It's very odd that PMC already has the full version online before any journal has accepted the manuscript. Given the serious flaws, it is unclear how and why the authors reached their conclusion.
I remember reading an Oxford (recipient of $1.5 billion from Pfizer) paper addressing the fact that 80% of deaths after vaccination were within hours of injection. Their conclusion was that this was in no way "concerning" because the ways in which these people were dying are "common." Therefore, they concluded that these deaths must all be a coincidence and could not possibly be related to the vaccines.
It is true that these are common ways to die in a population that is 99.74% vaccinated;-)
Thank you for this detailed takedown. The authors totally deserve it!
Dr. Meryl Nass ran a story around the same time "The usual suspects are at it again, claiming COVID came from the animal market" that showed the study as published in Cell:
I saw a scientist at one of those meetings investigating GOF, say there is a one in a billion chance that Sars CoV 2 didn't come from a lab leak. Bold claim, I believe it, he had nothing to gain by making it and more to lose. No conflict of interest there.
“……..It is worth noting that the credibility and reputation of many of the authors depend on society accepting their conclusions…..”
Given the presence of some of the heaviest hitters in the zoonotic spillover dug-out in the authors list (Anderson, Rasmussen, Worobey,), I would suggest you have this dependency the wrong way round.
Rather than acceptance of the conclusions enhancing the reputation of the authors I get the impression these shining light reputations have been tacked onto the end of the list to give the paper a veneer of scholarly legitimacy (a well worn tactic in academic publishing), to shore up the lack of convincing evidence you have highlighted.
In other words media reputation rules.
I’m sure we will continue to see more of these futile attempts at justifying the zoonotic spillover theory every now and again, just as we will continue to see attempts to give support to the lab release theory.
One strand of current thinking seems to be that important though the question of origin is to ascribing responsibility and future planning, the exercise is ultimately futile because it is unlikely that sufficient convincing evidence to categorically prove either theory will ever be found at this stage. So to continue the debate is to squander energy, which can only plays into the hands of the puppet masters who benefit from division because it helps them escape scrutiny.
After your Federal Givernment under Nobama partnered with France and The CCP to achieve GoF, there can be no realistic conclusion other than TREASON and MASS MURDER of the UNINFORMED. C19 was literally a FAILED BIOWEAPON shored up by HOSPITAL DEATH PROTOCOLS and mRNA Bioweapons that actually worked on untold millions. #AvengeCrimesAgainstHumanityNOW
Above and beyond this, the virus was circulating months earlier than the market theory allows for. Italy’s first ICU case was early November. Factor in the time it takes for someone to go from infection to ICU (weeks) and it was circulating in the community in October at least. Years ago I read a report where waste water monitoring found it in one country in February 2019. This means whatever the origin, looking in that market is not meaningful because what’s truly needed is the real patient zero and to find out where they picked it up. And so far I don’t think actual patient zero has been found. I actually think it was close to endemic when public hysteria developed given 1//4 of some populations showing memory T cell immunity in some spring 2020 studies.
I remember reading an Oxford (recipient of $1.5 billion from Pfizer) paper addressing the fact that 80% of deaths after vaccination were within hours of injection. Their conclusion was that this was in no way "concerning" because the ways in which these people were dying are "common." Therefore, they concluded that these deaths must all be a coincidence and could not possibly be related to the vaccines.
It is true that these are common ways to die in a population that is 99.74% vaccinated;-)
ALL VACCINES KILL.
Thank you for this detailed takedown. The authors totally deserve it!
Dr. Meryl Nass ran a story around the same time "The usual suspects are at it again, claiming COVID came from the animal market" that showed the study as published in Cell:
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(24)00901-2 You may want to revise this post.
doctors in the USA are Gold Diggers. Nothing more, nothing less. Abolish Western Medicide.
They must be coming from the perspective of - If you tell a lie long enough people start to believe it.
I saw a scientist at one of those meetings investigating GOF, say there is a one in a billion chance that Sars CoV 2 didn't come from a lab leak. Bold claim, I believe it, he had nothing to gain by making it and more to lose. No conflict of interest there.
“……..It is worth noting that the credibility and reputation of many of the authors depend on society accepting their conclusions…..”
Given the presence of some of the heaviest hitters in the zoonotic spillover dug-out in the authors list (Anderson, Rasmussen, Worobey,), I would suggest you have this dependency the wrong way round.
Rather than acceptance of the conclusions enhancing the reputation of the authors I get the impression these shining light reputations have been tacked onto the end of the list to give the paper a veneer of scholarly legitimacy (a well worn tactic in academic publishing), to shore up the lack of convincing evidence you have highlighted.
In other words media reputation rules.
I’m sure we will continue to see more of these futile attempts at justifying the zoonotic spillover theory every now and again, just as we will continue to see attempts to give support to the lab release theory.
One strand of current thinking seems to be that important though the question of origin is to ascribing responsibility and future planning, the exercise is ultimately futile because it is unlikely that sufficient convincing evidence to categorically prove either theory will ever be found at this stage. So to continue the debate is to squander energy, which can only plays into the hands of the puppet masters who benefit from division because it helps them escape scrutiny.
There might be something to that view.
Heard about this paper either on local or national NBC news.
After your Federal Givernment under Nobama partnered with France and The CCP to achieve GoF, there can be no realistic conclusion other than TREASON and MASS MURDER of the UNINFORMED. C19 was literally a FAILED BIOWEAPON shored up by HOSPITAL DEATH PROTOCOLS and mRNA Bioweapons that actually worked on untold millions. #AvengeCrimesAgainstHumanityNOW
thebill&melidagates foundationfunded bbc are aureit came from'the wetmarket nothingabout the nih
virology lab
Above and beyond this, the virus was circulating months earlier than the market theory allows for. Italy’s first ICU case was early November. Factor in the time it takes for someone to go from infection to ICU (weeks) and it was circulating in the community in October at least. Years ago I read a report where waste water monitoring found it in one country in February 2019. This means whatever the origin, looking in that market is not meaningful because what’s truly needed is the real patient zero and to find out where they picked it up. And so far I don’t think actual patient zero has been found. I actually think it was close to endemic when public hysteria developed given 1//4 of some populations showing memory T cell immunity in some spring 2020 studies.
They are not weak assumptions but DECEIT to distract from truth.