ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com
Something strange is going on at the New York Times, in that the paper all of a sudden seems keen on digging hard into the truth about the origins about Covid-19. In fact, as of last week, CNN
appears to be doing the same.
"rogue" Chinese virologist, Dr. Li-Meng Yan,
For those who missed it,
here is our post breaking down Dr. Yan's various allegations which twitter saw fit to immediately censor instead of allowing a healthy debate to emerge.
Just remember that Dr Yan is a f*cking eye doctor , a Chinese
ophthalmologist who got her PhD in eye doctoring. And since when studying for eye doctoring gave her so much knowledge in virus?
en.wikipedia.org
As of early October, a
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) project called
Rapid Reviews: Covid-19 (RR:C19), which seeks out preprint papers and reviews them in an attempt to "prevent the dissemination of false or misleading scientific news"
[31] although it is "not traditional peer review"
[32] has issued four evaluations of Yan's preprint. All four reviewers rated the preprint as "Misleading" on the project's "Strength of Evidence Scale," the lowest-strength rating which is accompanied by the statement "serious flaws and errors in the methods and data render the study conclusions misinformative. The results and conclusions of the ideal study are at least as likely to conclude the opposite of its results and conclusions than agree. Decision-makers should not consider this evidence in any decision."'
[33][34][35][36]
Reviewers for the MIT
Rapid Reviews: Covid-19 project who analyzed Yan's study issued the following statement jointly:
Given the far-reaching implications of the "Yan Report," RR:C19 sought out peer reviews from world-renowned experts in virology,
molecular biology,
structural biology,
computational biology, vaccine development, and medicine. Collectively, reviewers have debunked the authors' claims that: ⑴ bat coronaviruses ZC45 or ZXC21 were used as a background strain to engineer SARS-CoV-2, ⑵ the presence of restriction sites flanking the RBD suggest prior screening for a virus targeting the human
ACE2 receptor, and ⑶ the
furin-like cleavage site is unnatural and provides evidence of engineering. In all three cases, the reviewers provide counter-arguments based on peer-reviewed literature and long-established foundational knowledge that directly refute the claims put forth by Yan
et al. There was a general consensus that the study's claims were better explained by potential political motivations rather than scientific integrity. The peer reviewers arrived at these common opinions independently, further strengthening the credibility of the peer reviews.
[5]
According to
Newsweek, several experts in evolutionary biology and infectious disease, including
Jonathan Eisen and
Carl Bergstrom, said the paper did not include new information, contained multiple unsubstantiated claims and had a weak scientific case.
[25] Columbia University virologist
Angela Rasmussen said the paper was "basically all circumstantial and some of it is entirely fictional".
[24] For example the paper asserts that SARS-CoV-2 has a "unique" furin cleavage site in its protein structure "completely absent in this particular class of coronaviruses found in nature"; however Rasmussen says that many coronaviruses, including the
2012 MERS coronavirus, have these sites and that hence "This proves exactly nothing."
[1][8] Andrew Preston, a biologist at the
University of Bath, said the “preprint report cannot be given any credibility in its current form”.
[11]
And suddenly flogged to the world as a f*cking virologist in a dog and pony show backed by NED.
Yan’s trajectory was carefully crafted by Guo Wengui, a fugitive Chinese billionaire, and Steve Bannon, a former adviser to Trump.
Read more at:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...ofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
Yan is destined to be a dancer under lamp post.
www.nbcnews.com
