What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

*** OFFICIAL *** COVID-19 CoronaVirus Thread. Fresh epidemic fears as child pneumonia cases surge in Europe after China outbreak. NOW in USA (25 Viewers)

Got my updated shot on Sunday, proceeded to come down with a cold/bronchitis on Monday. My immune system is going haywire. Been a long time since I've been this sick.
There is a working theory that repeated covid vaccinations are impacting the IgG4 ratio and could be creating an immune tolerance that may suppress antiviral responses.
Huh?

IgG4 Antibodies Induced by Repeated Vaccination May Generate Immune Tolerance to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein​

Less than a year after the global emergence of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, a novel vaccine platform based on mRNA technology was introduced to the market. Globally, around 13.38 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses of diverse platforms have been administered. To date, 72.3% of the total population has been injected at least once with a COVID-19 vaccine. As the immunity provided by these vaccines rapidly wanes, their ability to prevent hospitalization and severe disease in individuals with comorbidities has recently been questioned, and increasing evidence has shown that, as with many other vaccines, they do not produce sterilizing immunity, allowing people to suffer frequent re-infections. Additionally, recent investigations have found abnormally high levels of IgG4 in people who were administered two or more injections of the mRNA vaccines. HIV, Malaria, and Pertussis vaccines have also been reported to induce higher-than-normal IgG4 synthesis. Overall, there are three critical factors determining the class switch to IgG4 antibodies: excessive antigen concentration, repeated vaccination, and the type of vaccine used. It has been suggested that an increase in IgG4 levels could have a protecting role by preventing immune over-activation, similar to that occurring during successful allergen-specific immunotherapy by inhibiting IgE-induced effects. However, emerging evidence suggests that the reported increase in IgG4 levels detected after repeated vaccination with the mRNA vaccines may not be a protective mechanism; rather, it constitutes an immune tolerance mechanism to the spike protein that could promote unopposed SARS-CoV2 infection and replication by suppressing natural antiviral responses. Increased IgG4 synthesis due to repeated mRNA vaccination with high antigen concentrations may also cause autoimmune diseases, and promote cancer growth and autoimmune myocarditis in susceptible individuals.
 
Got my updated shot on Sunday, proceeded to come down with a cold/bronchitis on Monday. My immune system is going haywire. Been a long time since I've been this sick.
There is a working theory that repeated covid vaccinations are impacting the IgG4 ratio and could be creating an immune tolerance that may suppress antiviral responses.
Huh?
"working" is pretty generous. There a lot of causation vs correlation problems with it. It's been under investigation for almost two years and no real progress. I'm not sure if there is anyone state side even looking at this anymore.
 
Got my updated shot on Sunday, proceeded to come down with a cold/bronchitis on Monday. My immune system is going haywire. Been a long time since I've been this sick.
There is a working theory that repeated covid vaccinations are impacting the IgG4 ratio and could be creating an immune tolerance that may suppress antiviral responses.
Huh?
"working" is pretty generous. There a lot of causation vs correlation problems with it. It's been under investigation for almost two years and no real progress. I'm not sure if there is anyone state side even looking at this anymore.
Yeah, seems like stretch. Covid mortality has gone way down over time, by virtue of some combination of cumulative (natural + vaccine) immunity and viral mutations.

And TMK, we haven’t seen an uptick in IgG4 disease.

Seems like another quasi-scientific “what if” to fuel those inclined to vaccine fear-mongering.
 
Got my updated shot on Sunday, proceeded to come down with a cold/bronchitis on Monday. My immune system is going haywire. Been a long time since I've been this sick.
There is a working theory that repeated covid vaccinations are impacting the IgG4 ratio and could be creating an immune tolerance that may suppress antiviral responses.
Huh?
"working" is pretty generous. There a lot of causation vs correlation problems with it. It's been under investigation for almost two years and no real progress. I'm not sure if there is anyone state side even looking at this anymore.
Yeah, seems like stretch. Covid mortality has gone way down over time, by virtue of some combination of cumulative (natural + vaccine) immunity and viral mutations.

And TMK, we haven’t seen an uptick in IgG4 disease.

Seems like another quasi-scientific “what if” to fuel those inclined to vaccine fear-mongering.
Yup. I still run into the "don't take it. It's not tested!!!!!" peeps from time to time, but reality is, at this point you'd be hard pressed to find a set of vaccines tested more than these in the same time frame.
 
Are we going to start up a measles thread or can we discuss that absurdity in this thread too?
Can merge it with the tuberculosis thread.....
And the mumps, rubella and polio threads
According to my dad, leprosy is a thing down by him. Transmitted through armadillos? Might as well throw that in too :wink:
It’s person to person spread primarily, though armadillos appear to be the only non-human hosts. There have been a smattering of cases in the south/southeast, where human and armadillo leprosy strains are the same.
 


But while the impact of lockdown policies is still being studied, new research paints a troubling picture of the immense collateral damage inflicted by them.

The measures increased poverty and wealth disparities, spurred a dramatic rise in adolescent anxiety and depression, contributed to a surge in fatal drug overdoses, and led to devastating learning losses in schoolchildren, who have yet to recover, according to scientific studies. As of last spring, the average American student remained half a grade behind pre-pandemic levels in both math and reading, according to a recent report card on pandemic learning loss.

What’s more, months of unrelenting seclusion caused many people to sever social connections, with lasting consequences to mental and physical health. Both volunteering at nonprofits and church attendance, two measures of social engagement, declined and have not recovered to pre-pandemic levels. In 2023, the nation’s surgeon general warned of an "epidemic of loneliness and isolation" — brought on, in part, by lockdown measures that isolated people.

And that’s not counting the other costs in lost livelihoods, shuttered businesses, and the anguish of seeing relatives die alone without being able to say goodbye.

“The lockdowns were never really effective, and the confusion around them sowed a great deal of public distrust in government,” said Michael Osterholm, an infectious disease expert at the University of Minnesota.
 

German spy agency concluded COVID virus likely leaked from lab, papers say​


FRANKFURT, March 12 (Reuters) - Germany's foreign intelligence service in 2020 put at 80%-90% the likelihood that the coronavirus behind the COVID-19 pandemic was accidentally released from China's Wuhan Institute of Virology, two German newspapers reported on Wednesday.

According to a joint report by publications Die Zeit and Sueddeutscher Zeitung, Germany's spying agency BND had indications that the institute had conducted gain-of-function experiments, whereby viruses are modified to become more transmissible to humans for research purposes.



It also had indications that numerous violations of safety regulations had occurred at the lab, the papers said.

The spy agency assessment's was based on an unspecified intelligence operation code-named "Saaremaa" as well as on publicly-available data. It had been commissioned by the office of Germany's chancellor at the time, Angela Merkel, but never published, the report said.

BND declined to comment. When asked about the report in a press conference, outgoing chancellor Olaf Scholz also declined to comment on Wednesday.

The papers reported that the assessment was, however, shared with the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency in the autumn of 2024.

A CIA spokesperson said in January that the CIA has assessed that the COVID-19 pandemic is more likely to have emerged from a lab than from nature.

The CIA said at the time it had "low confidence" in its assessment and that both scenarios - lab origin and natural origin - remain plausible.

China’s government says it supports and has taken part in research to determine COVID-19’s origin, and has accused Washington of politicizing the matter, especially because of efforts by U.S. intelligence agencies to investigate.


Beijing has said there was no credibility to claims that a laboratory leak likely caused the pandemic.

China's foreign ministry said last month that the Wuhan Institute of Virology never carried out any gain-of-function research on coronaviruses and that it was not involved in the creation or leakage of the COVID-19 virus.
 

German spy agency concluded COVID virus likely leaked from lab, papers say​


FRANKFURT, March 12 (Reuters) - Germany's foreign intelligence service in 2020 put at 80%-90% the likelihood that the coronavirus behind the COVID-19 pandemic was accidentally released from China's Wuhan Institute of Virology, two German newspapers reported on Wednesday.

According to a joint report by publications Die Zeit and Sueddeutscher Zeitung, Germany's spying agency BND had indications that the institute had conducted gain-of-function experiments, whereby viruses are modified to become more transmissible to humans for research purposes.



It also had indications that numerous violations of safety regulations had occurred at the lab, the papers said.

The spy agency assessment's was based on an unspecified intelligence operation code-named "Saaremaa" as well as on publicly-available data. It had been commissioned by the office of Germany's chancellor at the time, Angela Merkel, but never published, the report said.

BND declined to comment. When asked about the report in a press conference, outgoing chancellor Olaf Scholz also declined to comment on Wednesday.

The papers reported that the assessment was, however, shared with the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency in the autumn of 2024.

A CIA spokesperson said in January that the CIA has assessed that the COVID-19 pandemic is more likely to have emerged from a lab than from nature.

The CIA said at the time it had "low confidence" in its assessment and that both scenarios - lab origin and natural origin - remain plausible.

China’s government says it supports and has taken part in research to determine COVID-19’s origin, and has accused Washington of politicizing the matter, especially because of efforts by U.S. intelligence agencies to investigate.


Beijing has said there was no credibility to claims that a laboratory leak likely caused the pandemic.

China's foreign ministry said last month that the Wuhan Institute of Virology never carried out any gain-of-function research on coronaviruses and that it was not involved in the creation or leakage of the COVID-19 virus.
Huh, who'd a thunk it
 

The TLDR Covid related bit:

Covid-19 spread continues to decrease after a lackluster winter. But eyes are on a highly mutated variant in South Africa—called BA.3.2—which has 50 new spike mutations. This is a lot of changes in one variant. We haven’t seen this many since the Omicron tsunami in 2021.

The number of spike changes doesn’t necessarily mean it will be easily spread among humans, so we must pay attention to other metrics. According to wastewater trends in South Africa, transmission is increasing, which suggests the variant is something to pay attention to. We have not detected it in other countries yet. Will this fizzle out, drive a summer wave, or become a tsunami? Time will tell.
 
COVID Vaccine Concerns and Claims About Ivermectin as Cancer Treatment

This volume covers recent claims about COVID vaccine safety after a new study describes a rare condition it calls “post-vaccination syndrome” (PVS). It also investigates the false claim that ivermectin and other anti-parasitic medications can treat cancer and highlights the re-emergence of concerns online about the HPV vaccine, Gardasil, and its alleged mortality rate. Additionally, the Monitor explores the wellness industry’s promotion of unproven treatments as trust in health care declines and the accessibility of AI chatbots in providing health information across different languages.
"The study does not establish how common PVS symptoms are or whether vaccination causes them. Researchers compared blood samples from 42 vaccinated individuals reporting PVS with 22 vaccinated individuals who did not report adverse effects and found differences in immune profiles between the two groups. The study notes that they found similarities between PVS and long COVID, but the study’s senior authors explain that the findings are preliminary and require further research to determine the cause of PVS. The study gained attention online, with vaccine opponents misrepresenting the findings around long COVID. One popular post on X, published on February 19, featuring a screenshot of an article from The DisInformation Chronicle Substack, falsely claimed the study concluded that long COVID is a vaccine injury. The post gained traction after Elon Musk retweeted it, receiving approximately 7,800 reposts and 7,000 likes as of Feb. 25. Long COVID, which affects both vaccinated and unvaccinated people, is not the same as PVS and is not caused by vaccines. Studies have shown that vaccines, which are known to be safe and effective, can offer protection against long COVID."
 

A Pill to Prevent COVID-19 Shows Promise​

By now, most people have reached a resigned acceptance when it comes to COVID-19. We accept that we’re probably going to get infected at some point during respiratory disease season—and that when we do, we’ll feel sick for a couple of days, and then get over it.

But what if you could avoid getting COVID-19 altogether?

That’s the potential promise of a new study on a drug made by Japanese pharmaceutical company Shionogi. At a scientific conference in San Francisco, researchers reported that their drug, ensitrelvir, helped prevent people who were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 from testing positive for the disease.

There is currently no drug approved to prevent COVID-19, but ensitrelvir is already approved in Japan as a treatment for COVID-19. It reduces hospitalizations for COVID-19 among people at the highest risk of complications; for the less vulnerable, it cuts down on the number of days they're sick with symptoms. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering the drug for fast-track approval as a way to prevent COVID-19, based on this latest study presented at the Conference of Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. (The study has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.)



Researchers studied more than 2,300 people age 12 and older who didn't have COVID-19 but lived with someone who had tested positive at the time of the study. They were then randomly assigned to receive either ensitrelvir or placebo pills for five days. Everyone in the study began taking their pills once a day within three days of when their housemate first reported symptoms of COVID-19.



Among those who took ensitrelvir, about 3% ended up developing COVID-19, compared to 9% of those taking placebo. It turned out that about 10% of the household members of the person who initially tested positive also were positive, even if they didn't experience symptoms and didn't realize they were positive—which highlights how transmissible the virus can be, and how important it is to protect people from getting the infection. The results mean that the drug lowered the risk of getting COVID-19 by 67%.



The idea of using an antiviral treatment to protect people at high risk of infection isn’t new. The popular flu treatment oseltamivir, or Tamiflu, is around 84% effective at protecting people from getting the flu when someone else in their house has it. But when scientists studied antiviral treatments for COVID-19, such as Paxlovid and molnupiravir, they didn’t find the same preventative benefits.
 
Feeding Our Future head Aimee Bock convicted on all fraud charges
A federal jury in Minneapolis Wednesday convicted Feeding Our Future founder Aimee Bock and former restaurateur Salim Said on charges of wire fraud and bribery in a trial that followed a lengthy investigation into an alleged scheme to fleece taxpayers out of $250 million by exploiting government child nutrition programs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Jurors deliberated about five hours before finding Bock, 44, guilty on all seven counts. They convicted Said, 36, of all 21 charges, which also included five counts of money laundering. U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel ordered Bock and Said jailed and did not set a date for sentencing.
In the overall fraud case, 70 people including Bock and Said were charged. A little more than half have pleaded guilty. The trial of Bock and Said was the second to follow the sprawling investigation by the FBI, IRS, and U.S. Postal Inspection Service into fraud in the nutrition programs.
 

New York Times columnist admits scientists ‘badly misled’ public on COVID-19: ‘Five years too late’​



The New York Times finally ran a column by a scientist who said the public was “badly misled” about the origins of COVID-19 — triggering backlash from readers who say the admission comes five years too late.

In an opinion piece published Sunday, Zeynep Tufecki, a sociology professor at Princeton University, argued that officials and scientists hid facts, misled a Times journalist and colluded on campaigns to bury the possibility of a research lab leak in Wuhan, China.

It has emerged that safety precautions at the Wuhan lab in question “might have been terrifyingly lax,” Tufecki wrote in her column, titled “We Were Badly Misled About the Event That Changed Our Lives.”

Zeynep Tufecki argued in a new opinion piece for the New York Times that scientists “badly misled” the public on the origins of COVID-19. dpa/picture alliance via Getty Images

Social media users were quick to accuse the Gray Lady of hypocrisy, circulating photos of a now-deleted 2021 post from Times journalist Apoorva Mandavilli that claimed the “lab leak theory” had “racist roots.”

“Five years too late,” one user wrote about Tufecki’s article in a post that garnered 10,000 likes.

“Remember when the NYT would call you a misinformation spreader, and social media platforms would ban you for believing COVID-19 originated in a lab?”

Another user wrote: “Any so-called COVID reckoning from the Times that fails to confront its own relentless lies isn’t a reckoning at all.”

Meanwhile, some loyal left-leaning Times subscribers slammed the broadsheet for backtracking on its earlier COVID-19 articles.

“The New York Times has intensely pursued every theory and lead on the origins of Covid-19, documented the political debate, funding, influence, and shifts in thinking among the scientific community, and reported on China’s censorship campaign that has stifled the search for truth,” a New York Times spokesperson told The Post in a statement.

“The Times has helped readers navigate the coronavirus pandemic through independent, verified reporting, and any insinuation that we have not thoroughly pursued leads is false,” they added.

For years, the CIA claimed it had insufficient evidence to determine whether the pandemic that shut down the country stemmed from a wet market in Wuhan or a research lab there.

But the agency recently updated its assessment to favor the lab leak theory, albeit with “low confidence,” meaning it has incomplete evidence.

The Department of Energy, which runs sophisticated labs, and the FBI had moved to back the theory in 2023.

Tufecki acknowledged that “perhaps we were misled on purpose” about the virus’s origins.

She took aim at a 2020 research paper in the journal Nature Medicine written by five prominent journalists — Kristian Andersen, Andrew Rambaut, W. Ian Lipkin, Edward Holmes and Robert Garry.

The paper boldly declared there was no plausibility to the lab leak theory — but many of its authors, in Slack messages behind the scenes, shared concerns that the Wuhan leak was not only possible but likely.

“The lab escape version of this is so friggin’ likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario,” Andersen wrote in a message at the time.

The Times columnist acknowledged that “perhaps we were misled on purpose” about the virus’s origins. Stephen Yang

In his book, Farrar said he used a burner phone to set up meetings for the distressed scientists to speak with Francis Collins, then the director of the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Anthony Fauci.

After reviewing a draft of the paper, Farrar pushed the scientists to rule out the possibility of a lab leak even more directly, which they did, Tufecki wrote.

The paper’s lead authors also schemed to mislead Donald G. McNeil Jr., who was reporting on COVID-19 for the Times, to throw him off the scent of a possible lab leak, according to chat logs.

Tufecki also placed blame on an influential letter published in medical journal the Lancet in early 2020 that appeared to be written by a group of independent scientists.

But the paper was actually drafted by Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth, a nonprofit that researches bat coronaviruses in China and failed to sound the alarm when COVID-19 began to spread, according to Tufecki.

David Morens, one of Fauci’s senior advisers at the time, wrote to Daszak that he had learned how to make emails about the pandemic’s origins “disappear.”

“We’re all smart enough to know to never have smoking guns, and if we did we wouldn’t put them in emails and if we found them we’d delete them,” he wrote.
 
Brazil's bats are harboring a vast and diverse pool of coronaviruses, a new study finds, including a newly identified strain that may pose a danger to human health in the years to come. Scientists are taking the threat seriously and will soon conduct testing in a secure lab to see if the variant really could spill over to our own species.
 
Its getting bad already. Just had three studies cut in our department on COVID vaccine success against the new strand circulating in South Africa. A bunch of changes to the spike in that one, but from what they can tell, not a dire need for new vaccines.
 
Its getting bad already. Just had three studies cut in our department on COVID vaccine success against the new strand circulating in South Africa. A bunch of changes to the spike in that one, but from what they can tell, not a dire need for new vaccines.
Maybe they'll approve studies into understanding why some people react poorly to the current vaccines. There's plenty of work to do there. I don't think vaccine research needs to be idle, maybe just tweaked. Be nice to have clinical research vs the bench medicine we're using now in that respect.

The vaccines have been so largely successful it seems right to make sure they are still effective with a potentially dangerous new strain.
 
Its getting bad already. Just had three studies cut in our department on COVID vaccine success against the new strand circulating in South Africa. A bunch of changes to the spike in that one, but from what they can tell, not a dire need for new vaccines.
Maybe they'll approve studies into understanding why some people react poorly to the current vaccines. There's plenty of work to do there. I don't think vaccine research needs to be idle, maybe just tweaked. Be nice to have clinical research vs the bench medicine we're using now in that respect.
That research has been halted as I stated above (in our labs). It's gross what is being done. ZERO nuance.
 
If they won't approve that research though then maybe we can take the time and effort to better understand what happens when they don't have the desired outcome. To my knowledge that kind of data is mostly nonexistent. Just suggesting there's still potentially work that can be funded even if it's not quite what everyone wants. Who knows, maybe that can help improve future versions.

Too late for that. We're funding this type of vaccine research.

 

New York Times columnist admits scientists ‘badly misled’ public on COVID-19: ‘Five years too late’​



The New York Times finally ran a column by a scientist who said the public was “badly misled” about the origins of COVID-19 — triggering backlash from readers who say the admission comes five years too late.

In an opinion piece published Sunday, Zeynep Tufecki, a sociology professor at Princeton University, argued that officials and scientists hid facts, misled a Times journalist and colluded on campaigns to bury the possibility of a research lab leak in Wuhan, China.

It has emerged that safety precautions at the Wuhan lab in question “might have been terrifyingly lax,” Tufecki wrote in her column, titled “We Were Badly Misled About the Event That Changed Our Lives.”

Zeynep Tufecki argued in a new opinion piece for the New York Times that scientists “badly misled” the public on the origins of COVID-19. dpa/picture alliance via Getty Images

Social media users were quick to accuse the Gray Lady of hypocrisy, circulating photos of a now-deleted 2021 post from Times journalist Apoorva Mandavilli that claimed the “lab leak theory” had “racist roots.”

“Five years too late,” one user wrote about Tufecki’s article in a post that garnered 10,000 likes.

“Remember when the NYT would call you a misinformation spreader, and social media platforms would ban you for believing COVID-19 originated in a lab?”

Another user wrote: “Any so-called COVID reckoning from the Times that fails to confront its own relentless lies isn’t a reckoning at all.”

Meanwhile, some loyal left-leaning Times subscribers slammed the broadsheet for backtracking on its earlier COVID-19 articles.

“The New York Times has intensely pursued every theory and lead on the origins of Covid-19, documented the political debate, funding, influence, and shifts in thinking among the scientific community, and reported on China’s censorship campaign that has stifled the search for truth,” a New York Times spokesperson told The Post in a statement.

“The Times has helped readers navigate the coronavirus pandemic through independent, verified reporting, and any insinuation that we have not thoroughly pursued leads is false,” they added.

For years, the CIA claimed it had insufficient evidence to determine whether the pandemic that shut down the country stemmed from a wet market in Wuhan or a research lab there.

But the agency recently updated its assessment to favor the lab leak theory, albeit with “low confidence,” meaning it has incomplete evidence.

The Department of Energy, which runs sophisticated labs, and the FBI had moved to back the theory in 2023.

Tufecki acknowledged that “perhaps we were misled on purpose” about the virus’s origins.

She took aim at a 2020 research paper in the journal Nature Medicine written by five prominent journalists — Kristian Andersen, Andrew Rambaut, W. Ian Lipkin, Edward Holmes and Robert Garry.

The paper boldly declared there was no plausibility to the lab leak theory — but many of its authors, in Slack messages behind the scenes, shared concerns that the Wuhan leak was not only possible but likely.

“The lab escape version of this is so friggin’ likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario,” Andersen wrote in a message at the time.

The Times columnist acknowledged that “perhaps we were misled on purpose” about the virus’s origins. Stephen Yang

In his book, Farrar said he used a burner phone to set up meetings for the distressed scientists to speak with Francis Collins, then the director of the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Anthony Fauci.

After reviewing a draft of the paper, Farrar pushed the scientists to rule out the possibility of a lab leak even more directly, which they did, Tufecki wrote.

The paper’s lead authors also schemed to mislead Donald G. McNeil Jr., who was reporting on COVID-19 for the Times, to throw him off the scent of a possible lab leak, according to chat logs.

Tufecki also placed blame on an influential letter published in medical journal the Lancet in early 2020 that appeared to be written by a group of independent scientists.

But the paper was actually drafted by Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth, a nonprofit that researches bat coronaviruses in China and failed to sound the alarm when COVID-19 began to spread, according to Tufecki.

David Morens, one of Fauci’s senior advisers at the time, wrote to Daszak that he had learned how to make emails about the pandemic’s origins “disappear.”

“We’re all smart enough to know to never have smoking guns, and if we did we wouldn’t put them in emails and if we found them we’d delete them,” he wrote.
Ok. So it leaked. What behaviors would have been different vs some wet market panda sneezed on somebody? This wasn't some bio weapon. That area had gone thru some serious viruses in prior two decades. It happens.
 
I don't understand why covid/covid vaccines need to be an either or kind of issue.

Hear, hear! I think there was both malfeasance and a cover-up regarding the lab leak/wet market debate, and I also think that the vaccines were effective in stopping untold millions of deaths. It's quite possible to think that a strain of a virus that originated in the city that was studying the same virus for gain-of-function reasons was the origin of the virus itself; and that those emails that were found by the Congressional investigation were damning pieces of evidence. The reaction by journalists and scientists alike to discredit the obvious possibility that it was lab-leaked was unconscionable. So one can indeed think that the coronavirus was lab-leaked and that there was a subsequent cover-up and also think that the vaccine created in response to the leak, the vaccine created by the pharmaceutical companies in cooperation with the same government whose officials were covering up the lab leak, was a product of everybody acting in good faith and working to create a vaccine that was nothing short of a scientific miracle.

But what about the safety of vaccines? Doesn't my unwavering conclusion that the vaccines saved millions of lives mean that I won't be likely to listen to claims that there are people who were injured by the vaccine in some way?

No. I'll admit I'm not happy nor disposed to hearing about it from suspects who make other claims regarding things like "turbo cancer" and who say that the vaccine harmed more people than it helped (these people argue in bad faith and have ulterior motives, I think), but truth is truth no matter the claimant's ancillary beliefs. I just think you can tell how serious a person is about getting to the actual truth of the matter if they also espouse certain ancillary beliefs, and there's only time enough in the day for so much ******** and dealings with people who are acting in bad faith.

I've had a personal, visceral reaction to a vaccine before (pneumonia), so I know it can happen and that it's quite possible people died or got sick from the mRNA COVID vaccines. It is possible. To completely downplay any possibility of that occurrence is malfeasant and closed-minded. Reasonable claims that are backed by numerous anecdotal data points in sufficient numbers should cause the issue to be studied (although there is a limited pie of funds and human capital, so we want to make sure we have our priorities straight). But I see no problem with a study or studies that examine the possibility that the vaccines were deleterious, harmful, or even fatal to subsets of the population (age categories, general health conditions, ethnicity, race, sex, whatever you can think of). The important thing is to know who was affected, how it affected them, and why it happened so that we can better implement future vaccines or new iterations of the COVID vaccine. We don't just want to sweep illnesses or conditions (or deaths) under the rug like it will also kill the wonders of the efficacy of the vaccines.

Out with the truth. All of it. The question is whether people are really going to listen in the end to the truth and not to a version of the truth that fits their preconceived notions. If you read the article I linked, a vaccine skeptic commissions an anti-vaccination guy who has lost his medical license and has not told the truth about the efficacy of vaccines to head the study into the vaccine/autism link. That link has been discredited so many times yet rears its head like the hydra every time in public conversation. As the quote to close the article intones, they know the outcome they want to reach and they're cherry picking so that the data satisfies their conclusion. That's not science when the mRNA backers do it; and it certainly isn't when the other side does out of some erroneous and faulty sense of accountability/liability and justice.

Man, that sounded like Patrick Bateman at a restaurant talking about issues in American Psycho.

"First . . ."

eta* for clarity
 
Last edited:
Its getting bad already. Just had three studies cut in our department on COVID vaccine success against the new strand circulating in South Africa. A bunch of changes to the spike in that one, but from what they can tell, not a dire need for new vaccines.
Maybe they'll approve studies into understanding why some people react poorly to the current vaccines. There's plenty of work to do there. I don't think vaccine research needs to be idle, maybe just tweaked. Be nice to have clinical research vs the bench medicine we're using now in that respect.
That research has been halted as I stated above (in our labs). It's gross what is being done. ZERO nuance.
No kidding. I was looking for a silver lining that no longer exists i guess. What happens to research that's already started? Will that be shut down, or is this just for new research at this point? How much of your labs work is covid/covid vaccine related and will losing that funding hurt your overall budget and affect other work?
I'm on my way out the door. Defending and will be done in May. Research already funded will run until the funds run out. We had two different experiments we were doing along with a group in California and Japan. Japan is still chugging along, but the other 2/3 won't be able to participate until the funding comes back. I can't speak to the impacts to other labs at the school, but I don't know of a single one that hasn't been impacted in some way. Some more serious than others. We had a proposed heart research grant squashed from even being considered because it had the term "mRNA" in the proposal text. There is virtually no way to write a grant in heart development without mentioning mRNA. It's bananas.
 

New York Times columnist admits scientists ‘badly misled’ public on COVID-19: ‘Five years too late’​



The New York Times finally ran a column by a scientist who said the public was “badly misled” about the origins of COVID-19 — triggering backlash from readers who say the admission comes five years too late.

In an opinion piece published Sunday, Zeynep Tufecki, a sociology professor at Princeton University, argued that officials and scientists hid facts, misled a Times journalist and colluded on campaigns to bury the possibility of a research lab leak in Wuhan, China.

It has emerged that safety precautions at the Wuhan lab in question “might have been terrifyingly lax,” Tufecki wrote in her column, titled “We Were Badly Misled About the Event That Changed Our Lives.”

Zeynep Tufecki argued in a new opinion piece for the New York Times that scientists “badly misled” the public on the origins of COVID-19. dpa/picture alliance via Getty Images

Social media users were quick to accuse the Gray Lady of hypocrisy, circulating photos of a now-deleted 2021 post from Times journalist Apoorva Mandavilli that claimed the “lab leak theory” had “racist roots.”

“Five years too late,” one user wrote about Tufecki’s article in a post that garnered 10,000 likes.

“Remember when the NYT would call you a misinformation spreader, and social media platforms would ban you for believing COVID-19 originated in a lab?”

Another user wrote: “Any so-called COVID reckoning from the Times that fails to confront its own relentless lies isn’t a reckoning at all.”

Meanwhile, some loyal left-leaning Times subscribers slammed the broadsheet for backtracking on its earlier COVID-19 articles.

“The New York Times has intensely pursued every theory and lead on the origins of Covid-19, documented the political debate, funding, influence, and shifts in thinking among the scientific community, and reported on China’s censorship campaign that has stifled the search for truth,” a New York Times spokesperson told The Post in a statement.

“The Times has helped readers navigate the coronavirus pandemic through independent, verified reporting, and any insinuation that we have not thoroughly pursued leads is false,” they added.

For years, the CIA claimed it had insufficient evidence to determine whether the pandemic that shut down the country stemmed from a wet market in Wuhan or a research lab there.

But the agency recently updated its assessment to favor the lab leak theory, albeit with “low confidence,” meaning it has incomplete evidence.

The Department of Energy, which runs sophisticated labs, and the FBI had moved to back the theory in 2023.

Tufecki acknowledged that “perhaps we were misled on purpose” about the virus’s origins.

She took aim at a 2020 research paper in the journal Nature Medicine written by five prominent journalists — Kristian Andersen, Andrew Rambaut, W. Ian Lipkin, Edward Holmes and Robert Garry.

The paper boldly declared there was no plausibility to the lab leak theory — but many of its authors, in Slack messages behind the scenes, shared concerns that the Wuhan leak was not only possible but likely.

“The lab escape version of this is so friggin’ likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario,” Andersen wrote in a message at the time.

The Times columnist acknowledged that “perhaps we were misled on purpose” about the virus’s origins. Stephen Yang

In his book, Farrar said he used a burner phone to set up meetings for the distressed scientists to speak with Francis Collins, then the director of the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Anthony Fauci.

After reviewing a draft of the paper, Farrar pushed the scientists to rule out the possibility of a lab leak even more directly, which they did, Tufecki wrote.

The paper’s lead authors also schemed to mislead Donald G. McNeil Jr., who was reporting on COVID-19 for the Times, to throw him off the scent of a possible lab leak, according to chat logs.

Tufecki also placed blame on an influential letter published in medical journal the Lancet in early 2020 that appeared to be written by a group of independent scientists.

But the paper was actually drafted by Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth, a nonprofit that researches bat coronaviruses in China and failed to sound the alarm when COVID-19 began to spread, according to Tufecki.

David Morens, one of Fauci’s senior advisers at the time, wrote to Daszak that he had learned how to make emails about the pandemic’s origins “disappear.”

“We’re all smart enough to know to never have smoking guns, and if we did we wouldn’t put them in emails and if we found them we’d delete them,” he wrote.
Ok. So it leaked. What behaviors would have been different vs some wet market panda sneezed on somebody? This wasn't some bio weapon. That area had gone thru some serious viruses in prior two decades. It happens.
I think I've asked this question about 100 times and never really gotten a cogent answer. Science cares where things come from mainly because often times the origin can help give clues on how to combat it. Once this virus was sequenced and analyzed and found not to be altered scientifically, we were able to say, with confidence that the origin simply didn't matter in the equation of finding a fix for the problem. All the "origin" talk now is purely political and conspiratorial. And this doesn't even get into the "presenting opinion as fact" stuff in these articles. You'd think people have learned to make the distinction by now.
 
I don't understand why covid/covid vaccines need to be an either or kind of issue.

Hear, hear! I think there was both malfeasance and a cover-up regarding the lab leak/wet market debate, and I also think that the vaccines were effective in stopping untold millions of deaths. It's quite possible to think that a strain of a virus that originated in the city that was studying that virus for gain-of-function was the origin of the virus and that those emails and investigation was damning, as was the reaction by journalists and scientists alike to discredit the obvious possibility that it was lab-leaked. You can do that and also believe that the vaccine created in response by the pharmaceuticals in cooperation with the same government whose officials were covering up the lab leak were acting in good faith and created a vaccine that was nothing short of a scientific miracle.

But what about the safety of vaccines? Doesn't my diehard conclusion that they saved millions of lives mean that I won't be likely to listen to claims that there are people who were injured by the vaccine in some way?

No. Well, I'm not happy nor disposed to hearing about it from suspects who make other claims like about turbo cancer and who say that the vaccine harmed more people than it helped, but truth is truth no matter the source's ancillary beliefs. I just think you can tell how serious a person is about truth from those ancillary beliefs, and there's only time enough in the day for so much ********.

I've had a personal, visceral reaction to a vaccine before (pneumonia), so I know it can happen and that it's quite possible people died or got sick from the mRNA COVID vaccines. It is possible. To completely downplay any possibility of that occurrence is malfeasant and closed-minded. Reasonable claims that are backed by numerous anecdotal data points in sufficient numbers should cause the issue to be studied (although there is a limited pie and we want to make sure we have our priorities straight). But I see no problem with a study or studies that examine the possibility that the vaccines were deleterious to subsets of the population (age categories, general health conditions, ethnicity, race, sex, whatever you can think of). The important thing is to know who was affected and why it happened so that we can better implement future vaccines or new iterations of the COVID vaccine. We don't just want to sweep illnesses or conditions (or deaths) under the rug like it will kill the wonders the vaccines have performed.

Out with the truth. All of it. The question is are people really going to listen in the end? If you read the article I linked, a vaccine skeptic commissions an anti-vaccination guy who has lost his medical license and has not told the truth about the efficacy of vaccines to head the study into the vaccine/autism link. That link has been discredited so many times yet rears its head like the hydra every time in public conversation. As the quote to close the article intones, they know the outcome they want to reach and they're cherry picking so that the data satisfies their conclusion. That's not science when the mRNA backers do it; and it certainly isn't when the other side does out of some erroneous and faulty sense of accountability/liability and justice.

Man, that sounded like Patrick Bateman at a restaurant talking about issues in American Psycho.

"First . . ."
But have you seen Paul Allen's business card?

You're right in your overall view though. Did the vaccine save lives? Yes imo. Did the vaccine cause unintended side-effects for some? Yes (personal experience). Does that mean there needs to be a line drawn in the sand and you have to either believe one or the other? Absolutely not. Studying adverse affects in a few doesn't take away the benefits for the many. Seems this is a moot point if there's no research into any of it now though.

As to reverse research where a preconceived conclusion is already determined and is worked backwards to achieve the desired outcome, well that's just bad science.
Wanted to be clear. There is still plenty of research going on around long covid and the like globally. It's just being severely hampered in this country and those countries we were helping research.
 

New York Times columnist admits scientists ‘badly misled’ public on COVID-19: ‘Five years too late’​



The New York Times finally ran a column by a scientist who said the public was “badly misled” about the origins of COVID-19 — triggering backlash from readers who say the admission comes five years too late.

In an opinion piece published Sunday, Zeynep Tufecki, a sociology professor at Princeton University, argued that officials and scientists hid facts, misled a Times journalist and colluded on campaigns to bury the possibility of a research lab leak in Wuhan, China.

It has emerged that safety precautions at the Wuhan lab in question “might have been terrifyingly lax,” Tufecki wrote in her column, titled “We Were Badly Misled About the Event That Changed Our Lives.”

Zeynep Tufecki argued in a new opinion piece for the New York Times that scientists “badly misled” the public on the origins of COVID-19. dpa/picture alliance via Getty Images

Social media users were quick to accuse the Gray Lady of hypocrisy, circulating photos of a now-deleted 2021 post from Times journalist Apoorva Mandavilli that claimed the “lab leak theory” had “racist roots.”

“Five years too late,” one user wrote about Tufecki’s article in a post that garnered 10,000 likes.

“Remember when the NYT would call you a misinformation spreader, and social media platforms would ban you for believing COVID-19 originated in a lab?”

Another user wrote: “Any so-called COVID reckoning from the Times that fails to confront its own relentless lies isn’t a reckoning at all.”

Meanwhile, some loyal left-leaning Times subscribers slammed the broadsheet for backtracking on its earlier COVID-19 articles.

“The New York Times has intensely pursued every theory and lead on the origins of Covid-19, documented the political debate, funding, influence, and shifts in thinking among the scientific community, and reported on China’s censorship campaign that has stifled the search for truth,” a New York Times spokesperson told The Post in a statement.

“The Times has helped readers navigate the coronavirus pandemic through independent, verified reporting, and any insinuation that we have not thoroughly pursued leads is false,” they added.

For years, the CIA claimed it had insufficient evidence to determine whether the pandemic that shut down the country stemmed from a wet market in Wuhan or a research lab there.

But the agency recently updated its assessment to favor the lab leak theory, albeit with “low confidence,” meaning it has incomplete evidence.

The Department of Energy, which runs sophisticated labs, and the FBI had moved to back the theory in 2023.

Tufecki acknowledged that “perhaps we were misled on purpose” about the virus’s origins.

She took aim at a 2020 research paper in the journal Nature Medicine written by five prominent journalists — Kristian Andersen, Andrew Rambaut, W. Ian Lipkin, Edward Holmes and Robert Garry.

The paper boldly declared there was no plausibility to the lab leak theory — but many of its authors, in Slack messages behind the scenes, shared concerns that the Wuhan leak was not only possible but likely.

“The lab escape version of this is so friggin’ likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario,” Andersen wrote in a message at the time.

The Times columnist acknowledged that “perhaps we were misled on purpose” about the virus’s origins. Stephen Yang

In his book, Farrar said he used a burner phone to set up meetings for the distressed scientists to speak with Francis Collins, then the director of the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Anthony Fauci.

After reviewing a draft of the paper, Farrar pushed the scientists to rule out the possibility of a lab leak even more directly, which they did, Tufecki wrote.

The paper’s lead authors also schemed to mislead Donald G. McNeil Jr., who was reporting on COVID-19 for the Times, to throw him off the scent of a possible lab leak, according to chat logs.

Tufecki also placed blame on an influential letter published in medical journal the Lancet in early 2020 that appeared to be written by a group of independent scientists.

But the paper was actually drafted by Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth, a nonprofit that researches bat coronaviruses in China and failed to sound the alarm when COVID-19 began to spread, according to Tufecki.

David Morens, one of Fauci’s senior advisers at the time, wrote to Daszak that he had learned how to make emails about the pandemic’s origins “disappear.”

“We’re all smart enough to know to never have smoking guns, and if we did we wouldn’t put them in emails and if we found them we’d delete them,” he wrote.
Ok. So it leaked. What behaviors would have been different vs some wet market panda sneezed on somebody? This wasn't some bio weapon. That area had gone thru some serious viruses in prior two decades. It happens.
It caused media censorship issues and we now see how public health officials actively worked together to lie to the public. It resulted in a massive loss of trust in those institutions. It's the leading reason the appeal to authority fallacy gets highlighted today. No one will take ownership of mistakes because over half the country doesn't care anymore.
 

New York Times columnist admits scientists ‘badly misled’ public on COVID-19: ‘Five years too late’​



The New York Times finally ran a column by a scientist who said the public was “badly misled” about the origins of COVID-19 — triggering backlash from readers who say the admission comes five years too late.

In an opinion piece published Sunday, Zeynep Tufecki, a sociology professor at Princeton University, argued that officials and scientists hid facts, misled a Times journalist and colluded on campaigns to bury the possibility of a research lab leak in Wuhan, China.

It has emerged that safety precautions at the Wuhan lab in question “might have been terrifyingly lax,” Tufecki wrote in her column, titled “We Were Badly Misled About the Event That Changed Our Lives.”

Zeynep Tufecki argued in a new opinion piece for the New York Times that scientists “badly misled” the public on the origins of COVID-19. dpa/picture alliance via Getty Images

Social media users were quick to accuse the Gray Lady of hypocrisy, circulating photos of a now-deleted 2021 post from Times journalist Apoorva Mandavilli that claimed the “lab leak theory” had “racist roots.”

“Five years too late,” one user wrote about Tufecki’s article in a post that garnered 10,000 likes.

“Remember when the NYT would call you a misinformation spreader, and social media platforms would ban you for believing COVID-19 originated in a lab?”

Another user wrote: “Any so-called COVID reckoning from the Times that fails to confront its own relentless lies isn’t a reckoning at all.”

Meanwhile, some loyal left-leaning Times subscribers slammed the broadsheet for backtracking on its earlier COVID-19 articles.

“The New York Times has intensely pursued every theory and lead on the origins of Covid-19, documented the political debate, funding, influence, and shifts in thinking among the scientific community, and reported on China’s censorship campaign that has stifled the search for truth,” a New York Times spokesperson told The Post in a statement.

“The Times has helped readers navigate the coronavirus pandemic through independent, verified reporting, and any insinuation that we have not thoroughly pursued leads is false,” they added.

For years, the CIA claimed it had insufficient evidence to determine whether the pandemic that shut down the country stemmed from a wet market in Wuhan or a research lab there.

But the agency recently updated its assessment to favor the lab leak theory, albeit with “low confidence,” meaning it has incomplete evidence.

The Department of Energy, which runs sophisticated labs, and the FBI had moved to back the theory in 2023.

Tufecki acknowledged that “perhaps we were misled on purpose” about the virus’s origins.

She took aim at a 2020 research paper in the journal Nature Medicine written by five prominent journalists — Kristian Andersen, Andrew Rambaut, W. Ian Lipkin, Edward Holmes and Robert Garry.

The paper boldly declared there was no plausibility to the lab leak theory — but many of its authors, in Slack messages behind the scenes, shared concerns that the Wuhan leak was not only possible but likely.

“The lab escape version of this is so friggin’ likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario,” Andersen wrote in a message at the time.

The Times columnist acknowledged that “perhaps we were misled on purpose” about the virus’s origins. Stephen Yang

In his book, Farrar said he used a burner phone to set up meetings for the distressed scientists to speak with Francis Collins, then the director of the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Anthony Fauci.

After reviewing a draft of the paper, Farrar pushed the scientists to rule out the possibility of a lab leak even more directly, which they did, Tufecki wrote.

The paper’s lead authors also schemed to mislead Donald G. McNeil Jr., who was reporting on COVID-19 for the Times, to throw him off the scent of a possible lab leak, according to chat logs.

Tufecki also placed blame on an influential letter published in medical journal the Lancet in early 2020 that appeared to be written by a group of independent scientists.

But the paper was actually drafted by Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth, a nonprofit that researches bat coronaviruses in China and failed to sound the alarm when COVID-19 began to spread, according to Tufecki.

David Morens, one of Fauci’s senior advisers at the time, wrote to Daszak that he had learned how to make emails about the pandemic’s origins “disappear.”

“We’re all smart enough to know to never have smoking guns, and if we did we wouldn’t put them in emails and if we found them we’d delete them,” he wrote.
Ok. So it leaked. What behaviors would have been different vs some wet market panda sneezed on somebody? This wasn't some bio weapon. That area had gone thru some serious viruses in prior two decades. It happens.
It caused media censorship issues and we now see how public health officials actively worked together to lie to the public. It resulted in a massive loss of trust in those institutions. It's the leading reason the appeal to authority fallacy gets highlighted today. No one will take ownership of mistakes because over half the country doesn't care anymore.

The treatment and actions taken by individuals would not have been different. The source of the virus is really a strange thing to care about whether it's lab or not. If it was some China research guys they are probably dead now. This whole subject was muted in the media because it can not matter less, and who honestly cares?
 

New York Times columnist admits scientists ‘badly misled’ public on COVID-19: ‘Five years too late’​



The New York Times finally ran a column by a scientist who said the public was “badly misled” about the origins of COVID-19 — triggering backlash from readers who say the admission comes five years too late.

In an opinion piece published Sunday, Zeynep Tufecki, a sociology professor at Princeton University, argued that officials and scientists hid facts, misled a Times journalist and colluded on campaigns to bury the possibility of a research lab leak in Wuhan, China.

It has emerged that safety precautions at the Wuhan lab in question “might have been terrifyingly lax,” Tufecki wrote in her column, titled “We Were Badly Misled About the Event That Changed Our Lives.”

Zeynep Tufecki argued in a new opinion piece for the New York Times that scientists “badly misled” the public on the origins of COVID-19. dpa/picture alliance via Getty Images

Social media users were quick to accuse the Gray Lady of hypocrisy, circulating photos of a now-deleted 2021 post from Times journalist Apoorva Mandavilli that claimed the “lab leak theory” had “racist roots.”

“Five years too late,” one user wrote about Tufecki’s article in a post that garnered 10,000 likes.

“Remember when the NYT would call you a misinformation spreader, and social media platforms would ban you for believing COVID-19 originated in a lab?”

Another user wrote: “Any so-called COVID reckoning from the Times that fails to confront its own relentless lies isn’t a reckoning at all.”

Meanwhile, some loyal left-leaning Times subscribers slammed the broadsheet for backtracking on its earlier COVID-19 articles.

“The New York Times has intensely pursued every theory and lead on the origins of Covid-19, documented the political debate, funding, influence, and shifts in thinking among the scientific community, and reported on China’s censorship campaign that has stifled the search for truth,” a New York Times spokesperson told The Post in a statement.

“The Times has helped readers navigate the coronavirus pandemic through independent, verified reporting, and any insinuation that we have not thoroughly pursued leads is false,” they added.

For years, the CIA claimed it had insufficient evidence to determine whether the pandemic that shut down the country stemmed from a wet market in Wuhan or a research lab there.

But the agency recently updated its assessment to favor the lab leak theory, albeit with “low confidence,” meaning it has incomplete evidence.

The Department of Energy, which runs sophisticated labs, and the FBI had moved to back the theory in 2023.

Tufecki acknowledged that “perhaps we were misled on purpose” about the virus’s origins.

She took aim at a 2020 research paper in the journal Nature Medicine written by five prominent journalists — Kristian Andersen, Andrew Rambaut, W. Ian Lipkin, Edward Holmes and Robert Garry.

The paper boldly declared there was no plausibility to the lab leak theory — but many of its authors, in Slack messages behind the scenes, shared concerns that the Wuhan leak was not only possible but likely.

“The lab escape version of this is so friggin’ likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario,” Andersen wrote in a message at the time.

The Times columnist acknowledged that “perhaps we were misled on purpose” about the virus’s origins. Stephen Yang

In his book, Farrar said he used a burner phone to set up meetings for the distressed scientists to speak with Francis Collins, then the director of the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Anthony Fauci.

After reviewing a draft of the paper, Farrar pushed the scientists to rule out the possibility of a lab leak even more directly, which they did, Tufecki wrote.

The paper’s lead authors also schemed to mislead Donald G. McNeil Jr., who was reporting on COVID-19 for the Times, to throw him off the scent of a possible lab leak, according to chat logs.

Tufecki also placed blame on an influential letter published in medical journal the Lancet in early 2020 that appeared to be written by a group of independent scientists.

But the paper was actually drafted by Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth, a nonprofit that researches bat coronaviruses in China and failed to sound the alarm when COVID-19 began to spread, according to Tufecki.

David Morens, one of Fauci’s senior advisers at the time, wrote to Daszak that he had learned how to make emails about the pandemic’s origins “disappear.”

“We’re all smart enough to know to never have smoking guns, and if we did we wouldn’t put them in emails and if we found them we’d delete them,” he wrote.
Ok. So it leaked. What behaviors would have been different vs some wet market panda sneezed on somebody? This wasn't some bio weapon. That area had gone thru some serious viruses in prior two decades. It happens.
It caused media censorship issues and we now see how public health officials actively worked together to lie to the public. It resulted in a massive loss of trust in those institutions. It's the leading reason the appeal to authority fallacy gets highlighted today. No one will take ownership of mistakes because over half the country doesn't care anymore.

The treatment and actions taken by individuals would not have been different. The source of the virus is really a strange thing to care about whether it's lab or not. If it was some China research guys they are probably dead now. This whole subject was muted in the media because it can not matter less, and who honestly cares?
Some of us care that public health officials lied during the most significant event in the last 20 years. :shrug:
 

New York Times columnist admits scientists ‘badly misled’ public on COVID-19: ‘Five years too late’​



The New York Times finally ran a column by a scientist who said the public was “badly misled” about the origins of COVID-19 — triggering backlash from readers who say the admission comes five years too late.

In an opinion piece published Sunday, Zeynep Tufecki, a sociology professor at Princeton University, argued that officials and scientists hid facts, misled a Times journalist and colluded on campaigns to bury the possibility of a research lab leak in Wuhan, China.

It has emerged that safety precautions at the Wuhan lab in question “might have been terrifyingly lax,” Tufecki wrote in her column, titled “We Were Badly Misled About the Event That Changed Our Lives.”

Zeynep Tufecki argued in a new opinion piece for the New York Times that scientists “badly misled” the public on the origins of COVID-19. dpa/picture alliance via Getty Images

Social media users were quick to accuse the Gray Lady of hypocrisy, circulating photos of a now-deleted 2021 post from Times journalist Apoorva Mandavilli that claimed the “lab leak theory” had “racist roots.”

“Five years too late,” one user wrote about Tufecki’s article in a post that garnered 10,000 likes.

“Remember when the NYT would call you a misinformation spreader, and social media platforms would ban you for believing COVID-19 originated in a lab?”

Another user wrote: “Any so-called COVID reckoning from the Times that fails to confront its own relentless lies isn’t a reckoning at all.”

Meanwhile, some loyal left-leaning Times subscribers slammed the broadsheet for backtracking on its earlier COVID-19 articles.

“The New York Times has intensely pursued every theory and lead on the origins of Covid-19, documented the political debate, funding, influence, and shifts in thinking among the scientific community, and reported on China’s censorship campaign that has stifled the search for truth,” a New York Times spokesperson told The Post in a statement.

“The Times has helped readers navigate the coronavirus pandemic through independent, verified reporting, and any insinuation that we have not thoroughly pursued leads is false,” they added.

For years, the CIA claimed it had insufficient evidence to determine whether the pandemic that shut down the country stemmed from a wet market in Wuhan or a research lab there.

But the agency recently updated its assessment to favor the lab leak theory, albeit with “low confidence,” meaning it has incomplete evidence.

The Department of Energy, which runs sophisticated labs, and the FBI had moved to back the theory in 2023.

Tufecki acknowledged that “perhaps we were misled on purpose” about the virus’s origins.

She took aim at a 2020 research paper in the journal Nature Medicine written by five prominent journalists — Kristian Andersen, Andrew Rambaut, W. Ian Lipkin, Edward Holmes and Robert Garry.

The paper boldly declared there was no plausibility to the lab leak theory — but many of its authors, in Slack messages behind the scenes, shared concerns that the Wuhan leak was not only possible but likely.

“The lab escape version of this is so friggin’ likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario,” Andersen wrote in a message at the time.

The Times columnist acknowledged that “perhaps we were misled on purpose” about the virus’s origins. Stephen Yang

In his book, Farrar said he used a burner phone to set up meetings for the distressed scientists to speak with Francis Collins, then the director of the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Anthony Fauci.

After reviewing a draft of the paper, Farrar pushed the scientists to rule out the possibility of a lab leak even more directly, which they did, Tufecki wrote.

The paper’s lead authors also schemed to mislead Donald G. McNeil Jr., who was reporting on COVID-19 for the Times, to throw him off the scent of a possible lab leak, according to chat logs.

Tufecki also placed blame on an influential letter published in medical journal the Lancet in early 2020 that appeared to be written by a group of independent scientists.

But the paper was actually drafted by Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth, a nonprofit that researches bat coronaviruses in China and failed to sound the alarm when COVID-19 began to spread, according to Tufecki.

David Morens, one of Fauci’s senior advisers at the time, wrote to Daszak that he had learned how to make emails about the pandemic’s origins “disappear.”

“We’re all smart enough to know to never have smoking guns, and if we did we wouldn’t put them in emails and if we found them we’d delete them,” he wrote.
Ok. So it leaked. What behaviors would have been different vs some wet market panda sneezed on somebody? This wasn't some bio weapon. That area had gone thru some serious viruses in prior two decades. It happens.
It caused media censorship issues and we now see how public health officials actively worked together to lie to the public. It resulted in a massive loss of trust in those institutions. It's the leading reason the appeal to authority fallacy gets highlighted today. No one will take ownership of mistakes because over half the country doesn't care anymore.

The treatment and actions taken by individuals would not have been different. The source of the virus is really a strange thing to care about whether it's lab or not. If it was some China research guys they are probably dead now. This whole subject was muted in the media because it can not matter less, and who honestly cares?
Some of us care that public health officials lied during the most significant event in the last 20 years. :shrug:
We all should. But the massive lost of trust you alluded to happened well before the lying was known about
 

New York Times columnist admits scientists ‘badly misled’ public on COVID-19: ‘Five years too late’​



The New York Times finally ran a column by a scientist who said the public was “badly misled” about the origins of COVID-19 — triggering backlash from readers who say the admission comes five years too late.

In an opinion piece published Sunday, Zeynep Tufecki, a sociology professor at Princeton University, argued that officials and scientists hid facts, misled a Times journalist and colluded on campaigns to bury the possibility of a research lab leak in Wuhan, China.

It has emerged that safety precautions at the Wuhan lab in question “might have been terrifyingly lax,” Tufecki wrote in her column, titled “We Were Badly Misled About the Event That Changed Our Lives.”

Zeynep Tufecki argued in a new opinion piece for the New York Times that scientists “badly misled” the public on the origins of COVID-19. dpa/picture alliance via Getty Images

Social media users were quick to accuse the Gray Lady of hypocrisy, circulating photos of a now-deleted 2021 post from Times journalist Apoorva Mandavilli that claimed the “lab leak theory” had “racist roots.”

“Five years too late,” one user wrote about Tufecki’s article in a post that garnered 10,000 likes.

“Remember when the NYT would call you a misinformation spreader, and social media platforms would ban you for believing COVID-19 originated in a lab?”

Another user wrote: “Any so-called COVID reckoning from the Times that fails to confront its own relentless lies isn’t a reckoning at all.”

Meanwhile, some loyal left-leaning Times subscribers slammed the broadsheet for backtracking on its earlier COVID-19 articles.

“The New York Times has intensely pursued every theory and lead on the origins of Covid-19, documented the political debate, funding, influence, and shifts in thinking among the scientific community, and reported on China’s censorship campaign that has stifled the search for truth,” a New York Times spokesperson told The Post in a statement.

“The Times has helped readers navigate the coronavirus pandemic through independent, verified reporting, and any insinuation that we have not thoroughly pursued leads is false,” they added.

For years, the CIA claimed it had insufficient evidence to determine whether the pandemic that shut down the country stemmed from a wet market in Wuhan or a research lab there.

But the agency recently updated its assessment to favor the lab leak theory, albeit with “low confidence,” meaning it has incomplete evidence.

The Department of Energy, which runs sophisticated labs, and the FBI had moved to back the theory in 2023.

Tufecki acknowledged that “perhaps we were misled on purpose” about the virus’s origins.

She took aim at a 2020 research paper in the journal Nature Medicine written by five prominent journalists — Kristian Andersen, Andrew Rambaut, W. Ian Lipkin, Edward Holmes and Robert Garry.

The paper boldly declared there was no plausibility to the lab leak theory — but many of its authors, in Slack messages behind the scenes, shared concerns that the Wuhan leak was not only possible but likely.

“The lab escape version of this is so friggin’ likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario,” Andersen wrote in a message at the time.

The Times columnist acknowledged that “perhaps we were misled on purpose” about the virus’s origins. Stephen Yang

In his book, Farrar said he used a burner phone to set up meetings for the distressed scientists to speak with Francis Collins, then the director of the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Anthony Fauci.

After reviewing a draft of the paper, Farrar pushed the scientists to rule out the possibility of a lab leak even more directly, which they did, Tufecki wrote.

The paper’s lead authors also schemed to mislead Donald G. McNeil Jr., who was reporting on COVID-19 for the Times, to throw him off the scent of a possible lab leak, according to chat logs.

Tufecki also placed blame on an influential letter published in medical journal the Lancet in early 2020 that appeared to be written by a group of independent scientists.

But the paper was actually drafted by Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth, a nonprofit that researches bat coronaviruses in China and failed to sound the alarm when COVID-19 began to spread, according to Tufecki.

David Morens, one of Fauci’s senior advisers at the time, wrote to Daszak that he had learned how to make emails about the pandemic’s origins “disappear.”

“We’re all smart enough to know to never have smoking guns, and if we did we wouldn’t put them in emails and if we found them we’d delete them,” he wrote.
Ok. So it leaked. What behaviors would have been different vs some wet market panda sneezed on somebody? This wasn't some bio weapon. That area had gone thru some serious viruses in prior two decades. It happens.
It caused media censorship issues and we now see how public health officials actively worked together to lie to the public. It resulted in a massive loss of trust in those institutions. It's the leading reason the appeal to authority fallacy gets highlighted today. No one will take ownership of mistakes because over half the country doesn't care anymore.

The treatment and actions taken by individuals would not have been different. The source of the virus is really a strange thing to care about whether it's lab or not. If it was some China research guys they are probably dead now. This whole subject was muted in the media because it can not matter less, and who honestly cares?
Some of us care that public health officials lied during the most significant event in the last 20 years. :shrug:
We all should. But the massive lost of trust you alluded to happened well before the lying was known about
I think it hit rock bottom when the media started gaslighting and censoring everything that didn't fit the approved narrative.
 

New York Times columnist admits scientists ‘badly misled’ public on COVID-19: ‘Five years too late’​



The New York Times finally ran a column by a scientist who said the public was “badly misled” about the origins of COVID-19 — triggering backlash from readers who say the admission comes five years too late.

In an opinion piece published Sunday, Zeynep Tufecki, a sociology professor at Princeton University, argued that officials and scientists hid facts, misled a Times journalist and colluded on campaigns to bury the possibility of a research lab leak in Wuhan, China.

It has emerged that safety precautions at the Wuhan lab in question “might have been terrifyingly lax,” Tufecki wrote in her column, titled “We Were Badly Misled About the Event That Changed Our Lives.”

Zeynep Tufecki argued in a new opinion piece for the New York Times that scientists “badly misled” the public on the origins of COVID-19. dpa/picture alliance via Getty Images

Social media users were quick to accuse the Gray Lady of hypocrisy, circulating photos of a now-deleted 2021 post from Times journalist Apoorva Mandavilli that claimed the “lab leak theory” had “racist roots.”

“Five years too late,” one user wrote about Tufecki’s article in a post that garnered 10,000 likes.

“Remember when the NYT would call you a misinformation spreader, and social media platforms would ban you for believing COVID-19 originated in a lab?”

Another user wrote: “Any so-called COVID reckoning from the Times that fails to confront its own relentless lies isn’t a reckoning at all.”

Meanwhile, some loyal left-leaning Times subscribers slammed the broadsheet for backtracking on its earlier COVID-19 articles.

“The New York Times has intensely pursued every theory and lead on the origins of Covid-19, documented the political debate, funding, influence, and shifts in thinking among the scientific community, and reported on China’s censorship campaign that has stifled the search for truth,” a New York Times spokesperson told The Post in a statement.

“The Times has helped readers navigate the coronavirus pandemic through independent, verified reporting, and any insinuation that we have not thoroughly pursued leads is false,” they added.

For years, the CIA claimed it had insufficient evidence to determine whether the pandemic that shut down the country stemmed from a wet market in Wuhan or a research lab there.

But the agency recently updated its assessment to favor the lab leak theory, albeit with “low confidence,” meaning it has incomplete evidence.

The Department of Energy, which runs sophisticated labs, and the FBI had moved to back the theory in 2023.

Tufecki acknowledged that “perhaps we were misled on purpose” about the virus’s origins.

She took aim at a 2020 research paper in the journal Nature Medicine written by five prominent journalists — Kristian Andersen, Andrew Rambaut, W. Ian Lipkin, Edward Holmes and Robert Garry.

The paper boldly declared there was no plausibility to the lab leak theory — but many of its authors, in Slack messages behind the scenes, shared concerns that the Wuhan leak was not only possible but likely.

“The lab escape version of this is so friggin’ likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario,” Andersen wrote in a message at the time.

The Times columnist acknowledged that “perhaps we were misled on purpose” about the virus’s origins. Stephen Yang

In his book, Farrar said he used a burner phone to set up meetings for the distressed scientists to speak with Francis Collins, then the director of the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Anthony Fauci.

After reviewing a draft of the paper, Farrar pushed the scientists to rule out the possibility of a lab leak even more directly, which they did, Tufecki wrote.

The paper’s lead authors also schemed to mislead Donald G. McNeil Jr., who was reporting on COVID-19 for the Times, to throw him off the scent of a possible lab leak, according to chat logs.

Tufecki also placed blame on an influential letter published in medical journal the Lancet in early 2020 that appeared to be written by a group of independent scientists.

But the paper was actually drafted by Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth, a nonprofit that researches bat coronaviruses in China and failed to sound the alarm when COVID-19 began to spread, according to Tufecki.

David Morens, one of Fauci’s senior advisers at the time, wrote to Daszak that he had learned how to make emails about the pandemic’s origins “disappear.”

“We’re all smart enough to know to never have smoking guns, and if we did we wouldn’t put them in emails and if we found them we’d delete them,” he wrote.
Ok. So it leaked. What behaviors would have been different vs some wet market panda sneezed on somebody? This wasn't some bio weapon. That area had gone thru some serious viruses in prior two decades. It happens.
It caused media censorship issues and we now see how public health officials actively worked together to lie to the public. It resulted in a massive loss of trust in those institutions. It's the leading reason the appeal to authority fallacy gets highlighted today. No one will take ownership of mistakes because over half the country doesn't care anymore.

The treatment and actions taken by individuals would not have been different. The source of the virus is really a strange thing to care about whether it's lab or not. If it was some China research guys they are probably dead now. This whole subject was muted in the media because it can not matter less, and who honestly cares?
Some of us care that public health officials lied during the most significant event in the last 20 years. :shrug:

Why should public health officials share this? Shouldn't it have been the state department or something? If it doesn't impact the way the disease is handled again, why should they do anything differently?
 
Its getting bad already. Just had three studies cut in our department on COVID vaccine success against the new strand circulating in South Africa. A bunch of changes to the spike in that one, but from what they can tell, not a dire need for new vaccines.
Maybe they'll approve studies into understanding why some people react poorly to the current vaccines. There's plenty of work to do there. I don't think vaccine research needs to be idle, maybe just tweaked. Be nice to have clinical research vs the bench medicine we're using now in that respect.
That research has been halted as I stated above (in our labs). It's gross what is being done. ZERO nuance.
No kidding. I was looking for a silver lining that no longer exists i guess. What happens to research that's already started? Will that be shut down, or is this just for new research at this point? How much of your labs work is covid/covid vaccine related and will losing that funding hurt your overall budget and affect other work?
I'm on my way out the door. Defending and will be done in May. Research already funded will run until the funds run out. We had two different experiments we were doing along with a group in California and Japan. Japan is still chugging along, but the other 2/3 won't be able to participate until the funding comes back. I can't speak to the impacts to other labs at the school, but I don't know of a single one that hasn't been impacted in some way. Some more serious than others. We had a proposed heart research grant squashed from even being considered because it had the term "mRNA" in the proposal text. There is virtually no way to write a grant in heart development without mentioning mRNA. It's bananas.
I reached out to my brother as he does grant work for a large hospital system in Ohio. His team is in genetics and focus mainly on targeted therapies for things like MS, cystic fibrosis, ect and their research is ongoing, but he's well aware what's happening in other areas of research. He says ANY research funded through the NIH is likely paused indefinitely. His take is to trust very little until a judge makes a ruling and the newly coined AHA committee talks about it.

However the problem is going to be because they work on yearly cycles they're not going to have funding for anything for a period of time and that might cause some serious issues in a lot of labs doing a lot of good research

The issues are across the board and not necessarily covid or vaccine specific. So far nothing specific has been targeted in terms of what they are going to fund and not going to fund that he's aware of.

He says things are just kind of backed up a year. So they canceled all study sections and study sections are essentially when researchers from around the nation come together and they review each other's grant applications for new funding and then awards stuff out. They canceled those and are now restarting, but the problem is that they missed a whole bunch of deadlines while those are passed. Those reviews are now going to be essentially six months to a year backed up. Any existing funds that are out there are still going to be paid even though the administration tried to pull that back. They got an injunction from the courts that saved them until September but there's nothing that they are specifically targeting at this time it's just across the board everybody's getting reviewed.
Sounds about right. Research is a process and a pretty long cycle. At a high level, you go from brainstorming, to discovery, to planning, to writing the grant proposal, getting approval, getting the funds, setting up the experiment, collecting data, analyzing data, evaluating path to determine if more experiments are needed or you have enough to publish.

If the funds aren't there, there's no point in doing any of it. It takes a long time to start from scratch and see results.
 

New York Times columnist admits scientists ‘badly misled’ public on COVID-19: ‘Five years too late’​



The New York Times finally ran a column by a scientist who said the public was “badly misled” about the origins of COVID-19 — triggering backlash from readers who say the admission comes five years too late.

In an opinion piece published Sunday, Zeynep Tufecki, a sociology professor at Princeton University, argued that officials and scientists hid facts, misled a Times journalist and colluded on campaigns to bury the possibility of a research lab leak in Wuhan, China.

It has emerged that safety precautions at the Wuhan lab in question “might have been terrifyingly lax,” Tufecki wrote in her column, titled “We Were Badly Misled About the Event That Changed Our Lives.”

Zeynep Tufecki argued in a new opinion piece for the New York Times that scientists “badly misled” the public on the origins of COVID-19. dpa/picture alliance via Getty Images

Social media users were quick to accuse the Gray Lady of hypocrisy, circulating photos of a now-deleted 2021 post from Times journalist Apoorva Mandavilli that claimed the “lab leak theory” had “racist roots.”

“Five years too late,” one user wrote about Tufecki’s article in a post that garnered 10,000 likes.

“Remember when the NYT would call you a misinformation spreader, and social media platforms would ban you for believing COVID-19 originated in a lab?”

Another user wrote: “Any so-called COVID reckoning from the Times that fails to confront its own relentless lies isn’t a reckoning at all.”

Meanwhile, some loyal left-leaning Times subscribers slammed the broadsheet for backtracking on its earlier COVID-19 articles.

“The New York Times has intensely pursued every theory and lead on the origins of Covid-19, documented the political debate, funding, influence, and shifts in thinking among the scientific community, and reported on China’s censorship campaign that has stifled the search for truth,” a New York Times spokesperson told The Post in a statement.

“The Times has helped readers navigate the coronavirus pandemic through independent, verified reporting, and any insinuation that we have not thoroughly pursued leads is false,” they added.

For years, the CIA claimed it had insufficient evidence to determine whether the pandemic that shut down the country stemmed from a wet market in Wuhan or a research lab there.

But the agency recently updated its assessment to favor the lab leak theory, albeit with “low confidence,” meaning it has incomplete evidence.

The Department of Energy, which runs sophisticated labs, and the FBI had moved to back the theory in 2023.

Tufecki acknowledged that “perhaps we were misled on purpose” about the virus’s origins.

She took aim at a 2020 research paper in the journal Nature Medicine written by five prominent journalists — Kristian Andersen, Andrew Rambaut, W. Ian Lipkin, Edward Holmes and Robert Garry.

The paper boldly declared there was no plausibility to the lab leak theory — but many of its authors, in Slack messages behind the scenes, shared concerns that the Wuhan leak was not only possible but likely.

“The lab escape version of this is so friggin’ likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario,” Andersen wrote in a message at the time.

The Times columnist acknowledged that “perhaps we were misled on purpose” about the virus’s origins. Stephen Yang

In his book, Farrar said he used a burner phone to set up meetings for the distressed scientists to speak with Francis Collins, then the director of the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Anthony Fauci.

After reviewing a draft of the paper, Farrar pushed the scientists to rule out the possibility of a lab leak even more directly, which they did, Tufecki wrote.

The paper’s lead authors also schemed to mislead Donald G. McNeil Jr., who was reporting on COVID-19 for the Times, to throw him off the scent of a possible lab leak, according to chat logs.

Tufecki also placed blame on an influential letter published in medical journal the Lancet in early 2020 that appeared to be written by a group of independent scientists.

But the paper was actually drafted by Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth, a nonprofit that researches bat coronaviruses in China and failed to sound the alarm when COVID-19 began to spread, according to Tufecki.

David Morens, one of Fauci’s senior advisers at the time, wrote to Daszak that he had learned how to make emails about the pandemic’s origins “disappear.”

“We’re all smart enough to know to never have smoking guns, and if we did we wouldn’t put them in emails and if we found them we’d delete them,” he wrote.
Ok. So it leaked. What behaviors would have been different vs some wet market panda sneezed on somebody? This wasn't some bio weapon. That area had gone thru some serious viruses in prior two decades. It happens.
It caused media censorship issues and we now see how public health officials actively worked together to lie to the public. It resulted in a massive loss of trust in those institutions. It's the leading reason the appeal to authority fallacy gets highlighted today. No one will take ownership of mistakes because over half the country doesn't care anymore.

The treatment and actions taken by individuals would not have been different. The source of the virus is really a strange thing to care about whether it's lab or not. If it was some China research guys they are probably dead now. This whole subject was muted in the media because it can not matter less, and who honestly cares?
Only those looking through the political lens. It simply doesn't matter in terms of the science. For those angry at politicians and political appointees "lying" to them, maybe they learn to follow the actual science instead of the mouth pieces. This form of messaging is far from new. It's what the American people have deemed acceptable for a long time. I'm honestly baffled why people are upset about a group of people behaving in a way we've accepted for a pretty long time up to this point.
 

New York Times columnist admits scientists ‘badly misled’ public on COVID-19: ‘Five years too late’​



The New York Times finally ran a column by a scientist who said the public was “badly misled” about the origins of COVID-19 — triggering backlash from readers who say the admission comes five years too late.

In an opinion piece published Sunday, Zeynep Tufecki, a sociology professor at Princeton University, argued that officials and scientists hid facts, misled a Times journalist and colluded on campaigns to bury the possibility of a research lab leak in Wuhan, China.

It has emerged that safety precautions at the Wuhan lab in question “might have been terrifyingly lax,” Tufecki wrote in her column, titled “We Were Badly Misled About the Event That Changed Our Lives.”

Zeynep Tufecki argued in a new opinion piece for the New York Times that scientists “badly misled” the public on the origins of COVID-19. dpa/picture alliance via Getty Images

Social media users were quick to accuse the Gray Lady of hypocrisy, circulating photos of a now-deleted 2021 post from Times journalist Apoorva Mandavilli that claimed the “lab leak theory” had “racist roots.”

“Five years too late,” one user wrote about Tufecki’s article in a post that garnered 10,000 likes.

“Remember when the NYT would call you a misinformation spreader, and social media platforms would ban you for believing COVID-19 originated in a lab?”

Another user wrote: “Any so-called COVID reckoning from the Times that fails to confront its own relentless lies isn’t a reckoning at all.”

Meanwhile, some loyal left-leaning Times subscribers slammed the broadsheet for backtracking on its earlier COVID-19 articles.

“The New York Times has intensely pursued every theory and lead on the origins of Covid-19, documented the political debate, funding, influence, and shifts in thinking among the scientific community, and reported on China’s censorship campaign that has stifled the search for truth,” a New York Times spokesperson told The Post in a statement.

“The Times has helped readers navigate the coronavirus pandemic through independent, verified reporting, and any insinuation that we have not thoroughly pursued leads is false,” they added.

For years, the CIA claimed it had insufficient evidence to determine whether the pandemic that shut down the country stemmed from a wet market in Wuhan or a research lab there.

But the agency recently updated its assessment to favor the lab leak theory, albeit with “low confidence,” meaning it has incomplete evidence.

The Department of Energy, which runs sophisticated labs, and the FBI had moved to back the theory in 2023.

Tufecki acknowledged that “perhaps we were misled on purpose” about the virus’s origins.

She took aim at a 2020 research paper in the journal Nature Medicine written by five prominent journalists — Kristian Andersen, Andrew Rambaut, W. Ian Lipkin, Edward Holmes and Robert Garry.

The paper boldly declared there was no plausibility to the lab leak theory — but many of its authors, in Slack messages behind the scenes, shared concerns that the Wuhan leak was not only possible but likely.

“The lab escape version of this is so friggin’ likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario,” Andersen wrote in a message at the time.

The Times columnist acknowledged that “perhaps we were misled on purpose” about the virus’s origins. Stephen Yang

In his book, Farrar said he used a burner phone to set up meetings for the distressed scientists to speak with Francis Collins, then the director of the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Anthony Fauci.

After reviewing a draft of the paper, Farrar pushed the scientists to rule out the possibility of a lab leak even more directly, which they did, Tufecki wrote.

The paper’s lead authors also schemed to mislead Donald G. McNeil Jr., who was reporting on COVID-19 for the Times, to throw him off the scent of a possible lab leak, according to chat logs.

Tufecki also placed blame on an influential letter published in medical journal the Lancet in early 2020 that appeared to be written by a group of independent scientists.

But the paper was actually drafted by Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth, a nonprofit that researches bat coronaviruses in China and failed to sound the alarm when COVID-19 began to spread, according to Tufecki.

David Morens, one of Fauci’s senior advisers at the time, wrote to Daszak that he had learned how to make emails about the pandemic’s origins “disappear.”

“We’re all smart enough to know to never have smoking guns, and if we did we wouldn’t put them in emails and if we found them we’d delete them,” he wrote.
Ok. So it leaked. What behaviors would have been different vs some wet market panda sneezed on somebody? This wasn't some bio weapon. That area had gone thru some serious viruses in prior two decades. It happens.
It caused media censorship issues and we now see how public health officials actively worked together to lie to the public. It resulted in a massive loss of trust in those institutions. It's the leading reason the appeal to authority fallacy gets highlighted today. No one will take ownership of mistakes because over half the country doesn't care anymore.

The treatment and actions taken by individuals would not have been different. The source of the virus is really a strange thing to care about whether it's lab or not. If it was some China research guys they are probably dead now. This whole subject was muted in the media because it can not matter less, and who honestly cares?
Only those looking through the political lens. It simply doesn't matter in terms of the science. For those angry at politicians and political appointees "lying" to them, maybe they learn to follow the actual science instead of the mouth pieces. This form of messaging is far from new. It's what the American people have deemed acceptable for a long time. I'm honestly baffled why people are upset about a group of people behaving in a way we've accepted for a pretty long time up to this point.

It’s selective and political by most people - it’s just how things are now. I think most of these things (lying by officials) has been going on by everyone for a while and some are either just now realizing it or using it to make a political point.
 

New York Times columnist admits scientists ‘badly misled’ public on COVID-19: ‘Five years too late’​



The New York Times finally ran a column by a scientist who said the public was “badly misled” about the origins of COVID-19 — triggering backlash from readers who say the admission comes five years too late.

In an opinion piece published Sunday, Zeynep Tufecki, a sociology professor at Princeton University, argued that officials and scientists hid facts, misled a Times journalist and colluded on campaigns to bury the possibility of a research lab leak in Wuhan, China.

It has emerged that safety precautions at the Wuhan lab in question “might have been terrifyingly lax,” Tufecki wrote in her column, titled “We Were Badly Misled About the Event That Changed Our Lives.”

Zeynep Tufecki argued in a new opinion piece for the New York Times that scientists “badly misled” the public on the origins of COVID-19. dpa/picture alliance via Getty Images

Social media users were quick to accuse the Gray Lady of hypocrisy, circulating photos of a now-deleted 2021 post from Times journalist Apoorva Mandavilli that claimed the “lab leak theory” had “racist roots.”

“Five years too late,” one user wrote about Tufecki’s article in a post that garnered 10,000 likes.

“Remember when the NYT would call you a misinformation spreader, and social media platforms would ban you for believing COVID-19 originated in a lab?”

Another user wrote: “Any so-called COVID reckoning from the Times that fails to confront its own relentless lies isn’t a reckoning at all.”

Meanwhile, some loyal left-leaning Times subscribers slammed the broadsheet for backtracking on its earlier COVID-19 articles.

“The New York Times has intensely pursued every theory and lead on the origins of Covid-19, documented the political debate, funding, influence, and shifts in thinking among the scientific community, and reported on China’s censorship campaign that has stifled the search for truth,” a New York Times spokesperson told The Post in a statement.

“The Times has helped readers navigate the coronavirus pandemic through independent, verified reporting, and any insinuation that we have not thoroughly pursued leads is false,” they added.

For years, the CIA claimed it had insufficient evidence to determine whether the pandemic that shut down the country stemmed from a wet market in Wuhan or a research lab there.

But the agency recently updated its assessment to favor the lab leak theory, albeit with “low confidence,” meaning it has incomplete evidence.

The Department of Energy, which runs sophisticated labs, and the FBI had moved to back the theory in 2023.

Tufecki acknowledged that “perhaps we were misled on purpose” about the virus’s origins.

She took aim at a 2020 research paper in the journal Nature Medicine written by five prominent journalists — Kristian Andersen, Andrew Rambaut, W. Ian Lipkin, Edward Holmes and Robert Garry.

The paper boldly declared there was no plausibility to the lab leak theory — but many of its authors, in Slack messages behind the scenes, shared concerns that the Wuhan leak was not only possible but likely.

“The lab escape version of this is so friggin’ likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario,” Andersen wrote in a message at the time.

The Times columnist acknowledged that “perhaps we were misled on purpose” about the virus’s origins. Stephen Yang

In his book, Farrar said he used a burner phone to set up meetings for the distressed scientists to speak with Francis Collins, then the director of the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Anthony Fauci.

After reviewing a draft of the paper, Farrar pushed the scientists to rule out the possibility of a lab leak even more directly, which they did, Tufecki wrote.

The paper’s lead authors also schemed to mislead Donald G. McNeil Jr., who was reporting on COVID-19 for the Times, to throw him off the scent of a possible lab leak, according to chat logs.

Tufecki also placed blame on an influential letter published in medical journal the Lancet in early 2020 that appeared to be written by a group of independent scientists.

But the paper was actually drafted by Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth, a nonprofit that researches bat coronaviruses in China and failed to sound the alarm when COVID-19 began to spread, according to Tufecki.

David Morens, one of Fauci’s senior advisers at the time, wrote to Daszak that he had learned how to make emails about the pandemic’s origins “disappear.”

“We’re all smart enough to know to never have smoking guns, and if we did we wouldn’t put them in emails and if we found them we’d delete them,” he wrote.
Ok. So it leaked. What behaviors would have been different vs some wet market panda sneezed on somebody? This wasn't some bio weapon. That area had gone thru some serious viruses in prior two decades. It happens.
It caused media censorship issues and we now see how public health officials actively worked together to lie to the public. It resulted in a massive loss of trust in those institutions. It's the leading reason the appeal to authority fallacy gets highlighted today. No one will take ownership of mistakes because over half the country doesn't care anymore.

The treatment and actions taken by individuals would not have been different. The source of the virus is really a strange thing to care about whether it's lab or not. If it was some China research guys they are probably dead now. This whole subject was muted in the media because it can not matter less, and who honestly cares?
Only those looking through the political lens. It simply doesn't matter in terms of the science. For those angry at politicians and political appointees "lying" to them, maybe they learn to follow the actual science instead of the mouth pieces. This form of messaging is far from new. It's what the American people have deemed acceptable for a long time. I'm honestly baffled why people are upset about a group of people behaving in a way we've accepted for a pretty long time up to this point.

It’s selective and political by most people - it’s just how things are now. I think most of these things (lying by officials) has been going on by everyone for a while and some are either just now realizing it or using it to make a political point.
For me, there's been a timer set on people. At this point, it should be crystal clear how to handle these things moving forward. If you insist on giving oxygen to or paying attention to any of these people, I won't consider you an honest seeker of knowledge and/or broker of fruitful discussion.
 
It's crazy to me that people can in one breath cheerlead how these miracle vaccines saved millions of lives and in the next breath casually say the cause of millions of other lives being lost or nearly lost really doesn't matter and is only a political exercise.

Millions of people died because of the decisions and neglect of certain people, and many untoward millions more would have if not for the heroics of vaccines.

The fact that many folks in here dismiss the first half of that sentence and only care about the second part of that sentence baffles me.
 
If the funds aren't there, there's no point in doing any of it. It takes a long time to start from scratch and see results.
This is what kills me. I really don't care about who believes what. If what I believe is wrong I'd like it proved and I can update my thinking and move forward and vice versa. I'm talking purely medically the rest has little interest to me. To withhold or sabotage medical research we so badly need not only for covid, but across the board should be unacceptable to everyone. Speaking for myself i need research into covid/covid vaccine complications to continue or I'm stuck with "bench medicine" and no other path forward as this was already lacking with whatever meager funding was available before. It's great that the work continues in other places, but that still leaves people here behind as doctors aren't going to line up to prescribe treatments that haven't been studied and approved domestically. Brutal.
Can't do much without the funds. Fortunately, it seems the rest of the world gets it. They are vigorously testing the current vaccines to measure effectiveness against the new strains like the one spreading in South Africa. We too did this for all the variants after the strain the vaccines were created for. We took none of it for granted and assumed nothing in terms of effectiveness. We are now being forced to take a very different approach and its going to bite us in the butt at some point.
 
Millions of people died because of the decisions and neglect of certain people,
Not sure I understand this. What specifically are you talking about? Talking about out us not giving (donating) the vaccines we weren't going to be using to areas who couldnt afford to vuy them? Stuff like that?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top