Lost all respect for Jeffrey Sachs. I do not agree with starting "what aboutism" being discussed with out context of issues involved. I supported him on Iraq 2003 ,but it is far stretch to say that Covid is a American creation by pharma.
Plenty of scientific journals are influenced by Chinese money. That's how Covid came from US lab not Wuhan lab Sachs came to run Lancet's so-called commission, to guarantee a favorable outcome.
And no, preponderance of evidence doesn't point to natural origin, just the opposite.
Sacks makes millions of dollars in our country and then blames U.S, promotes conspiracies with ZERO evidence, and supports authoritarian regimes. Please boycott this guy and to Sacks -- please get the hell out of the U.S and go to a place you love - Ruissia, China, wherever. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. We need problem solvers, not problem generators.
I would really like to see an article by Dr. Rasmussen addressing the following specific claims made by Jeffrey Sachs, telling us which claims she believes are true, which are false, which are unverified and which need context or explanation:
There was a lot of research underway in the United States and China on taking SARS-like viruses, manipulating them in the laboratory, and creating potentially far more dangerous viruses...The research that was underway very actively and being promoted, was to insert furin cleavage sites into SARS-like viruses to see what would happen.
On February 1, 2020, the virologists said “Oh my god, that is strange, that could well be a laboratory creation. What is that furin cleavage site doing in there?” Because scientists knew that was part of an active ongoing research program.
We didn’t even ask the question from the first day: did you guys do that [insert furin cleavage sites into SARS-like viruses]? Tell us what you did. Could you give us your lab notebooks?
That [the sole piece of evidence linking the pandemic to the WIV is that it began in Wuhan] is not the only coincidence that leads to this theory. What leads to this alternative hypothesis is the detailed research program the NIH funded that was underway in the years leading up to the outbreak.
He [Daszak] could have given me the research proposals. And when I asked him for one of the research proposals, he said, “No, my lawyer says I can’t give it to you.”
No matter what the truth is on SARS-Cov-2, what is pretty clear is we’ve got so much technological capacity to engineer dangerous pathogens right now. And a lot of that is being done. And it’s classified. It’s secret, and we don’t know what it is.
NIH was actually asked at one point: give us your research program on SARS-like viruses. And you know what they did? They released the cover page and redacted 290 pages.
Lost all respect for Jeffrey Sachs. I do not agree with starting "what aboutism" being discussed with out context of issues involved. I supported him on Iraq 2003 ,but it is far stretch to say that Covid is a American creation by pharma.
Everyone who’s taken BIO 101 knows antibiotics don’t kill viruses. They kill bacterial infections. Jeffery should be driven out of town.
Plenty of scientific journals are influenced by Chinese money. That's how Covid came from US lab not Wuhan lab Sachs came to run Lancet's so-called commission, to guarantee a favorable outcome.
And no, preponderance of evidence doesn't point to natural origin, just the opposite.
Sacks makes millions of dollars in our country and then blames U.S, promotes conspiracies with ZERO evidence, and supports authoritarian regimes. Please boycott this guy and to Sacks -- please get the hell out of the U.S and go to a place you love - Ruissia, China, wherever. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. We need problem solvers, not problem generators.
I would really like to see an article by Dr. Rasmussen addressing the following specific claims made by Jeffrey Sachs, telling us which claims she believes are true, which are false, which are unverified and which need context or explanation:
There was a lot of research underway in the United States and China on taking SARS-like viruses, manipulating them in the laboratory, and creating potentially far more dangerous viruses...The research that was underway very actively and being promoted, was to insert furin cleavage sites into SARS-like viruses to see what would happen.
On February 1, 2020, the virologists said “Oh my god, that is strange, that could well be a laboratory creation. What is that furin cleavage site doing in there?” Because scientists knew that was part of an active ongoing research program.
We didn’t even ask the question from the first day: did you guys do that [insert furin cleavage sites into SARS-like viruses]? Tell us what you did. Could you give us your lab notebooks?
That [the sole piece of evidence linking the pandemic to the WIV is that it began in Wuhan] is not the only coincidence that leads to this theory. What leads to this alternative hypothesis is the detailed research program the NIH funded that was underway in the years leading up to the outbreak.
He [Daszak] could have given me the research proposals. And when I asked him for one of the research proposals, he said, “No, my lawyer says I can’t give it to you.”
No matter what the truth is on SARS-Cov-2, what is pretty clear is we’ve got so much technological capacity to engineer dangerous pathogens right now. And a lot of that is being done. And it’s classified. It’s secret, and we don’t know what it is.
NIH was actually asked at one point: give us your research program on SARS-like viruses. And you know what they did? They released the cover page and redacted 290 pages.
Disclosure; affter I read this I disabled emails from Democracy Brief.
Mr.Lewis, if you disagree with a proposition, clearly state it and then rebut the invalid statements.
In this article you fill our carefully open minds with arguments of shoot the messenger. Unneccessay. If his position is untrue then demonstrate it.
This is Democracy Brief. Provide info pertinent to OUR deliberation. Let your readers decide. You can see the views that you don't have.
Lastly, may I recommend, "Thinking in bets; Making Smarter Decisions When You Don't have All the Facts" by A. Duke.
You are quite the researcher. Go get 'em. Hold the sauce.
He sounds sober and impartial. Perhaps the truth is just too hard to stomach?