Covid-19 News

    Nonprofit chief ignored House Republican questions about Wuhan lab: report


    The head of a nonprofit that gave hundreds of thousands in taxpayer funds to a Chinese lab that may be the source of COVID-19 ignored dozens of questions from House Republicans about that deal and related matters, according to a report Friday.


    The 34 questions were contained in an April 14 letter sent to Peter Daszak, president of the New York City-based EcoHealth Alliance, the Daily Mail said.


    Daszak was given a May 17 deadline to respond but never did, a source close to the House Energy and Commerce Committee told the news outlet.


    “Total silence. They seem to be refusing to acknowledge anything from us,” the source said.


    “At least when we send a letter to a government agency we get a ‘We got your letter, we’re working on it,’ kind of thing. But from Eco? Zip.

    The letter to Daszak was signed by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and committee members Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) and Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.), both of whom are the top Republicans on Engery and Commerce subcommittees, the Mail said.


    Because Democrats narrowly control the House, Republican committee members do not have subpoena power.


    The letter was reportedly sent as part of a probe the GOP lawmakers launched in March over suspicions that the coronavirus may have escaped from — and possibly been created inside — the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

    Similar letters have also been sent to various government departments and other, unspecified recipients, according to the Mail.

    The letter to Daszak included questions about the federal grant money that EcoHealth passed on to the WIV, as well as about what information the nonprofit had about the lab’s research on bat viruses and the lab’s virus database, the Mail said.


    On Thursday, Vanity Fair reported that Daszak — who was the sole American representative during a World Health Organization visit to Wuhan in January — admitted that the group didn’t ask to inspect the database and defended the decision by saying that “a lot of this work has been conducted with EcoHealth Alliance.”


    During a March 10 event in London, Daszak also reportedly said the WIV’s chief coronavirus researcher, Shi Zhengli — dubbed “Bat Woman” for her work with the flying mammals — told the group that the database was taken offline due to hacking attempts during the pandemic.

    But the database was actually removed from the internet on Sept. 12, 2019, three months before the official start of the outbreak, according to Vanity Fair.


    Vanity Fair’s nearly 12,000-word report also revealed that Daszak secretly organized a February 2020 statement, signed by himself and 26 other scientists, that denounced as “conspiracy theories” any notion “that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.”

    One of the signatories, prominent New York City microbiologist Peter Palese, on Friday said that unspecified, “disturbing information” has since led him to believe that “a thorough investigation about the origin of the COVID-19 virus is needed.”


    Daszak declined to answer questions when a reporter visited his Rockland County home on Friday, the Mail said.

    I always understood that the fringe theory regarding the lab leak has always been against a human constructed

    virus and not that it could have escaped form the lab from a collected sample. When you read about what the experts

    said you would get the impression that Covid 19 seam to have evolved naturally. Now there are some new evidences

    but I am still skeptical. Again the reason I am so weary is that statistical methodologies has not been reported when

    performing the analysis. So people go out hunting for rarities, finding patterns is touted as only positive, but fail at explaining

    the most basic principle. That you should before looking at the data write down that we are looking for x,y,z and then look

    at the data. The reason is that although you find a rare genetic combination if all you do is look for rare combinations

    you do not how many you would accept as a rarity. To illustrate if you find a combination that happens 1 in 1000 and

    you accept 1000 such rare combination as rare you will typically find a rare combination in each and other sample. It is

    sad state of science and society that these principles outside the medical community is under used and that lead to

    good evidences essentially becomes ruined. This happen in physic theoretical science where one does not keep a strict

    methodology on comparing theory and new improved measurement. It seam to happen in this man made covid 19 story.

    Perhaps they do use correct methodology, for that we need to wait for the publication.


    It is telling that journalists say that good ability of pattern matching is a super power. Tell you a secrete, it's a curse.

    I have a friend that has epoch with psychosis and it is obvious after visiting him, that his pattern matching ability

    is super sensitive. The issue is that you need to evaluate your finding and judge them correctly, which is hard without

    good procedures and the most probably reason we as humans filter out and hides most of the patterns the brain pick

    up from our consciousness.


    So until I get to understand the true nature of findings I remain skeptical of anything that is counter to what domain expert

    says and extremely skeptical to non experts sleuthing.


    Maybe I'm too skeptical, but as I help with statistical analysis in medical research, I tend to get more and more sensitive to these

    issues and today view basically the main benefit of someone expert in statistics as to police the researcher to become more careful

    of how they manage the data and the findings in order not to destroy evidences and make sure they can argue in a correct way why

    they see a connection in the data.


    That said, we do have problems with the investigation of the lab leak in many human levels. It is not a left-right thing though, as it

    seams to be rooted in scientist trying to avoid their career being ruined and journalists and politicians should certainly look into this problem.

    Quote from Fm1

    SARS-CoV-2 cell-to-cell spread occurs rapidly and is insensitive to antibody neutralization

    This was my initial fear when I first learned about the AIDS add-ons. You cannot eliminate AIDS so far as it spreads intercellularly.


    These observations suggest that, once cells are infected, SARS-CoV-2 may be more difficult to neutralize in cell types and anatomical compartments permissive for cell-to-cell spread.

    Introduction

    If exposure to a virus leads to some cellular infection, infected cells may infect other cells by interacting with them. This happens with multiple virus types [1]. In HIV, cell-to-cell spread involves a virological synapse [2, 3] and is less sensitive to antiretroviral therapy [4] and neutralizing antibodies [5, 6].


    So only Ivermectin helps!

    I still maintain that if the 'powers that be' had investigated anti-viral remedies in parallel with vaccination we would be much further down the line to a lasting cure to all isoforms of COVID. The political suppression of a potential remedy makes no sense at all and has prolonged the lifetime of the pandemic when many lives could have been saved. We treat HIV viral infection with anti-viral drugs so why not COVID?? Or is using hyrdoxychloroquine and ivermectin somehow un-democratic!!! thIS IS nuts??!!! bOTH THESE REMEDIES ARE SUGGESTED BY THE EARLY 2020 GORDON et al paper acting at various different sites within the cell, surface, endoplasmic reticular and nuclear reticular membranes where they influence viral penetration and transcription. Dare I say it it could be as simple as the law of MASS ACTION - providing a lot of junk codons to the RNA replication and DNA repair Transcriptors results in their malfunctioning and virus transcription stalls, as it were.. We proposed a similar mechanism for endogenous ADP-Ribosyl Transferases back in the late eighties to account for some unusual results on GTP-binding proteins - such reactions could be driven backwards restoring normal functioning by providing excess nicotinamide or adenine or other analogues. Its the tertiary structural sites of complex proteins that dock with substrate :) or antagonists so the pharmacology is always very complex to guess at simply from structure-functional analogue assessment. :)

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    There is absolutely no reason to think that the risk profile is different from other vaccines, no mechanism to make this.

    I find it interesting that people look at data and find such different opinions, but such is life.

    We both made rather lengthy posts and often it is easy to bury distinct issues and avoidance in such.

    So while I will not make many posts on this (usually futile with some), I think you try to respond without emotional bias, so let's narrow down and focus on one of the main points.....


    mRNA vaccine safety.


    In your response you pretty much lumped all vaccines together, treating them the same and contributing the same safety record to all. I disagree with this and your statement above. Perhaps you have not read much on the mRNA vaccines.


    So can we focus just on this one point ...... long term safety of mRNA vaccines, Not measles, not polio,, but mRNA. Can you respond to the following data?


    1) No mRNA vaccines have ever been approved for human use via standard protocol. The current mRNA vaccines were given emergency use status and have NOT had long term testing conducted. True or false?


    2) Early mRNA vaccines certainly did have severe side effects (arguing against your above statement as factual side effects trump "no reason") Early mRNA vaccines not only had severe side effects but were never approved for human use? True or False


    3) Trying to lump mRNA vaccines in with standard vaccines is disingenuous. mRNA vaccines are completely different that attenuated vaccines. Both in concept and chemical structure. To state the attenuated vaccine long term safety should be automatically granted to mRNA is not logical or wise. True or False?


    So it will be interesting to see what your answers are on the above.


    One last note is that I did not do character assassination on Fauci. He went on record with many public statements and then his emails surfaced showing his misdirection, contradictions and behind the scenes hypocrisy. Statin g that this happened is no more than what many did with Trump. Truth is truth ..... or is it only when it damages the "other side".


    SARS Cov2 in Barcelona, march 2019


    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    Wyttenbach. This argument is both scientifically rubbish, and dangerous. Anyone reading it might be falsely persuaded not to take a vaccine and thereby die.


    From what Jed has patiently explained to you number of reported (coincidental) deaths is not the same as number of vaccine deaths.

    Of course it will go up enormously because of a mass vaccination program specifically targeting very old (more likely to die of other causes) people. And in a period when deaths from other causes have gone up due to COVID. Remember, it takes a few weeks to develop immunity from a vaccine. Now: how about you use the care required for any scientific statement contradicting 99% of other scientists (and out of your area, as well) and make your argument again, distinguishing between fractional and absolute increases, and stating precisely what are the figures you use.


    I don't know about Russian / Chinese vaccines. For all I know they kill many people: I do not trust regulatory authorities in those countries. I do know that the Western vaccines have been gone over by multiple authorities, and found good.


    As an indication of the care taken - note how the ChAdOx blood clots from the ChAdOx1 vaccine have been scruitinsed and used to alter emergency authorisation in different countries. No suppression of uncomfortable data there. Experts expectvaccines to ahve side effects, and monitor for these very carefully.

    Quote from Fm1

    SARS Cov2 in Barcelona, march 2019

    The preprint is quite old (June 2020). The data is also from a period where no good method for waste water analysis has yet been available. So this data is of very low quality. Let's hope they did keep a sample of the water. But the date is in line with many Japanese corona cases and also the New York ones.


    Only a full PCR can (could..) reveal the truth

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Wyttenbach. This argument is both scientifically rubbish, and dangerous. Anyone reading it might be falsely persuaded not to take a vaccine and thereby die.

    This argument then is even more rubbish as anybody that take Ivermectin in time will have no problems at all. It looks like you have to promote 1000% provax opinions.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Of course it will go up enormously because of a mass vaccination

    This is a dilettante argument too as each year we have a flu mass vaccination of at least 20% of the population.


    100'000 deaths so far thanks to vaccines is an outraging result. Even more outraging your friends business case for vaccines by suppressing HCQ combo and Ivermectin. These people have to live with a place in the history books the share on the same page as Stalin & Hitler & Mao.

    Shane. If there is significant positive RCT evidence for IVM I will retract what I was saying. I had not heard of it, and think I would have done so.


    Here is my best take on the evidence:


    https://ebm.bmj.com/content/ea…/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678


    Up to February 2021, the PAHO identified twenty two ivermectin randomised clinical trials through a rapid review of current available literature.34 There is considerable heterogeneity in the population receiving ivermectin, with studies administering it to family contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases as a prophylactic measure29 and other studies using ivermectin for treatment of mild and moderate infected cases28 or even severe hospitalised patients.30 Applied dosis and outcomes of interest were also highly variable. Additionally, patients also received various cointerventions, and control groups received different kinds of comparators ranging from placebo or no intervention to standard care or even hydroxychloroquine. The authors claim that pooled estimates suggest beneficial effects with ivermectin, but the certainty of the evidence was very low due to high risk of bias and small number of events throughout the included studies. Most study results have been made publicly available as preprints or unpublished, with no peer review or formal editorial process. Others incorporated their results only in the clinical trial register, but nearly half of these randomised clinical trials had not been registered. Registering clinical trials before they begin and making results available fulfils a large number of purposes, like reducing publication and selective outcome reporting biases, promoting more efficient allocation of research funds and facilitating evidence syntheses that will inform stakeholders and decision-makers in the future.


    There is a reason why you need to register an RCT before it starts and go to completion. Otherwise, with 100 lkow quality RCT attempts, the ones that show (randomly) a negative result will not be continued, and not published. You are pretty well bound to get a false positive indication. people here are mostly, i think sophisticated enough to realise that this bias will appear naturally, without anyone being to blame. It is why sensible scientists do not pay much attention to non-RCT evidence. Of course you can pay some attention. And combine that with the likelihood of a mechninism. In this case the blood plasma level of IVM in these trials is 100 times lower than the level at which is shows strong anti-viral in vitro effect. So that proposed mechanism is completely shot down.


    In medicine it is very easy to get false results, innocently, through a lack of care. And non-scientists like you are easily convinced.


    luckily you post here where there are many others able to point out things you might miss looking at the evidence partially, without reading the contextual literature (OK - I just did a google search - but it is not a bad policy when wanting to get all sides of a story).

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    This argument then is even more rubbish as anybody that take Ivermectin in time will have no problems at all.

    this is equally fallacious: the published RCTs show that people taking IVM have problems


    As for whether IVM reduces deaths the evidence is low to moderate quality in an area where (unintentional) bias is very likely


    https://assets.researchsquare.…a9a-b877-6d6cc8f79d54.pdf


    Doctors prefer not to risk endangering patients so would be very cautious about this. I am cautious myself, mainly because there is no proposed mechanism that makes sense yet, and the quality of evidence is low. But, it is enough to merit investigation and so we will get better evidence soon.


    Any drug that helps with COVID is good so I hope IVM is effective.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    This argument then is even more rubbish as anybody that take Ivermectin in time will have no problems at all. It looks like you have to promote 1000% provax opinions.

    This is a dilettante argument too as each year we have a flu mass vaccination of at least 20% of the population.


    100'000 deaths so far thanks to vaccines is an outraging result. Even more outraging your friends business case for vaccines by suppressing HCQ combo and Ivermectin. These people have to live with a place in the history books the share on the same page as Stalin & Hitler & Mao.

    W - no idea what you mean about my friends? I have no friends involved in vaccine manufacture or research. I'm not in medicine.


    I agree, we have mass flu vaccinations. Let us look at that figure you quoted (5000% was it?). Give precise links to sources. i don't expect you to check the details since I've not known you to do that on this thread. But I will, if you give me any accessible public evidence for your claims.


    My two confounders were:

    (1) more vaccinations - of older people

    (2) more people dying of other causes (COVID) as evidenced by excess mortality curves that have been high before vaccines were introduced.


    I may find other issues with your data oince a see it. A Wyttenfact stating 5000% something without clear reference and detailed analysis is singularly unconvincing.

    Here we are - some (not Wytten) facts


    https://psnc.org.uk/services-c…ination-data-for-2019-20/


    UK flu vaccinations 19-20 1,718,147

    UK COVID vaccinations 19-20 0 (I'm using the winter months of the typical flu vaccination season).


    UK flu vaccinations 20-21 2,617,628

    UK COVID vaccinations 20-21 so far 67,284,864 (data readily available - the UK govt boars of it)


    So we have approx 70M vaccinations now, as against the previous year when there were 1.7M vaccinations. The flu vaccinations were up as well due to a drive to offer more of them.


    the ratio is: 41.


    hmmm - rather close to the 5000%? And it means Wyttenbach's "we have always had flu vaccinations" argument is 41X wrong.


    making these comparisons is difficult because other deaths are very strongly skewed by age, so you need to take into account the age profile of these receiving vaccinations.


    I have not investigated the other factor - increased excess deaths. Maybe it is not significant. From these figures it seems it is not needed to expose W's argument.


    W's argument is dangerous, and will cost lives if many people are swayed by it to change behaviour.


    THH


    PS - I also want to point out that excess deaths vary over time a lot, from COVID and otehr causes, so for a good comparison we need to include a weighting by the death likelihood at the relevant time (varies annually and with year) and with the age of the population. Flu deaths were actually down over the COVID period due to more vaccination and also lockdown. A proper comparison, like most proper things, would take time, effort, and lots of research.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    It looks like you have to promote 1000% provax opinions.

    That is true - in the sense that I strongly think it is in the interests of the world for more people to be vaccinated. But I do not shy from reporting vaccine problems (like the rare but real ChAdOx blood clots). That would be self-defeating, because the only way you can counter anti-vax lies with with transparent unvarnished data and careful unbiassed analysis.


    Anyway, I'm motivated both because I like to call out people peddling obvious falsehoods, and because it is of real-world importance and will cause major suffering (not just COVID deaths Shane, but longer societal disruption and lockdowns).

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    W's argument is dangerous, and will cost lives if many people are swayed by it to change behaviour.

    Nobody here will change his opinion. The ones who know it have Ivermectin ready. We here linked all vaccine databases many times before so it's up to you to search the posts.

    5000% is a very low figure. The reality is much more dramatic as we counted all vaccines together as a base line and so far only 4 moths have passed (reporting lags between 1 and 12 months... and e.g. teh VERS database only contains less than 1/10 of the victims.)

    I have no problem with vaccination of people older than 65. Only, Pfizer/Astar Zeneca etc. should pay for the additional care needed after damage. People waiting for the heritage will not complain...

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    https://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluvax…accination-dashboard.html


    As of February 26, 2021, 193.8 million doses of flu vaccine have been distributed in the United States. This is the highest number of flu doses distributed in the United States during a single influenza season.


    May be THHuxleynew should go back to primary school... > 50% of the population.

    W. I gave my figures, which showed your assumptions wrong in the UK.


    I note you are giving the US 20/21 flu figures - higher than any other season (for the same reasons as the UK I guess).


    To make your case, all you have to do is what I asked, give the source (as I did), and details (as I did), from which you get your 5000%. We can compare with the corresponding number of vaccinations, look at other differences (e.g. age), and reach a conclusion.


    For example, if we have near whole population flu vaccination and compare that just with vaccination of the oldest people (who get COVID vaccination first) then it is expected that coincidental death rates in elder people are much higher. You can accurately estimate this from the life insurance actuarial data. frankly, by now, I don't even believe your 5000% - you are probably comparing over different times, or with a summer period when there were no flu vaccinations, or whatever.


    W - you are I am sure better than this. You let yourself down making these obviously false arguments, you show a lack of self-reflection in not being willing to check them when I call them out.


    And, you endanger the lives of anyone foolish enough to be swayed by you. I have, as you can tell from this post, no sympathy from someone who spouts unevidenced nonsense saying false things which put others who believe them, and their contacts, at risk. Equally, if you think there is merit in what you say, I'm sure you will be able to post sources and details of your argument, and we can look at it together. You have now repeatedly not done this.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    We here linked all vaccine databases many times before so it's up to you to search the posts.

    You would need to specify which databases you were using, and in what way, so I could check. And i'd need to read back through 100s of pages to find your claimed links. I have not, as you well know, been replying regularly to your nonsense. Nor reading this thread recently.


    I call you out here because you are making arguments without evidence: asking me to look for your evidence is the wrong way round - don't you think?

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.