So the Chinese release a shit storm, we will assume by accident, cover it up and let a million people travel fully knowing that Covid was contagious and where suppose to believe our government? How did the BS benefit anyone in the US? But don’t worry we protected science and of course our precious love affair with the Chinese. The worst of it is that no one will ever pay for it. Sounds like all the other stuff that’s covered up by our government. The only people that pay is WE THE PEOPLE.
"After watching the hearing and reading the dueling reports issued by House Democrats and Republicans (PDF),..."
The link shot me to a "Error 404 Content Not found." I was able to find the democrats report, per your reference in the essay, but nothing from republicans.
This is a great piece of work, and I thank you. Reading through the comments, however, it strikes me that no one asked the obvious question.
Covidgate is essentially about a cover-up in which politics over-ruled sound science. That doesn't surprise me; we've all seen how agencies/governments will use "select" science to justify an otherwise questionable or marginal decision. But if "politics" as usual is the culprit here, then why is it perpetuated by a House Democrat report and a House Republican report? Admittedly, I haven't read them, but the phrase "dueling report" isn't suggestive of copasetic harmony. It just strikes me as a sad state of affairs.
I’m still curious about Farrar who seems like a foreign national affecting our USG policy at the highest levels. Does “science” policy have different rules?
Was proximal Origins peer-reviewed? How could the authors have believed that their paper would survive critical review? Is their field of study so corrupt? Will anyone take these men seriously again? Would any journal accept a research paper from any of these scientists who wrote and signed their names to a bogus and misleading research assignment?
No surprise here for anyone who has worked in a federal agency that "procures" "science" via RFPs and whose awards go to those that support prejudged policy positions from radon exposure levels to wetlands assessment.
I personally saw prejudiced decisions from the EPA, FERC, BUREC, and, indirectly, the Corps of Engineers. The only agency I worked with that was completely objective was the Surface Transportation Board.
This issue parallels the climate debate/hysteria being propagated by our government, Academia, NGO’s and media (the same corrupt players and playbook).
All we see here is self protection by twisting the truth. Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins don't want to be held responsible in any way for funding work leading to a pandemic. Kristian Andersen and Robert Garry wanted to stay in the good graces of the government health establishment. Andrew Rambaut and Ron Fouchier were afraid of a potential great government investigation that would impact research on viruses. All four wanted to preserve the right to keep doing what they are doing even if an occasional leak occurs. The whole system would reverberate to tremors if the leak theory expanded. The circumstantial evidence is strong. The disease originated in a unique place where this type of research was active. The mathematical probability of that occurring randomly is very low.
The power of government funding at work. Fauci and Collins and Farrar got what they wanted because they control the purse strings.
Between the Markisson and Ridley/Chan books there isn't anything new that's come out in the past 2 years.
All I can say is shame on the bureaucrats and shame, shame, shame on the unethical gutless scientists who suck off the government teet and don't deserve to be considered scientists.
These (expletive deleted) have done more damage to "science" than they can possibly know. Public skepticism of anything related to government scientists will linger for years (decades?) because of their actions. They have earned all the well intentioned contempt that comes their way.
And not just science, but medicine as well. Personally I can’t help but be very skeptical even of the advice of my own physician, because 1) their decisions are based on publications that we now know to be based as much on politics and opinion as on objective, dispassionate science; 2) they did not seem to catch the problems with the public health recommendations that turned out to be very flawed; and 3) how do I know my physician isn’t injecting their own sociopolitical opinions into the advice and treatment I’m given?
The Truth always comes out, especially in today's digital age. This whole episode is depressing. I can sympathize with what they were trying to do, but as you state, they should have kept the political narrative separate from the scientific paper. You either are functioning as a diplomat trying to manage a crisis situation and geopolitical relationships or you are a scientist in search of the truth. Conflict of interests happen in many situations. The key is transparency and acknowledgment that you may have conflict.
Thank you for digging in and doing this work Roger.
This entire article, great, but replace all mentions of Covid with climate and it reads equally true.
What they did on Covid was perfect in climate alarmism 101.
So the Chinese release a shit storm, we will assume by accident, cover it up and let a million people travel fully knowing that Covid was contagious and where suppose to believe our government? How did the BS benefit anyone in the US? But don’t worry we protected science and of course our precious love affair with the Chinese. The worst of it is that no one will ever pay for it. Sounds like all the other stuff that’s covered up by our government. The only people that pay is WE THE PEOPLE.
"After watching the hearing and reading the dueling reports issued by House Democrats and Republicans (PDF),..."
The link shot me to a "Error 404 Content Not found." I was able to find the democrats report, per your reference in the essay, but nothing from republicans.
Thanks, it must have changed. I've now updated it with one that works. Appreciate the eagle eyes!
This is a great piece of work, and I thank you. Reading through the comments, however, it strikes me that no one asked the obvious question.
Covidgate is essentially about a cover-up in which politics over-ruled sound science. That doesn't surprise me; we've all seen how agencies/governments will use "select" science to justify an otherwise questionable or marginal decision. But if "politics" as usual is the culprit here, then why is it perpetuated by a House Democrat report and a House Republican report? Admittedly, I haven't read them, but the phrase "dueling report" isn't suggestive of copasetic harmony. It just strikes me as a sad state of affairs.
A sad state of affairs indeed
I’m still curious about Farrar who seems like a foreign national affecting our USG policy at the highest levels. Does “science” policy have different rules?
Was proximal Origins peer-reviewed? How could the authors have believed that their paper would survive critical review? Is their field of study so corrupt? Will anyone take these men seriously again? Would any journal accept a research paper from any of these scientists who wrote and signed their names to a bogus and misleading research assignment?
Were they playing a joke on us?
"Is their field of study so corrupt?"
Answer: Yes.
No surprise here for anyone who has worked in a federal agency that "procures" "science" via RFPs and whose awards go to those that support prejudged policy positions from radon exposure levels to wetlands assessment.
What agency are you talking about? Asking because most have in house research going on.
I personally saw prejudiced decisions from the EPA, FERC, BUREC, and, indirectly, the Corps of Engineers. The only agency I worked with that was completely objective was the Surface Transportation Board.
This issue parallels the climate debate/hysteria being propagated by our government, Academia, NGO’s and media (the same corrupt players and playbook).
Great write up. Thanks.
All we see here is self protection by twisting the truth. Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins don't want to be held responsible in any way for funding work leading to a pandemic. Kristian Andersen and Robert Garry wanted to stay in the good graces of the government health establishment. Andrew Rambaut and Ron Fouchier were afraid of a potential great government investigation that would impact research on viruses. All four wanted to preserve the right to keep doing what they are doing even if an occasional leak occurs. The whole system would reverberate to tremors if the leak theory expanded. The circumstantial evidence is strong. The disease originated in a unique place where this type of research was active. The mathematical probability of that occurring randomly is very low.
So where does accountability come in?
Don, This is a nice summary
Next up needs to be vaccine efficacy
We already know that is negative, at least over 1yr or more since the last injection, maximum.
The power of government funding at work. Fauci and Collins and Farrar got what they wanted because they control the purse strings.
Between the Markisson and Ridley/Chan books there isn't anything new that's come out in the past 2 years.
All I can say is shame on the bureaucrats and shame, shame, shame on the unethical gutless scientists who suck off the government teet and don't deserve to be considered scientists.
Thank you for summarizing the hearing into a simple discussion using your expertise in how scientific papers are to be published.
Very Frightening.
Will anyone be held accountable for this egregious cover up ?
Will the publisher retract the paper ?
Will the corporate media empire report this disgrace ?
These (expletive deleted) have done more damage to "science" than they can possibly know. Public skepticism of anything related to government scientists will linger for years (decades?) because of their actions. They have earned all the well intentioned contempt that comes their way.
And not just science, but medicine as well. Personally I can’t help but be very skeptical even of the advice of my own physician, because 1) their decisions are based on publications that we now know to be based as much on politics and opinion as on objective, dispassionate science; 2) they did not seem to catch the problems with the public health recommendations that turned out to be very flawed; and 3) how do I know my physician isn’t injecting their own sociopolitical opinions into the advice and treatment I’m given?
The Truth always comes out, especially in today's digital age. This whole episode is depressing. I can sympathize with what they were trying to do, but as you state, they should have kept the political narrative separate from the scientific paper. You either are functioning as a diplomat trying to manage a crisis situation and geopolitical relationships or you are a scientist in search of the truth. Conflict of interests happen in many situations. The key is transparency and acknowledgment that you may have conflict.