El NY Times reconoce que fuímos engañados con la falsa pandemia de COVID-19

[verdinegro]

Angela Merkel ‘covered up report blaming China for Covid’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/ ... lab-covid/

Germany covered up an explosive intelligence report that found a strong probability that the Covid pandemic was caused by a laboratory accident in China.

A joint investigation by two German newspapers alleges that Angela Merkel, the then chancellor, and her successor Olaf Scholz both turned a blind eye to the report, produced by Germany’s foreign intelligence agency, the BND.

According to Süddeutsche Zeitung and Die Zeit, the BND concluded in 2020 that an accident in a laboratory in Wuhan led to the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic.

The report, based on public records, data from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and a German intelligence operation known as “Saaremaa”, found an “80 to 95 per cent” probability that Covid-19 came from Wuhan.

The BND presented the findings to Mrs Merkel, who chose to keep the information “under lock and key”, according to Süddeutsche Zeitung’s report.

The agency later presented the findings to Mr Scholz, when he took over as chancellor in 2021. He ordered a review of the findings but did not share them with the public or members of parliament.

A spokesman for Mrs Merkel declined to comment when approached by Süddeutsche Zeitung. A German government spokesman said it “does not publicly comment on intelligence affairs”.

It comes after the CIA announced in January that a laboratory leak in China was probably the cause of the pandemic rather than natural causes.

However, that review was based on a so-called low confidence assessment, meaning it lacked conclusive intelligence evidence.

A CIA spokesman said at the time: “The CIA assesses with low confidence that a research-related origin of the Covid-19 pandemic is more likely than a natural origin based on the available body of reporting.

“The CIA continues to assess that both research-related and natural origin scenarios of the pandemic remain plausible.”

Vaccine and lockdown protests in Saxony, Germany, in 2022
The pandemic saw opponents to vaccines and lockdowns across the world, including in Saxony, Germany Credit: Sebastian Kahnert/Avalon
There is no consensus on how the virus emerged, and the issue has divided government agencies and experts.

When the lab leak hypothesis was first raised in the early stages of the pandemic, including by Donald Trump then in his first term as president, it was widely dismissed as a conspiracy theory.

Another prominent hypothesis, the “natural theory”, proposed that Covid-19 emerged in bats and was then passed on to humans, without any involvement of scientists or laboratories.

China rejects the claim that the virus was caused by a laboratory leak and says it has taken part in research to track down the true origin. It has also accused the US of politicising the issue.


In early 2021, World Health Organisation-appointed scientists flew to Wuhan to investigate the cause of the pandemic. After 12 days of inspections and analysis, they said the lab leak theory was “extremely unlikely”.

However, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director-general of the WHO, has called for further inquiries into the origin of the virus, and says “all hypotheses remain open”.

[aquisipasanada]

Ahora los chinos y los americanos a pagarnos por daños y perjuicios

[verdinegro]

Los "conspiranoicos" tenían razón. Siempre la tuvieron... Ya no lo puede ocultar ni el NY Times:



We Were Badly Misled About the Event That Changed Our Lives
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/opin ... -leak.html

Since scientists first began playing around with dangerous pathogens in laboratories, the world has experienced four or five pandemics, depending on how you count. One of them, the 1977 Russian flu, was almost certainly sparked by a research mishap. Some Western scientists quickly suspected the odd virus had resided in a lab freezer for a couple of decades, but they kept mostly quiet for fear of ruffling feathers.

Yet in 2020, when people started speculating that a laboratory accident might have been the spark that started the Covid-19 pandemic, they were treated like kooks and cranks. Many public health officials and prominent scientists dismissed the idea as a conspiracy theory, insisting that the virus had emerged from animals in a seafood market in Wuhan, China. And when a nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance lost a grant because it was planning to conduct risky research into bat viruses with the Wuhan Institute of Virology — research that, if conducted with lax safety standards, could have resulted in a dangerous pathogen leaking out into the world — no fewer than 77 Nobel laureates and 31 scientific societies lined up to defend the organization.

So, the Wuhan research was totally safe and the pandemic was definitely caused by natural transmission: It certainly seemed like consensus.

We have since learned, however, that to promote the appearance of consensus, some officials and scientists hid or understated crucial facts, misled at least one reporter, orchestrated campaigns of supposedly independent voices and even compared notes about how to hide their communications in order to keep the public from hearing the whole story. And as for that Wuhan laboratory’s research, the details that have since emerged show that safety precautions may have been terrifyingly lax.

Five years after the onset of the Covid pandemic, it’s tempting to think of all that as ancient history. We learned our lesson about lab safety — and about the need to be straight with the public — and now we can move on to new crises, like measles or the evolving bird flu, right?
Wrong. If anyone needs convincing that the next pandemic is only an accident away, check out a recent paper in Cell, a prestigious scientific journal. Researchers, many of whom work or have worked at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (yes, the same institution), describe taking samples of viruses found in bats (yes, the same animal) and experimenting to see if they could infect human cells and pose a pandemic risk.

Sounds like the kind of research that should be conducted — if at all! — with the very highest safety protocols, as W. Ian Lipkin and Ralph Baric discussed in a recent guest essay. But if you scroll all the way down to Page 19 of the journal article and squint, you learn that the scientists did all this under what they call “BSL-2 plus” conditions, a designation that isn’t standardized and that Baric and Lipkin say is “insufficient for work with potentially dangerous respiratory viruses.” If just one lab worker unwittingly inhaled the virus and got infected, there’s no telling what the impact could be on Wuhan, a city of millions, or beyond it, the world.

You’d think that by now we’d have learned it’s not a good idea to test potential gas leaks by lighting a match. And you’d hope that prestigious scientific journals would have learned not to reward such risky research.

Why haven’t we learned our lesson? Maybe because it’s hard to admit this research is risky now, and to take the requisite steps to keep us safe, without also admitting it was always risky. And that perhaps we were misled on purpose.

Take the case of EcoHealth, that nonprofit organization that many of the scientists leaped to defend. When Wuhan experienced an outbreak of a novel coronavirus related to ones found in bats and researchers soon noticed the pathogen had the same rare genetic feature that the EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan researchers had once proposed inserting into bat coronaviruses, you would think EcoHealth would sound the alarm far and wide. It did not. Were it not for public records requests, leaks and subpoenas, the world might never have learned about the troubling similarities between what could easily have been going on inside the lab and what was spreading through the city.

Or take the real story behind two very influential publications that quite early in the pandemic cast the lab leak theory as baseless.
Know someone who would want to read this? Share the column.

The first was a March 2020 paper in the journal Nature Medicine, which was written by five prominent scientists, and which declared that no “laboratory-based scenario” for the pandemic virus was plausible. But we later learned through congressional subpoenas of their Slack conversations that while the scientists publicly said the scenario was implausible, privately, many of its authors considered the scenario to be not just plausible but likely. One of the authors of that paper, the evolutionary biologist Kristian Andersen, wrote in the Slack messages, “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.”
Spooked, the co-authors reached out for advice to Jeremy Farrar, now the chief scientist at the World Health Organization. In his own book, Farrar reveals he acquired a burner phone and arranged meetings for them with high-ranking officials, including Francis Collins, then the director of the National Institutes of Health, and Anthony Fauci. Documents obtained through public records requests by the nonprofit U.S. Right to Know show that the scientists ultimately decided to move ahead with a paper on the topic.

Operating behind the scenes, Farrar reviewed their draft and suggested to the authors that they rule out the lab leak even more directly. They complied. Andersen later testified to Congress that he had simply become convinced that a lab leak, while theoretically possible, was not plausible. Later chat logs obtained by Congress show the paper’s lead authors discussing how to mislead Donald G. McNeil Jr., who was reporting on the pandemic’s origin for The Times, so as to throw him off track about the plausibility of a lab leak.

The second influential publication to dismiss the possibility of a lab leak was a letter published in early 2020 in The Lancet. The letter, which described the idea as a conspiracy theory, appeared to be the work of a group of independent scientists. It was anything but. Thanks to public document requests by U.S. Right to Know, the public later learned that behind the scenes, Peter Daszak, EcoHealth’s president, had drafted and circulated the letter, while strategizing on how to hide his tracks and telling the signatories that it “will not be identifiable as coming from any one organization or person.” The Lancet later published an addendum disclosing Daszak’s conflict of interest as a collaborator of the Wuhan lab, but the journal did not retract the letter.
And they had assistance. Thanks to more public records requests and congressional subpoenas, the public learned that David Morens, a senior scientific adviser to Fauci at N.I.H., wrote to Daszak that he had learned how to make “emails disappear,” especially emails about pandemic origins. “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.

It’s not hard to imagine how the attempt to squelch legitimate debate may have started. Some of the loudest proponents of the lab leak theory weren’t just earnestly making inquiries, they were acting in terrible faith, using the debate over pandemic origins to attack legitimate, beneficial science, to inflame public opinion, to get attention. For scientists and public health officials, circling the wagons and vilifying anyone who dared to dissent might have seemed like a reasonable defense strategy.

That’s also why it might be tempting for those officials, or the organizations they represent, to avoid looking too closely at mistakes they made, at the ways that, while trying to do such a hard job, they may have withheld relevant information and even misled the public. Such self-scrutiny is especially uncomfortable now, as an unvaccinated child has died of measles and anti-vaccine nonsense is being pumped out by the top of the federal government. But a clumsy, misguided effort like this didn’t just fail, it backfired. These half-truths and strategic deceptions made it easier for people with the worst motives to appear trustworthy while discrediting important institutions where many earnestly labor in the public interest.

After a few dogged journalists, a small nonprofit pursuing Freedom of Information requests and an independent group of researchers brought these issues to light, followed by a congressional investigation, the Biden administration finally banned EcoHealth from all federal grants for five years.
That’s a start. The C.I.A. recently updated its assessment of how the Covid pandemic began, judging a lab leak to be the likely origin, albeit with low confidence. The Department of Energy, which runs sophisticated labs, and the F.B.I. had already come to that conclusion in 2023. But there are certainly more questions for governments and researchers across the world to answer. Why did it take until now for the German public to learn that way back in 2020, their Federal Intelligence Service endorsed a lab leak origin with 80 to 95 percent probability? What else is still being kept from us about the pandemic that half a decade ago changed all of our lives?

To this day, there is no strong scientific evidence ruling out a lab leak or proving that the virus arose from human-animal contact in that seafood market. The few papers cited for market origin were written by a small, overlapping group of authors, including those who didn’t tell the public how serious their doubts had been.

Only an honest conversation will lead us forward. Like any field with the potential to inflict harm on a global scale, research with dangerous, potentially super-transmissible pathogens cannot be left to self-regulation or lax and easily dodged rules, as is the case now. The goal should be an international treaty guiding biosafety, but we don’t have to be frozen in place until one appears. Leading journals could refuse to publish research that doesn’t conform to safety standards, the way they already reject research that doesn’t conform to ethical standards. Funders — whether universities or private corporations or public agencies — can favor studies that use research methods like harmless pseudoviruses or computer simulations. These steps alone would help disincentivize such dangerous research, here or in China. If some risky research is truly irreplaceable, it should be held to the highest safety conditions, and conducted far away from cities.

We may not know exactly how the Covid pandemic started, but if research activities were involved, that would mean two out of the last four or five pandemics were caused by our own scientific mishaps. Let’s not make a third.

[verdinegro]

Mucha gente tiene que ir presa... No se puede permitir que la falsimedia tenga poder de narrativa nuevamente.

[aquisipasanada]

Es hora de que Pharma pague por daños y perjuicios a todo el mundo. La razón porque lo del laboratorio fue censurado completamente es simple, evitar pagar trillones de dólares en daños y perjuicios no sólo a las familiares de las victimas sino a todas las víctimas económicas de la pandemia, incluidas los dueños de las miles de pequeñas empresas que quebraron. Y esto sin contar con el shock inflacionario que se generó a nivel mundial por los problemas de logística global cuando se recomenzaron la producción de manufactura.

Son trillones de dólares, deben pagar.

Una forma de pagar apropiada sería medicina gratis para todo el mundo, por siempre.

[verdinegro]

Sacan esto ahora que la gente tiene la mente ocupada en otras cosas.



A Labour minister was last night at the centre of an explosive row over claims he rubbished high-level intelligence pointing to Covid's origins in a Chinese laboratory.

The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a former spy chief submitted a secret dossier to No 10 early in the pandemic reporting that the virus had originated with a leak from a Wuhan facility.

But Lord Vallance, the science minister who was the Government's chief scientific adviser at the time, is accused of ignoring the report, possibly for fear of offending the Chinese or jeopardising research funding.

A classified dossier compiled by Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, was passed to then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson at the start of the outbreak in March 2020 which stated: 'It is now beyond reasonable doubt that Covid-19 was engineered in the Wuhan Institute of Virology'.

The file, marked 'Secret – Recipient's Eyes Only' argued that Beijing was pushing a fake narrative that the virus had originated in an animal market. The dossier, compiled by a group of eminent academics and intelligence experts and seen by The Mail on Sunday, said China even retrospectively manipulated viral samples to give credence to the deception.

But the argument is said to have been dismissed by Patrick Vallance, who was a familiar face during the pandemic as he flanked Mr Johnson at No 10 news conferences.

In today's MoS, Sir Richard writes of his dossier: 'Boris himself was persuaded by its argument. But the weight of the Government's scientific establishment, already signed up to the Chinese narrative, prevailed.'

Last night, a source close to Mr Johnson pointed the finger at Lord Vallance for rubbishing the lab-leak theory in order to appease the Chinese government. The source said: 'Boris repeatedly asked the [intelligence] agencies to do more work on the origins of Covid. It struck him as simply too much of a coincidence that a mutant Covid virus appeared in a city that just happened to possess one of the only labs in the world that engineered mutant Covid viruses.



'He was very struck by the refusal of the scientists, especially Patrick Vallance, even to contemplate this possibility. He asked again after getting the Dearlove briefing and again the agencies came back with the same answer and specifically rubbished Dearlove. Looking back, he now wonders why the scientists and the agencies were so emphatic.'

The source said the former Prime Minister is concerned that the public were deliberately misled by the scientific and intelligence community to protect research funding from Beijing and to avoid angering the Chinese regime.

Lord Vallance is facing increasing scrutiny over his role in suppressing the lab leak theory. He took part in a multinational teleconference in February 2020, after which it is alleged scientists began dismissing the Chinese lab-leak hypothesis as implausible.

Last week, former minister Steve Baker said Lord Vallance 'should be fully transparent about what he knew and why he chose to be among those who avoided inconvenient questions'.

The source said: 'Boris thinks it is possible that the scientists disliked the lab leak theory because they are wary about public hostility to science. They didn't want stories about Frankenstein viruses that would mean a threat to research funding. He also thinks they were nervous of causing offence to their international partners.

'Clearly the lab-leak theory was deeply embarrassing and painful to China. It meant that the incompetence of someone in Wuhan had caused millions of deaths and $16 trillion of damage worldwide.

'But they really didn't want to say this. Beijing is ruthless in punishing anyone who says anything hostile or disrespectful to China. The scientists were clearly nervous about triggering cuts to the huge Chinese investments in academic research of all kinds.'

The Mail on Sunday last week revealed that a senior virologist had claimed British and American intelligence agencies orchestrated a clandestine campaign to shut down concerns of a lab leak.

Robert Redfield, who was director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention when the pandemic erupted, said he was '100 per cent' convinced that Covid-19 was the result of scientists becoming infected while carrying out high-risk experiments to boost the potency of bat viruses.

In April 2020, this newspaper revealed that the Government's secret Cobra committee had been told that Covid had leaked from a laboratory, only for it to then be dismissed as a 'conspiracy theory'.

It was reported last week that in 2020, Germany's foreign intelligence service put the likelihood that the virus was accidentally released from the Wuhan Institute of Virology at 80 to 95 per cent.

The Die Zeit and Sueddeutscher Zeitung newspapers said an unpublished report from Germany's spying agency BND had indications that numerous violations of safety regulations had occurred at the lab.

The source close to Mr Johnson said he suspected the scientists were also concerned about offending Anthony Fauci, the director of America's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from 1984 to 2022, which funded bat virus research in Wuhan.

The source said: 'The truth is that the Covid-19 virus was not just Chinese but also partly American. It was a Chimerican chimera. So Vallance and the others clung to the wet market/bat/pangolin theory long after it had begun to look ridiculous.

'They did so because they were instinctively kow-towing to China and sensitive to anti-science feeling in the wider public.

'The agencies didn't really have any good sources for their work other than the scientists who had an interest in this. Which is absurd when you consider that we must properly understand the origins of Covid to prevent another outbreak.'

The source concluded that it was 'ridiculous' that the ongoing UK public inquiry into the pandemic was not studying its origins.

Lord Vallance declined to comment last night, and a government spokesman said: 'The UK continues to support the World Health Organisation in its ongoing expert study of the origins of Covid-19 and seeks a robust, transparent, and science-led review.'

[verdinegro]

[QueChembo]

Otro tema libre de alephs, rodolfos, etc.

[matadora]

Que se jodan todos los que se burlaron y acusaron de conspiranoicos a los que nos opusimos a semejante atrocidad.

[Caminante]

Y ese “strong probability” es como aquella de “very low confidence”?

Ya empezó la morisón?, o ya salió un tercer ojo en la cara? O esperamos un poco más?

[Axio]

El NY Times reconoce que fuímos engañados con la falsa pandemia de COVID-19

"reconoce"

es decir que el NY times también va a llevar planazos por haber sido cómplice de la plandemia.

por cierto bastante tarde llega este reconocimiento, 5 años después...... lo que demuestra total falta de ética y profesionalismo de este periódico.

[Lander]

Y eso en que en cambia lo del Covid especificamente?


Sabiendo el origen ,como cambia las medidas que se tomaron ? Si fueron equivocadas o acertadas,fue por el origen?

La vacuna ya no sirve ?

[Lander]

Ademas el titulo ,como es costumbre del forista,tendencioso y falso.

Falsa Pandemia?

Este cabron es supremamente peligroso.

[aquisipasanada]

Y eso en que en cambia lo del Covid especificamente?


Sabiendo el origen ,como cambia las medidas que se tomaron ? Si fueron equivocadas o acertadas,fue por el origen?

La vacuna ya no sirve ?

No cambia nada de eso pero abre la puerta a demanda civil y penal por negligencia a los culpables. Lo cual puede resultar en retribución monetaria $Trillonaria a todos los afectados no solo por las muertes sino por el efecto de las cuarentenas forzadas sobre la quiebra de miles de empresas pequeñas y medianas en todo el mundo.

Eso...

[Caminante]

Ademas el titulo ,como es costumbre del forista,tendencioso y falso.

Falsa Pandemia?

Este cabron es supremamente peligroso.

No pasaron del titulo.

However, that review was based on a so-called low confidence assessment, meaning it lacked conclusive intelligence evidence.

A CIA spokesman said at the time: “The CIA assesses with low confidence that a research-related origin of the Covid-19 pandemic is more likely than a natural origin based on the available body of reporting.

Es todo.

[Axio]

Ademas el titulo ,como es costumbre del forista,tendencioso y falso.

Falsa Pandemia?

Este cabron es supremamente peligroso.

la plandemia ha sido el mayor acto de ingeniería social en cuanto a decretar el ostracismo político/económico/etc. en todo el planeta.

miles quedaron arruinados y desplazados, otros miles hasta perdieron la vida debido a las implicaciones de lo primero.

lo cual hace sumamente peligroso a organismos como la OMS y al cabrón que la dirige......

[verdinegro]

Y eso en que en cambia lo del Covid especificamente?


Sabiendo el origen ,como cambia las medidas que se tomaron ? Si fueron equivocadas o acertadas,fue por el origen?

La vacuna ya no sirve ?

Todas las medidas fueron equivocadas y la fulana "vacuna" no era vacuna nada.

[InkeyZero]

... It certainly seemed like consensus.

We have since learned, however, that to promote the appearance of consensus, some officials and scientists hid or understated crucial facts, misled at least one reporter, orchestrated campaigns of supposedly independent voices and even compared notes about how to hide their communications in order to keep the public from hearing the whole story.

Consenso. Wow!

tHe ScIeNcE iS sEtTlEd!

[Caminante]

Claro, sobretodo con “low confidence”.

La ciencia no se aprende en la iglesia, ni orando

[Lander]

Claro, sobretodo con “low confidence”.

La ciencia no se aprende en la iglesia, ni orando

Como te atreves a dudar del poder de la oracion y la logica de creer en amigitos invisibles.

Vemos como son de efectivas ambas todos los dias.