Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Pete Ross's avatar

Speaking of, Drosten was also instrumental in generating the 2009 faux swinie flu scare, still widely regarded as just another W.HO. hoax -

1) Euro Surveill

. 2009 Sep 10;14(36)

Detection of influenza A(H1N1)v virus by real-time RT-PCR

M Panning 1, M Eickmann, O Landt, M Monazahian, S Olschläger, S Baumgarte, U Reischl, J J Wenzel, H H Niller, S Günther, B Hollmann, D Huzly, J F Drexler, A Helmer, S Becker, B Matz, Am Eis-Hübinger, C Drosten

2) The invention of the swine-flu pandemic - PMC

National Institutes of Health (NIH) (.gov)

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › articles › PMC7087555

by U Keil · 2011 · Cited by 38 — The A/H1N1 vaccination campaign was stopped abruptly when it was realized that the virus produced only a mild disease, while the vaccine produced a number of ...

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7087555/

Expand full comment
Robert Kogon's avatar

Thanks for that! I think your first point is very important. It's entirely possible that SARS-CoV-2 really is/was something - a naturally-occurring or engineered virus or infectious clone - whereas COVID-19 is not, since it does not designate any clinically-distinct syndrome. We would never call, say, polio polio if it was clinically nothing in particular or anything under the sun that may or may not arise from causative agent X.

Believe it or not, Ulf Dittmer, Drosten's German colleague in Wuhan to whom I alluded in my thread, i.e. the German co-director of the German-Chinese virology partnership, said precisely this in an interview in Feb 2020. He said, there is nothing clinically distinct about a C19 or "coronavirus" infection, that there are "no specific symptoms". The interview is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSagwGMHV8s.

But this does not mean that there was nothing new at all that was added, perhaps only fleetingly, to the "viral swarm". So, I'd say zoonosis versus lab-LEAK is absolutely a false dichotomy, because even on the assumption that there was indeed something new, there is still a third option: namely, deliberate lab release. This is the option that apparently no one wants to talk about, even among Covid "dissidents", or maybe that the algorithm on a certain supposedly social media platform will not allow us to talk about. Of course, there is also the option outside the scope of the aforesaid assumption: namely, Jonathan Engler's, so to say, null hypothesis, i.e. that there was nothing - and they still managed to fool people into testing for it!

I agree: this is absolutely a discussion which is crucial to be having with all the options acknowledged and in play. We need to find some platform on which to have it, maybe preferably viva voce. As much as I detest "X", might be interesting to try a Twitter Space for that. The algorithm cannot suppress live speech!

Thanks too for the proposed matrix. Will need to think more about that. Not sure I understand the two zoonoses, since zoonosis means a leap from animals to humans. Could well occur under laboratory conditions I suppose, which I gather is what you're referring to in the second column, but, in any case, the origin is an animal origin. You might not know, but Drosten actually developed another theory of the original "leap" from animals to humans that didn't involved the wet market. Quite a horrible theory. He said it could have happened when live animals are having their skins pulled off for the fur trade and are spitting out aerosols in the process. See the interview here: https://www.republik.ch/2021/06/05/herr-drosten-woher-kam-dieses-virus. But presumably this sort of thing does not go on in Wuhan. So then why did it "start" in Wuhan?

Expand full comment
19 more comments...

No posts