting the limited evidence on its efficacy against coronavirus, the Czech health ministry approved doctors prescribing ivermectin at their own discretion.

Geography also plays a role in ivermectin’s popularity, argued Sultănescu. Its adherents aren’t in major cities or close to the levers of power, but “are on the periphery of some centers,” he said. “You have this in areas where people are frustrated because the results are not in their control, the solutions are not in their control.”

In the Czech Republic, meanwhile, Syrovátka sees the rising desperation due to the current dire situation with the virus as another factor, as people hunt for “easy solutions” to escape the crisis. Adding to the confusion is the government’s inconsistent communication throughout the pandemic, made worse by going through three different health ministers in just two months, he noted.

Conflicting messages

While Europeans have flocked to pharmacies and veterinarians for ivermectin, research into the drug has continued.

A pre-print from dozens of academics around the world, including Chaccour, was published in January and led to the headlines that ivermectin’s staunch supporters could only dream of. The Financial Times declared that the “cheap antiparasitic” could cut chance of virus deaths by up to 75 percent.

The pre-print, which has yet to be peer reviewed, does indeed state that ivermectin could have a dramatic impact on deaths. But it also comes with a big caveat: The meta-analysis showed that the drug needs to be “validated in larger, appropriately controlled randomized trials before the results are sufficient for review by regulatory authorities.”

Then in March, the drug took its next hit. The Frontiers in Pharmacology journal reversed the provisional acceptance of a paper penned by Kory and other members of his group, the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance. The journal noted that “the article made a series of strong, unsupported claims based on studies with insufficient statistical significance, and at times, without the use of control groups.” It also took issue with the authors promoting their own specific ivermectin-based treatment, which Frontiers found “inappropriate” for a review article and against its editorial policies.

Kory took aim at the decision, telling The Scientist the decision was “censorship” and accusing the journal of allowing “some sort of external peer reviewer to comment on our paper.”

Around the same time, the U.S. and EU regulators stepped in — with both warning that there isn’t enough evidence for use of the drug to treat or prevent coronavirus. The European Medicines Agency also noted in its statement, issued March 22, that while lab studies showed hope for ivermectin, they were based on much higher doses than those currently authorized — and that results from clinical studies were varied.

Further well-designed, randomized studies are needed to draw conclusions as to whether the product is effective and safe in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19,” the EMA added.

Trials such as these are now underway, and Chaccour estimates that in the next three or four months, more concrete data will start to emerge. Indeed, despite the drug’s checkered history, even Chaccour hopes that it could turn out to be the wonder drug it was once promised to be.

“When you have these trolls harassing you, it makes me want to say, ‘I hope it doesn’t work’,” he said with a wry laugh. “But that’s not what I want. I would actually be very happy if this works.”

Why the media, scientific community and WHO won't investigate COVID origins

China's recklessness and dishonesty led to the pandemic, but Americans will pay the price

A remarkable twist in a tragedy, still ongoing, with effects that have transformed this country forever: just days before authorities reported the first cases of the coronavirus in Wuhan, a top inspector at the World Health Organization sat for an interview that was broadcast on YouTube.

The inspector was a man called Peter Daszak. He spoke about his research with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which had been going on for more than 15 years. In the interview, Daszak also discussed his nonprofit organization, which had received millions from the U.S. government. Daszak channeled a substantial percentage of that money to the lab in Wuhan, which he described as, "world-class lab of the highest standards." Some of that work, paid for by American taxpayers, went to something called "gain-of-function research." It involved manipulating viruses in a laboratory to make them more transmissible and more deadly. In his YouTube interview, Peter Daszak spoke freely about all of this. At the time, he had no reason not to. Outside of a handful of diplomats, no one had raised concerns about the kind of research into bat viruses, very dangerous research it turns out, that was taking place in Wuhan. According to Peter Daszak, his research, and the grant money that supported it, was necessary to create a vaccine to prevent the next global pandemic. Daszak even explained how easy it is to manipulate a coronavirus.

DASZAK: Coronavirus is a pretty good…You can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily. It’s spike protein. Spike protein drives a lot of what happens with the coronavirus, zoonotic risk. So you can get the sequence, build the protein. And we worked with Ralph Barrack at UNC to do this. Insert into a backbone of another virus and then do some work in the lab.

"You can manipulate them pretty easily" in a lab. That recorded on December 9, 2019. It wasn’t long before Peter Daszak stopping giving interviews about his lab experiments. People were starting to ask uncomfortable questions. Wasn’t there an advanced virology lab with a history of sloppy containment protocols, very close to where the first out outbreak occurred? Well yes there was. But Peter Daszak didn’t want to talk to about that. So he and other bureaucrats at the World Health Organization came up with an alternative explanation for the pandemic.

TUCKER CARLSON: HOW THE PANDEMIC HAS MADE FOOLS OF THE SO-CALLED 'EXPERTS'

The virus, they told the world, had most likely emerged from an exotic mammal that form some reason was being sold in a seafood market in Wuhan. That’s what happened. The media bought that explanation. Later we discovered that was not true. There was never any evidence that COVID infections originated in a pangolin eaten for food.

The locals in Wuhan laughed at that idea. Peter Daszak didn’t apologize. He just kept deflecting attention from the lab.

In April, he told the show DemocracyNow that, "The idea that this virus escaped from a lab is just pure baloney. It’s simply not true. I’ve been working with that lab for 15 years. They’re some of the best scientists in the world."

Daszak has pushed that line ever since. Relentlessly.

Last summer, he wrote an op-ed in The Guardian entitled, "Ignore the conspiracy theories: scientists know Covid-19 wasn't created in a lab." Then made the point on Twitter repeatedly.

Almost every media outlet in this country dutifully repeated Daszak's claims as fact. As early as January, National Public Radio reported, "A wet market Wuhan, China, is catching the blame as the probable source of the current coronavirus outbreak that's sweeping the globe." That was fast. It was a few days into the pandemic, and it wasn’t clear that NPR had sent anyone to the ground in Wuhan, but somehow they knew exactly where the virus came from half a world away in central China.

National Geographic, famous for its expeditions, also determined, somehow, that the issue was settled. "Wet markets launched the coronavirus," they wrote. "Here's what you need to know."

So, the investigative reporters were satisfied with no investigation. But some people still had questions. One of them was Alina Chan, who’s a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute at Harvard and MIT. Chan noticed something odd about the coronavirus. Its genome hadn't changed much over time, even though it, the virus, had undergone trillions of replications. That’s strange. Normally, viruses that jump from animals to human have to adapt quickly to their human hosts. That's what the last SARS virus did, in 2003. Early-stage SARS viruses looked very different from SARS viruses later in the pandemic. But this coronavirus wasn't behaving that way. In fact, it seemed like it was custom-built for human transmission.

When Chan published a paper on her findings, Peter Daszak attacked her to any reporter who would listen. He called Chan's conclusions "preposterous" and a "conspiracy theory." Most media organizations followed suit, and the story went away.

After all, Alina Chan was just one molecular biologist. What did she know? She was easy enough to ignore

That's, of course, exactly what happened to a Chinese virologist, Dr. Li-Meng Yang, whom we spoke to on this show. Yang was working in Wuhan in the early days of the pandemic, but the American media dismissed her as a, nut, a conspiracy theorist. There’s nothing to see here. Go away, crazy Chinese lady. And so she did.

But going forward, it may be much more difficult to dismiss this story. On Sunday, the former Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Robert Redfield, told CNN that based on everything he knows, he too believes the coronavirus likely came from the lab in Wuhan.

REDFIELD: I am of the point of view that I still think the most likely ideology of this pathogen in Wuhan was from a laboratory, escaped. Other people don’t believe that. That’s fine. Science will eventually figure it out. It’s not unusual for respiratory pathogens that are being worked on in a laboratory to infect the laboratory worker.

It’s hard to dismiss Robert Redfield as a QAnon enthusiast or a lunatic. He’s not. Redfield is a former Army officer who has spent his life studying virology. That doesn't mean he's always right about everything, and in fact, he’s often been wrong during this pandemic. But it does mean that what he says is worth assessing carefully. That's supposed to be what journalists do for a living. They look into claims that have some merit, not proven, but should be looked into. Especially claims that have enormous implications for this country.

Continued https://www.foxnews.com/opinio…investigate-covid-origins

Quote from Fm1

The European Medicines Agency also noted in its statement, issued March 22, that while lab studies showed hope for ivermectin, they were based on much higher doses than those currently authorized — and that results from clinical studies were varied.

This sentence has been written by the so called "guardian in the east". It directly shows that this person has no knowledge of clinical virology and only want's to block a game changing drug.

In vitro trials also use much higher dose of virus...

Further the best Ivermectin studies (Egypt,Argentinia had large control groups (100,400)) and at the end the significance counts not the size of the control.

Remdesivir had "0" significance. The significance has been constructed after the trial failed by inventing a cheating measure = number of hospital days of survivors only. Not counting for the large number of excess days of the dying patients.

Big pharma (Pfizer,Merk,..) = mafia = fascists!

Quote from zorud

What is exactly the root cause for the deaths with Pfizer?

There have been no deaths with Pfizer. Any deaths that occurred were coincidental. When you vaccinate 327 million people, some of them are bound to die within a short time. There is no evidence for a causal connection.

Quote from Mark U

This study was referenced before in this thread, so it's odd you say it's not even slightly true.

From https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm

Your conclusion from this study, that masks "do not work" is wrong. For over 150 years every surgical doctor and nurse has used masks to reduce the transmission of bacteria and viral disease. There is absolute, positively, no question this works. Recent studies with human populations show that masks reduce the transmission of COVID-19. Animal studies have also shown this. (They don't put masks on animals; they put them in cages connected with an air passage, which is either open or covered with a mask.)

There's a lot of big pharma mafia in Switzerland...

They don't put masks on animals; they put them in cages connected with an air passage, which is either open or covered with a mask.) They do !!

Quote from JedRothwell

Any deaths that occurred were coincidental.

That's absolute right. Death was coincidential with vaccination....Without vaccination these people would still live.

Quote from zorud

There's a lot of big pharma mafia in Switzerland...

Yes!! Roche sells home test kits like hell and PCR tests since ever.

Here the pharma mafia is organized in rotary - mostly. Includes all state officials dealing with health insurance, tarifs, and most important the clearing of new drugs/vaccines.

Switzerland is a mafias dream country!

WHO report

Quote from Peter

They don't put masks on animals; they put them in cages connected with an air passage, which is either open or covered with a mask.) They do !!

That's hilarious. But I meant scientists do not put masks on animals when investigating how well masks work.

Swiss care home news: Outbreak among vaccinated inhabitants. 5 out of 8 contact persons did contain the virus and were PCR positive but worst with mild symptoms.

So definitely with Pfizer-Biontec you can infect others easily despite a full vaccination.

Of course Zimbabwe may cease ivermectin if they play

Follow the money like the WHO..

WHO follows Eu and Merck in recommending against IVM

https://www.reuters.com/articl…or-covid-19-idINKBN2BN2HH

"We did see an increase in adverse effects in patients that were randomised to ivermectin,” he said, citing gastrointestinal upsets and headaches.

It would be interesting to see the complete WHO report..

Quote from RobertBryant

It would be interesting to see the complete WHO report.

The next Dr Been session will discuss you -know-WHO with Tess Lawrie.. tomorrow.

Question TM 4.41 "Would any IVM trials be accepted by organisations beholding to Big Pharma

Dr. Been answer "NO"

BigPharma and BigHealth oranisations are not mafia... they are a nice family... no horseheads in the bed.

just handsome Pfizer-FDA paychecks for family..

Dr. Gottlieb served as the 23rd Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 2017 to 2019.

Pfizer Director since 2019. Chair of our Regulatory and Compliance Committee and Member of our Science and Technology Committee.

https://www.pfizer.com/people/…rectors/scott_gottlieb-md

Quote from RobertBryant

"We did see an increase in adverse effects in patients that were randomised to ivermectin,” he said, citing gastrointestinal upsets and headaches.

Outraging silly comment. Nobody could take any drug with these findings...

Quote from RobertBryant

BigPharma and BigHealth oranisations are not mafia... they are a nice family..

No! It's worse! Big Pharma is per definition a fascists organization. Fascism is the ruling of abstract ideas = "e.g. maximizing money for friends" contrary to the ruling of human rights.

Big Pharma since ever does as much to help you as to kill you just for the benefits of a few very rich people. See also opioids Viox, Statines, stomach acid blockers contergan, Pandermix.

It's urgent time to limit the income from drugs as medicine/drugs is a human right and should generate only moderate profit.

The WHO's leader said its investigation into whether the coronavirus leaked from a Wuhan lab was not 'extensive enough'

https://www.businessinsider.co…rus-leaked-lab-2021-3?amp

After a month-long investigation in Wuhan, the World Health Organization has offered the most comprehensive analysis to date of where the coronavirus might have come from and how it could have gotten into the human population.

The WHO report, released Tuesday, lists the coronavirus' possible origin scenarios in order of their likelihood. At the top is the possibility that the coronavirus jumped from bats to people via an intermediary animal host, perhaps at a wildlife farm in China. Last on the ranking is the controversial theory that the virus leaked from a Chinese lab.

But in a press conference Tuesday, the WHO's director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said he does "not believe that this assessment was extensive enough."

"Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this requires further investigation, potentially with additional missions involving specialist experts, which I am ready to deploy," he said. Tedros added that members of the international WHO team who traveled to China "expressed the difficulties they encountered in accessing raw data."

Following the report's release, the US and a dozen other countries have called for an independent investigation into the coronavirus' origins — one that would be "free from interference and undue influence," The Wall Street Journal reported.

A lab leak is 'extremely unlikely,' but the WHO didn't audit Wuhan labs

Tedros said the lab-leak hypothesis should "remain on the table," since the WHO experts spent only hours at each high-level biosafety lab in Wuhan.

Peter Ben Embarek, a WHO scientist specializing in animal disease, said during the press conference that the group didn't do "a full investigation or audit" of any particular lab. Overall, he added, the possibility of a lab leak "did not receive the same depth of attention and work" as other hypotheses about the virus' origin.

Still, the report offers compelling reasons why it's extremely unlikely the virus escaped from a lab.

Theory That COVID Came From A Chinese Lab Takes On New Life In Wake Of WHO Report

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/31…life-in-wake-of-who-repor

Before COVID-19, few scientists would have pegged the Chinese city of Wuhan, in temperate central China, as a likely starting point for a global coronavirus pandemic. Its climate and fauna don't fit the bill.But the city of 11 million straddling the Yangtze River is home to some of China's most advanced biological research laboratories. And one of the secretive, state-run institutions, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, is known to conduct experiments on exactly the kind of virus that has killed nearly 3 million people worldwide so far since late 2019.

"I think there were a lot of people who did put together the fact that you had an outbreak in Wuhan and you have these laboratories in Wuhan fairly immediately," said David Feith, who was an Asia advisor in the Trump administration's State Department when the coronavirus emerged.

"The question was: what does the evidence tell us?" says Feith, who is currently at the Washington D.C. think tank, Center for New American Security.

At the time, not much.

President Trump and some in his administration latched onto the theory. But scientists focused on stopping the pandemic and China dragged its feet on an international investigation.

Now, though, the lab leak hypothesis seems to have found new life.

On Tuesday, the World Health Organization released a joint report with Beijing on the origins of the pandemic following a four-week investigation in China. It concluded, among other things, that the lab leak hypothesis was "extremely unlikely."

But WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said he does not believe the team's assessment of the lab leak possibility was extensive enough.

"Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this requires further investigation, potentially with additional missions involving specialist experts, which I am ready to deploy," he told WHO members, according to a written statement.

Jamie Metzl, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, has been an outspoken proponent of such an investigation.

"I'm not saying that I am certain that COVID-19 stems from an accidental lab leak, but it would be absolutely irresponsible and could only be politically motivated to say that it's not even worth having a full investigation," he said.