Hi David429:
Why is it relevant what “tone” Chris takes when he discusses the evidence for or against different viewpoints. It is the evidence that he is examining that matters…and that is the only thing that should matter to you.
For myself, I could care less what tone Chris uses: sarcastic, dismissive, amused or mono. I appreciate his pursuit of facts. Only facts matter.
Bruce
(BTW, Chris’s last name is spelled “Martenson”)
I agree with Dr. Bruce. Did you register today for the express purpose of posting your criticism and nothing else?
Personally, I love Dr. Chris’ videos and wouldn’t miss one. Not only does he present intelligent research and analysis, but he is a very engaging speaker who is able to explain complex concepts in an understandable way, for those of us who are not scientists.
I imagine Dr. Chris’ ‘tone’ may express incredulity at the fact that various virologists and others are making statements that they should know are not supported by current evidence, but the general public does not.
I am not sure if this has already been posted somewhere. It further highlights the scientific credibility issues we are discussing at PP.
I thought this part rather rich, given Chris’s recent dissection and discrediting of a Stanford published paper:
“Stanford researchers uncover patterns in how scientists lie about their data,” wrote Stanford News, back in late 2015. The story went on to report how a couple of researchers “cracked the writing patterns of scientists who attempt to pass along falsified data,” a finding that gave the science world a tool to “identify falsified research before it is published.” The discovery of the pattern is one thing; the fact that the pattern had to be pursued in the first place is entirely another thing. It says, not so subtly, that falsified scientific data is so prevalent that a tool to identify — and slow the creep of — the false data was actually an in-demand item.I also liked the part about only being human. I think that many scientists and physicians, like many who enter politics, often start out with the best of intentions of wanting to 'do good'. After a while, the realization sets in that there are games to be played and agendas to be followed, and if you do not follow them, your career, and all that goes with that, stagnates & languishes. Your success or lack thereof starts to depend on whether or not you will be a game player. I surmise for many there are tentative, incremental steps taken over the critical line in the sand that represents ethics and integrity. Why not - everyone else is doing it! It is easy to see happen given that we live in a society that has evolved to embrace monetary worth as the ultimate measure of success and social standing. Until that core value changes, and until scientific research is freed from the biased, vested interests of big pharma, big oil, big ag, and all the other 'big' entities that exist within the crony capitalist system, nothing will change. This is why it is so important to research, review and find the data to expose the nefariousness; and to speak up and speak out. The desperate changes we need to see will not come otherwise. As the saying goes, 'for evil to flourish, it only requires good men to do nothing.' Doing nothing got us into this mess. It sure as heck is not going to get us out of it! Jan
In regards to Dr. Bright’s dismissive views on HCQ the congressman asked something to the effect why is there such a high concern of possible cardiac arrhythmias when those arrhythmias aren’t so important if the heart isn’t beating? This whistleblower has not supplied any type of substantive information which is helpful in any way. All he is saying is that the government’s initial response should have been better…which we all know. He dismissed all the info on HCQ as being ALL anecdotal. He dismissed all the frontline physicians use of HCQ. He has not provided any info supporting the benefits of Remdesivir other than general comments saying it has been shown to be effective…but not defining what “effective” means. He has used the word anecdotal over and over in when talking about HCQ. He cited the VA study showing the dangers of HCQ.
Still listening, but I’m not sure how much more of this I can take. I had a delicious lunch consisting of avocados, tomatoes, an orange, and a grapefruit. I am trying to avoid vomiting up all of that great nutrition.
There are so many assholes in Washington who think all this is some sort of game. Sick.
ROFLMAO
Quite clearly another water carrier for the deep state. What is the real agenda? That is the question.
There is no way I could have listened at all… I can’t even allow the TV to linger on CNN while I am flipping channels. I am that disgusted with the alternative reality in which these people live.
From WA state: I discovered today that Gov. Inslee’s daughter-in-law is on the board of B&MG Foundation.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/emily-inslee-7a00a231
In the US Supreme Court case Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, 562 U.S. 223 (2011), the USSC closed the window on any manufacturer liability what so ever in relation to CDC mandated vaccines. Essentially the USSC’s rationale was that vaccines are ‘unavoidably unsafe’ and therefore Congress’ intent was to disallow for strict product liability. You can read the USSC decision here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf
You can read the 1986 Childhood Vaccine Injury Act here:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/5546
Here’s a little snippet from the NCVIA:
“Part B: Additional Remedies - Sets forth procedures under which the person who filed a petition for compensation under the program may elect to file a civil action for damages.
Provides that no vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death: (1) resulting from unavoidable side effects; or (2) solely due to the manufacturer’s failure to provide direct warnings. Provides that a manufacturer may be held liable where: (1) such manufacturer engaged in the fraudulent or intentional withholding of information; or (2) such manufacturer failed to exercise due care. Permits punitive damages in such civil actions under certain circumstances.”
Here’s a link to the compensation data:
https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/vaccine-compensation/data/data-statistics-report.pdf
According to this government website, the Vaccine Compensation Program has paid out $4.3 billion dollars to injured claimants as of December 31, 2018. Many, many claims are denied, and applications only represent a small fraction of legitimate claims because very few people are aware this program exists.
Parents are not informed about this program, should a child suffer an adverse reaction after receiving a vaccine. Moreover, under the NCVIA, the vaccine adverse reporting system (VAERS) does not require that a vaccine adverse event be reported, many doctors do not know there is a place such as VAERS to report to, and doctors are financially dis-incentivized to report vaccine adverse events because if they do, they lose payment from BCBS in the “Combo 10” program that pays pediatricians about $400 per patient if 60-70% of that doctor’s patient population complies with the CDC mandated vaccine schedule.
What did Charlie Munger say? Show me the incentive and I’ll show the outcome?
Take a look at https://epidemicanswers.org/about-the-epidemic/the-startling-statistics/
Some of the stats are linked to sources. Others can be traced down. The US has about 400+ epidemics going on right now, including but not limited to: seizure disorders, asthma, eczema, allergies, etc.
Lastly, this link from the CDC explains how vaccines are tested for safety, and no, they don’t use a double blind placebo study. They test against other vaccines, or use a saline solution with an adjuvent, like aluminum.
Here’s the link: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/basics/test-approve.html
I’m with you. Not. Interested. In. A. Vaccine.
Hi Chris,
thank you very much for your brilliant insights.
I have been wondering what happened with the many suddenly appearing lung sick in April last year or so in America. They were reported to be sick from ==>vaping <==. Those news disappeared rather suddenly later.
Can there be a connection to the sudden closing of a lab in America last year?
NYT reported on 08/05/19.
Google:
The New York Times
Deadly Germ Research Is Shut Down at Army Lab Over Safety Concerns
https:// www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/health/germs-fort-detrick-biohazard.html?fbclid=IwAR1WuVpnaYno2Uch5BGkLsXTUl83sL81UTXWj1uhMJ4J_tgFpzQ64SzoEPA God bless you! AlexMe Neither!!! When I was watching Comey express the 17 false verifications as sloppy(!), I had to turn the page. Elites always fall back on incompetence!
Don’t Bogart that… oh nevermind.
The headline bears some resemblance to the article. Once again they blame it on bats, with no evidence. They exonerate batwoman, they are circling the wagons. They deny any ability to manipulate a virus, ignoring their own research.
But hey they do say we should continue to investigate, That’s why they keep blaming the internet for all the “conspiracy theories” Of course this complete and utter non scientific bullshit lives up to the standards of Google, Facebook, Twitter and lame stream media.
No one but no one in the media asks a fucking question.
Is this a great totalitarian state or what?
This is from CIDCRAP er I mean CIDRAP
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/05/scientists-exactly-zero-evidence-covid-19-came-lab
No surprise that the vaccine funded scientists fight so hard against the very idea that this virus could’ve been created or manipulated in a lab. There is a huge industry of taxpayer funded grants that go to scientists who repeat in vivo experiments endlessly and needlessly, creating massive suffering of lab animals all for the sake of a paycheck.
These ‘scientists’ have skin in the game. And their kneejerk response is that anyone not towing the big pharma line is a ‘conspiracy theorist’, a term coined by the CIA to control response to the Warren Report on the Kennedy assasination.
Maybe it is time to gather a group of virologists, microbiologists etc especially those opposed to GOF and are retired and not depending on big pharma or the government for money, to do an in depth EVENT 202 to discuss the pandemic caused by virus x. It could be set up online on a video platform.
Some of your best work to date Chris (and I’ve been following you for quite some time) The criminal trial lawyer in me brings me to the same logic you put forward - there is no clear or convincing evidence this came from nature. In fact as you aptly point out there are a number of pieces of “circumstantial” evidence that point to this coming from a lab. Just like the word “conspiracy” is abused and mis-used the term “circumstantial evidence” has a very curious and special place in American courtrooms. Jurors receive jury instructions read to them and provided to them before they go to deliberate. One very significant general jury instruction tells them that “circumstantial evidence” carries the SAME amount of weight as direct or any other kind of evidence This is so because, like many of the things unfolding before us - people and institutions and businesses and governments often go to great lengths to hide things and thus often time, the only evidence however strong - is circumstantial. It’s not as if you’re ever going to get the CIA , Monsanto or a host of other suspects to come flat out and say “ ok you got us, we admit we did it” That’s just how human beings often work and we all know it . Keep up the good fight Adam and Chris
Above I thought it might just be time to gather up some experts who don’t necessarily agree with the deep pharma party line. Maybe a la a Rowe summit on SC2
I will get my own ball rolling with Sona Pekova from the Czech Republic. You know the place that got its R0 below 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLwPHQvg5aY
https://londonlovesbusiness.com/scientist-says-covid-19-is-man-made-and-was-released-from-wuhan-lab/
I am not a scientist, but understand enough to know that you raise some very important, significant questions regarding the origin of Covid-19.
It is disappointing that the virologist community does not even attempt to supply evidence to prove how the cleavage site occurred in nature. Basucally, this is what they are saying, is it not? So to the simple minded female in the group, please explain how it is NOT possible the virus mutation occurred in a lab when Daszak’s experimental aims noted on The Bombshell episode indicate the Wuhan lab project’s description explicitely refers to experiments that would enhance the ability of bat coronaviruses to infect human and animal cells using genetic engineering.
CCV
PP Friends:
I think most of us are acquainted with Occam’s Razor: if two explanations of an observation both fit the facts, choose the explanation that makes the fewest assumptions. With that in mind, I think there are at least two questions of interest regarding the release of SARS-CoV-2.
First: was the virus released from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), or was it released somewhere else (including from nature)?
Second: if the virus was released from the WIV, was it likely altered in the WIV lab or can its properties be accounted for by natural mutation/evolution?
In this post, I would like to present a summary of the 30 points of evidence that I have thus far assembled regarding the first question. This evidence supports the idea that the virus was released from the WIV.
For right now, please assume that I have data/facts/sources to support each point of evidence. I could have included those sources here, but that would make this post even longer than it is going to be, and I don’t mean this post to take the place of a scientific paper.
Obviously, if you have data or facts that contradict any of these points, I would like to know them. Please, no speculations or guesses: “just the facts, mam” . 
If you have other points supporting the idea that the virus was released from the WIV, points that I may have missed, I would also like to hear those.
So, if you have the time and are interested, please look through these points of evidence, and do three things:
- let me know if you have facts that contradict my points of evidence
- let me know if you think there are points of evidence I have missed (and what your sources are for that evidence)
- please rate each point of evidence as to its “strength” as you personally view the evidence. I would like to suggest three different qualitative levels of strength of evidence: a) “worth mentioning”, b) “positive” and c) “strong”. You can use either these words the letters (a, b or c) in your response.
Obviously, c) is the strongest, b) is next and a) is the least strong evidence. If you think a particular point has no value as evidence, please give it a zero (0) rating.
I am considering writing a scientific paper based on this evidence, using what is called Bayesian likelihood analysis. Bayesian analysis can be used in many ways, but in this case it would be as a more rigorous approach to Occam’s Razor.
Your responses and comments will help me decide if writing a paper is worth pursuing. (It would be a ton of work.) I think many of the people here at PP have good “scientific” minds, even if you may not have been formally trained in science. So I really welcome your input and hope you will give it. You can reply to me either with a Comment or via the PM feature.
So, after that tediously-long-but-as-short-as-I-could-make-it introduction, here are the 30 points of evidence that I have compiled. - The epidemic started in Wuhan, China
- Wuhan is the site of China’s only BSL-4 laboratory
- The WIV or portions of it were isolated physically for over a week in mid-October as shown by lack of cell phone activity in that area
- The epicenter of the viral outbreak in Wuhan in late 2019 was only a few hundred yards from the WIV
- Scientists collected, studied and altered viruses, including SARS bat coronaviruses, at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV)
- Yunnan, where the bat coronaviruses were collected, is over 1000 miles from Wuhan
- Bat samples were (at least sometimes) collected without proper personal protective equipment (PPE) even after a researcher was bitten by a bat, and other researchers were urinated on by bats
- Bats were hibernating in the winter when the outbreak started
- The WIV conducted research to alter SARS-CoV-1
- The WIV produced new viruses from SARS-CoV-1 that displayed gain of function.
- Some of the bat coronaviruses collected by the WIV are nearly identical (over 96% homology) with SARS-CoV-2
- The WIV injected live piglets with bat coronaviruses as recently as July 2019. Such animals could be the vector by which SARS-CoV-2 emerged from that laboratory.
- The Director of the WIV was accused by a WIV researcher of selling infected lab animals to vendors. The accuser included her picture and ID with the accusation.
- The WIV tested its disinfection procedures using bat coronaviruses
- Scientists at the WIV created new bat coronaviruses that could infect human cells starting from coronaviruses that could not infect human cells
- In November, 2019, the WIV published a paper on MERS-CoV, a close descendant of SARS-CoV-1
- At the time of the SARS-CoV-2 spillover event, the WIV was looking for personnel to research bat coronaviruses, including the “cross-species infection mechanism”
- Three different spillover mechanisms (release of a virus from a lab) are possible and evidence from bio-lab accidents elsewhere in the world exists to support all three possibilities, including evidence of such events in China.
- Specifically, the SARS-CoV-1 virus has already twice escaped from a lab in Beijing
- The WIV facility was built in partnership with France. However, Technip, the French company that was supposed to certify that the building complied with safety standards, refused to certify it after pulling out of the project in 2015.
- In 2018 and again in 2019 the WIV was cited by outside scientific experts for safety concerns
- Following the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology ordered new biosafety rules, especially for viruses, citing the need to “fix chronic management loopholes at virus labs”
- China arrested a top academician in January 2020 for illegally selling lab animals and “experimental milk”. (This particular individual was not from the WIV.)
- The actions of Wuhan’s civic leaders fit with a cover up of a lab release rather a natural outbreak. These actions include: censoring medical officials, ordering local labs to destroy samples of the virus, insisting on no human-to-human transmission, holding a 40,000 family banquet in spite of the clear risk, and withholding the SARS-CoV-2 genome until Beijing got involved.
- Beijing (shorthand for the CCP) launched the largest national quarantine in history once containment failed
- The CCP prevented the unauthorized publishing of any academic material related to SARS-CoV-2
- The CCP allowed a Party spokesman to accuse the United States Army of intentionally bringing SARS-CoV-2 to Wuhan and is still making such accusations
- Chinese social media claims that Dr. Huang Yanling, a former researcher at WIV, is Patient Zero. WIV claims that she is in good health and working elsewhere in China.
- These claims could easily be refuted by Dr. Huang’s public appearance, but that has not happened. She has not appeared.
- The CCP has thus far refused all calls for an international investigation (including by the WHO) of the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 and the possible role of the WIV in the outbreak, in spite of claiming when the WIV was founded that it would be a “World Health Organization “reference laboratory” linked to similar laboratories around the world.”
OK, thanks very much for your help.
Bruce