All things CoronaVirus

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer- ... t-covid-19

Some pretty darn serious side effects!
Death...

But hey, the troll gave it a +1 so....

[Typical Lax Dad]

Important podcast (sans politics) from Bret Weinstein, which includes the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology.

Many of you here won't like what you hear, unfortunately. IMO, it's "truth and reality" re the current state of Covid-19.

Hopefully the podcast is not removed from the youtube platform...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY

There it is... Weinstein canceled/censored (or whatever term you prefer) by Youtube platform for "violating community guidelines" whatever THAT means. Just what is there to fear from people searching for truth/reality, and trying to help? Luckily, another less politically corrupted platform has picked up where Youtube left off...

Latest tweets by Dr. Robert Malone (Youtube typo incorrectly spelled his name as "Moore") inventor of mRNA technology:

https://twitter.com/rwmalonemd?lang=en

Since when? Simple search found Weinstein and Dark Horse podcast just fine.

Ahhh, that specific video was taken down...perhaps because it was promoting a drug to be taken for usage that's not approved by the FDA? That's indeed against the site rules.

A drug FDA approved long ago, now found to have anti-viral capabilities when properly administered against Covid-19 but suppressed by the medical establishment institutions pushing Remdesevir. Something a Covid-suffering person doesn't have access to until they're practically dead.

I understand your view and argument, just was responding to why it was in violation.

On the merits, the drug has side effects, has not actually been adequately tested for administration for Covid, and, thus, at best one could say more testing is warranted. Yet that podcast asserted something much different, and unproven, just as your post above does.

Prove it isn't snake oil first. Get it FDA approved before touting. Pretty simple rule.

Every drug has side-effects. Some more than others, and from what I've read/heard,"I" when properly administered, has few to any based on decades of usage.

Stop with the "snake oil" schtick... you look silly doing that.

Catch 22. Unless the medical establishment allows, FDA approval for Covid won't see light of day. The powers that be want drugs that are profitable... "I" costs nothing in comparison to say, Remdesevir, and now Fauci's new plan for therapeutic tablets which will undoubtedly be costly/profitable for Big Pharma and their investors.

Uh a vaccine does work like a drug. I had to explain this to my 17 year old nephew who was afraid of being vaccinated. My brother called and asked that I speak to him. My nephew called afterwards ans thanked me for explaining it to him…..like most people, he was thinking of it like a drug….you know the drugs you see advertised with all the “side effects”.

https://isoponline.org/wp-content/uploa ... ccines.pdf

"Uh"... despite your anecdote, if you took the time to pay attention, no one is saying a drug should be a vaccine substitute (especially if the vaccine is shown to be safe... but the jury is still out on the Covid vaccines and will be for quite some time). What's needed is a therapeutic bridge for those vaccinated or not who come down with Covid and are not "sick enough" to be hospitalized. Otherwise, your doctor sends you home until you either recover or then dubiously qualify for hospital/Remdesevir/ICU/intubation. That's just super...

Some very smart and courageous people believe that drug-bridge already exists and have been using it off-label to great success.

Exactly what was said about HCQ.

Seriously, if ivermectin actually works and is safe, wonderful.

But testing first before touting as a miracle drug.

Ohhhh I see, HCQ = Trump. Good god, you are incredibly shallow at times

Fine, continue with your politicization of what should not be a political issue.

"Seriously, if ivermectin actually works and is safe, wonderful." That's a lie on your part based on everything else you've posted.

The FDA won't look at Ivermectin re Covid. Do you not understand this? There's the rub...Sheesh!

Uh, FDA seems to have “looked at” Ivermectin re COVID….

FDA has not approved ivermectin for use in treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans. Ivermectin tablets are approved at very specific doses for some parasitic worms, and there are topical (on the skin) formulations for head lice and skin conditions like rosacea. Ivermectin is not an anti-viral (a drug for treating viruses).

Taking large doses of this drug is dangerous and can cause serious harm.

If you have a prescription for ivermectin for an FDA-approved use, get it from a legitimate source and take it exactly as prescribed.
Never use medications intended for animals on yourself.

Ivermectin preparations for animals are very different from those approved for humans.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer- ... t-covid-19

Some pretty darn serious side effects!
Death...

But hey, the troll gave it a +1 so....

Drinking bleach or a disinfectant may kill you too!

[tech37]

Important podcast (sans politics) from Bret Weinstein, which includes the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology.

Many of you here won't like what you hear, unfortunately. IMO, it's "truth and reality" re the current state of Covid-19.

Hopefully the podcast is not removed from the youtube platform...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY

There it is... Weinstein canceled/censored (or whatever term you prefer) by Youtube platform for "violating community guidelines" whatever THAT means. Just what is there to fear from people searching for truth/reality, and trying to help? Luckily, another less politically corrupted platform has picked up where Youtube left off...

Latest tweets by Dr. Robert Malone (Youtube typo incorrectly spelled his name as "Moore") inventor of mRNA technology:

https://twitter.com/rwmalonemd?lang=en

Since when? Simple search found Weinstein and Dark Horse podcast just fine.

Ahhh, that specific video was taken down...perhaps because it was promoting a drug to be taken for usage that's not approved by the FDA? That's indeed against the site rules.

A drug FDA approved long ago, now found to have anti-viral capabilities when properly administered against Covid-19 but suppressed by the medical establishment institutions pushing Remdesevir. Something a Covid-suffering person doesn't have access to until they're practically dead.

I understand your view and argument, just was responding to why it was in violation.

On the merits, the drug has side effects, has not actually been adequately tested for administration for Covid, and, thus, at best one could say more testing is warranted. Yet that podcast asserted something much different, and unproven, just as your post above does.

Prove it isn't snake oil first. Get it FDA approved before touting. Pretty simple rule.

Every drug has side-effects. Some more than others, and from what I've read/heard,"I" when properly administered, has few to any based on decades of usage.

Stop with the "snake oil" schtick... you look silly doing that.

Catch 22. Unless the medical establishment allows, FDA approval for Covid won't see light of day. The powers that be want drugs that are profitable... "I" costs nothing in comparison to say, Remdesevir, and now Fauci's new plan for therapeutic tablets which will undoubtedly be costly/profitable for Big Pharma and their investors.

Uh a vaccine does work like a drug. I had to explain this to my 17 year old nephew who was afraid of being vaccinated. My brother called and asked that I speak to him. My nephew called afterwards ans thanked me for explaining it to him…..like most people, he was thinking of it like a drug….you know the drugs you see advertised with all the “side effects”.

https://isoponline.org/wp-content/uploa ... ccines.pdf

"Uh"... despite your anecdote, if you took the time to pay attention, no one is saying a drug should be a vaccine substitute (especially if the vaccine is shown to be safe... but the jury is still out on the Covid vaccines and will be for quite some time). What's needed is a therapeutic bridge for those vaccinated or not who come down with Covid and are not "sick enough" to be hospitalized. Otherwise, your doctor sends you home until you either recover or then dubiously qualify for hospital/Remdesevir/ICU/intubation. That's just super...

Some very smart and courageous people believe that drug-bridge already exists and have been using it off-label to great success.

Exactly what was said about HCQ.

Seriously, if ivermectin actually works and is safe, wonderful.

But testing first before touting as a miracle drug.

Ohhhh I see, HCQ = Trump. Good god, you are incredibly shallow at times

Fine, continue with your politicization of what should not be a political issue.

"Seriously, if ivermectin actually works and is safe, wonderful." That's a lie on your part based on everything else you've posted.

The FDA won't look at Ivermectin re Covid. Do you not understand this? There's the rub...Sheesh!

Like wearing a mask.

You sound "stupid."

[tech37]

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer- ... t-covid-19

Hyperbole. Of course there are always people who self-medicate and use drugs irresponsibly... all the more reason the medical establishment and FDA should give a drug that's already approved and proven safe for years for other diseases a hard look re Covid, especially when evidence of efficacy exists. Why won't they?...

https://c19ivermectin.com/

They would rather develop new drugs, costly to general public and profitable for Big Pharma and investors. Just my opinion of course.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer- ... t-covid-19

Hyperbole. Of course there are always people who self-medicate and use drugs irresponsibly... all the more reason the medical establishment and FDA should give a drug that's already approved and proven safe for years for other diseases a hard look re Covid, especially when evidence of efficacy exists. Why won't they?...

https://c19ivermectin.com/

They would rather develop new drugs, costly to general public and profitable for Big Pharma and investors. Just my opinion of course.

You sound “stupid”.

https://www.michiganhumane.org/do-not-t ... ronavirus/

[seacoaster]

Interview with Fauci about the Covid origin story and other things:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/21/opin ... fauci.html

"In this conversation, Kara Swisher and Fauci parse the science from the politics. She presses him on the Wuhan lab leak theory, which critics claim Fauci and the media were too quick to dismiss. They discuss what went wrong with his early mask-wearing guidance and whether there is room for error or evolution of advice when it comes to public health in a social media age. And of course, they dig into some of the 4,000 or so pages of Fauci’s emails, including exchanges with Sylvia Burwell, the former Health and Human Services secretary, and Mark Zuckerberg."

[jhu72]

Important podcast (sans politics) from Bret Weinstein, which includes the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology.

Many of you here won't like what you hear, unfortunately. IMO, it's "truth and reality" re the current state of Covid-19.

Hopefully the podcast is not removed from the youtube platform...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY

There it is... Weinstein canceled/censored (or whatever term you prefer) by Youtube platform for "violating community guidelines" whatever THAT means. Just what is there to fear from people searching for truth/reality, and trying to help? Luckily, another less politically corrupted platform has picked up where Youtube left off...

Latest tweets by Dr. Robert Malone (Youtube typo incorrectly spelled his name as "Moore") inventor of mRNA technology:

https://twitter.com/rwmalonemd?lang=en

Since when? Simple search found Weinstein and Dark Horse podcast just fine.

Ahhh, that specific video was taken down...perhaps because it was promoting a drug to be taken for usage that's not approved by the FDA? That's indeed against the site rules.

Not on Youtube, dude.

Dark Horse is on youtube...that specific video is down.
Or do I misunderstand your meaning?

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCi5N_u ... lg32QzkPlg

As of the canceling of the Malone/Kirsch podcast, going forward starting with yesterday's podcast #84, you will no longer see Darkhorse on Youtube. How's that?

... it is unlawful to recommend using a drug for off label usage in a TV commercial - which is what the Weinstein video does. YouTube is correct in pulling it. Would bet YouTube got a letter from the FDA.

[jhu72]

Anyone hear buzzing?
Buzz off troll.

Gnat farting ...

[tech37]

Important podcast (sans politics) from Bret Weinstein, which includes the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology.

Many of you here won't like what you hear, unfortunately. IMO, it's "truth and reality" re the current state of Covid-19.

Hopefully the podcast is not removed from the youtube platform...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY

There it is... Weinstein canceled/censored (or whatever term you prefer) by Youtube platform for "violating community guidelines" whatever THAT means. Just what is there to fear from people searching for truth/reality, and trying to help? Luckily, another less politically corrupted platform has picked up where Youtube left off...

Latest tweets by Dr. Robert Malone (Youtube typo incorrectly spelled his name as "Moore") inventor of mRNA technology:

https://twitter.com/rwmalonemd?lang=en

Since when? Simple search found Weinstein and Dark Horse podcast just fine.

Ahhh, that specific video was taken down...perhaps because it was promoting a drug to be taken for usage that's not approved by the FDA? That's indeed against the site rules.

Not on Youtube, dude.

Dark Horse is on youtube...that specific video is down.
Or do I misunderstand your meaning?

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCi5N_u ... lg32QzkPlg

As of the canceling of the Malone/Kirsch podcast, going forward starting with yesterday's podcast #84, you will no longer see Darkhorse on Youtube. How's that?

... it is unlawful to recommend using a drug for off label usage in a TV commercial - which is what the Weinstein video does. YouTube is correct in pulling it. Would bet YouTube got a letter from the FDA.

wrong... from first level Google search:

"Off-label prescribing is when a physician gives you a drug that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved to treat a condition different than your condition. This practice is legal and common. In fact, one in five prescriptions written today are for off-label use."

[jhu72]

Important podcast (sans politics) from Bret Weinstein, which includes the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology.

Many of you here won't like what you hear, unfortunately. IMO, it's "truth and reality" re the current state of Covid-19.

Hopefully the podcast is not removed from the youtube platform...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY

There it is... Weinstein canceled/censored (or whatever term you prefer) by Youtube platform for "violating community guidelines" whatever THAT means. Just what is there to fear from people searching for truth/reality, and trying to help? Luckily, another less politically corrupted platform has picked up where Youtube left off...

Latest tweets by Dr. Robert Malone (Youtube typo incorrectly spelled his name as "Moore") inventor of mRNA technology:

https://twitter.com/rwmalonemd?lang=en

Since when? Simple search found Weinstein and Dark Horse podcast just fine.

Ahhh, that specific video was taken down...perhaps because it was promoting a drug to be taken for usage that's not approved by the FDA? That's indeed against the site rules.

Not on Youtube, dude.

Dark Horse is on youtube...that specific video is down.
Or do I misunderstand your meaning?

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCi5N_u ... lg32QzkPlg

As of the canceling of the Malone/Kirsch podcast, going forward starting with yesterday's podcast #84, you will no longer see Darkhorse on Youtube. How's that?

... it is unlawful to recommend using a drug for off label usage in a TV commercial - which is what the Weinstein video does. YouTube is correct in pulling it. Would bet YouTube got a letter from the FDA.

wrong... from first level Google search:

"Off-label prescribing is when a physician gives you a drug that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved to treat a condition different than your condition. This practice is legal and common. In fact, one in five prescriptions written today are for off-label use."

... a physician can prescribe it to a patient he has examined and is familiar with. HE CANNOT ADVERTISE IT FOR OFF LABEL USE IN A PUBLIC FORUM. That is a crime. These are two different situations!! The only thing a drug can be advertised to do is those things included on the label!

[tech37]

Important podcast (sans politics) from Bret Weinstein, which includes the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology.

Many of you here won't like what you hear, unfortunately. IMO, it's "truth and reality" re the current state of Covid-19.

Hopefully the podcast is not removed from the youtube platform...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY

There it is... Weinstein canceled/censored (or whatever term you prefer) by Youtube platform for "violating community guidelines" whatever THAT means. Just what is there to fear from people searching for truth/reality, and trying to help? Luckily, another less politically corrupted platform has picked up where Youtube left off...

Latest tweets by Dr. Robert Malone (Youtube typo incorrectly spelled his name as "Moore") inventor of mRNA technology:

https://twitter.com/rwmalonemd?lang=en

Since when? Simple search found Weinstein and Dark Horse podcast just fine.

Ahhh, that specific video was taken down...perhaps because it was promoting a drug to be taken for usage that's not approved by the FDA? That's indeed against the site rules.

Not on Youtube, dude.

Dark Horse is on youtube...that specific video is down.
Or do I misunderstand your meaning?

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCi5N_u ... lg32QzkPlg

As of the canceling of the Malone/Kirsch podcast, going forward starting with yesterday's podcast #84, you will no longer see Darkhorse on Youtube. How's that?

... it is unlawful to recommend using a drug for off label usage in a TV commercial - which is what the Weinstein video does. YouTube is correct in pulling it. Would bet YouTube got a letter from the FDA.

wrong... from first level Google search:

"Off-label prescribing is when a physician gives you a drug that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved to treat a condition different than your condition. This practice is legal and common. In fact, one in five prescriptions written today are for off-label use."

... a physician can prescribe it to a patient he has examined and is familiar with. HE CANNOT ADVERTISE IT FOR OFF LABEL USE IN A PUBLIC FORUM. That is a crime. These are two different situations!! The only thing a drug can be advertised to do is those things included on the label!

Then why haven't Dr. Kory and his associates been arrested?

[seacoaster]

More on the origin kerfuffle:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/c ... story.html

"Stanley Perlman, who has been studying coronaviruses for 39 years, got a nasty email June 4: “Dr. Frankenstein just wants more public money and wants to research things he shouldn’t be messing with. THANKS A LOT FOR CORONA LOSER.”

Perlman, a mild-mannered, grandfatherly virologist at the University of Iowa, didn’t know the author of the dyspeptic email and had nothing to do with the emergence of the coronavirus. But he had co-signed a letter to the Lancet in February 2020 saying SARS-CoV-2 was not a bioengineered virus and condemning “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.”

That remains the consensus of many scientists — but the “lab leak” theory has never gone away and has become louder than ever. It is not a theory so much as a constellation of scenarios that imagine how the virus may have emanated from a laboratory in China, ranging from the accidental to the sinister.

It dominates news coverage and public discussion of the origin of the pandemic, shoving aside the natural zoonosis hypothesis — which asserts that, like so many previous infectious pathogens, the novel coronavirus most likely jumped unassisted into the human population from a still-unidentified animal host.

Scientists haven’t found that animal, however. Some virologists, including Perlman, have said they can’t rule out some kind of unintentional laboratory accident.

It’s possible, for example, that researchers studying coronaviruses in Wuhan did not even know they had SARS-CoV-2 in their facility. The new openness to such scenarios culminated last month when the journal Science published a letter from 18 prominent scientists calling for a more robust probe of the virus’s origin and criticizing a World Health Organization report that called a lab leak “extremely unlikely.”

This is a fraught moment not only for virologists, but for scientists broadly. They have had to deal with some version of the “Frankenstein” meme for generations. Now, they’re faced with suspicion that somehow they are responsible for a plague that has killed millions of people.

The situation has exacerbated long-standing tensions within the sprawling and often cantankerous scientific community. The lab-origin possibility has reignited debate over “gain of function” experiments that, in an effort to anticipate future pandemics, may alter the potency of viruses in secure laboratory settings. Scientists have clashed repeatedly over the risks and rewards of that kind of research for the past decade.

“There’s sniping going on in all directions,” said Marcia McNutt, president of the National Academy of Sciences.

Her message to everyone: cool it. She doesn’t think a scientist who is open to the possibility of a laboratory accident should be labeled a conspiracy theorist. And some people are proclaiming certainties about the origin of the virus despite having limited knowledge or expertise, she said.

“If anyone is going to come out strongly on one hypothesis or another, the scientific method says that there should be evidence to back it. I worry when some people are very willing to be firm about one origin or the other but fail to either have the evidence or the expertise to back it up,” McNutt said.

McNutt and the presidents of the national academies of medicine and engineering published a letter Tuesday staking out a neutral position amid all this rancor. It advocated for a probe “guided by scientific principles” that would consider multiple scenarios for the origin of the pandemic. It called on China to share information about research there. And it defended scientists.

“[M]isinformation, unsubstantiated claims, and personal attacks on scientists surrounding the different theories of how the virus emerged are unacceptable, and are sowing public confusion and risk undermining the public’s trust in science and scientists, including those still leading efforts to bring the pandemic under control,” the letter said.

Francis S. Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, said in an interview that “it’s deeply disheartening to see this terribly difficult worldwide situation that has taken almost 4 million lives and somehow turned into a motivation to demonize some of the scientists who have done the most to try to get through this.”

He cited Anthony S. Fauci, the director since 1984 of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Fauci has managed to serve seven presidents by avoiding political quagmires, but in recent weeks he has been excoriated in the right-wing news media and by some prominent Republican officials for his institute’s past funding of virus research at the Wuhan lab. Peter Navarro, who served as Donald Trump’s trade representative, went so far as to declare in March that “Tony Fauci is the father of the virus.”

Fauci this month fired back.

“It’s very dangerous, because a lot of what you’re seeing as attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science. Because all of the things that I have spoken about consistently from the very beginning have been fundamentally based on science,” he said on MSNBC. “Science and the truth are being attacked.”

There is more noise than signal here. The lab-leak hypotheses lack direct evidence. Chinese scientists deny they had SARS-CoV-2 or its immediate ancestor in-house. The leak conjectures are fashioned around unknowns, missing information, inconsistent statements by scientists and a lack of transparency among Chinese officials. Suspicion and speculation fill holes in the narrative.

But scientists who support a natural origin have yawning gaps in their own story. They have not identified the intermediate animal host carrying SARS-CoV-2.

So where did this awful thing come from? That is a legitimate scientific mystery. The stakes are high, and crucial pieces of information are absent. As a result, the quest to understand the origin of the pandemic has been caught up in political battles and ideological maelstroms. There’s a hunt for villains before the crime has been fully documented.

“This discussion has just gotten so acerbic. It’s just been terrible,” Perlman said.

'Horses and zebras'

Collins and Fauci have called for Chinese scientists to open their records to inspection. President Biden echoed that this month, saying China should let investigators have access to the laboratories: “We have not had access to determine whether or not this was the consequence of the marketplace of animals and environment . . . or an experiment gone awry in the lab.”

Biden has ordered his intelligence agencies to sort through all possibilities and report back no later than August.

The main argument in favor of natural zoonosis — one that unfolded beyond the walls of a lab — is that this has happened before with countless viruses, including coronaviruses. SARS, the coronavirus that caused a deadly outbreak in 2002 and 2003 but was throttled before it became a pandemic, first passed through an intermediate animal sold in markets — Himalayan palm civets. Scientists believe this new coronavirus probably passed through an intermediate host as well.

For many scientists, the lab-leak hypotheses remain a classic example of an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.

Susan R. Weiss, a virologist at the University of Pennsylvania who has studied coronaviruses for 40 years, invokes the adage about what people should expect to see coming if they hear hoofbeats.

“You know the thing about horses and zebras,” she said. “Zoonosis is the horse, and the lab leak is the zebra.”

There are many variations on the lab-leak theory, some requiring scientific subterfuge — a conspiracy, in other words, to hide what was being done in the lab. Such hypotheses, built on suspicions of missing information and deception, are hard to disprove. Scientists adhering to the natural origin hypothesis are unlikely to embrace a rival hypothesis that requires, as a fundamental assumption, an impenetrable wall of deceit.

They are more likely, however, to be open to the possibility of an accident at a lab, one without nefarious intent, perhaps involving a virus that slipped into the facility under the radar amid legitimate research efforts.

But the Wuhan Institute of Virology remains something of a black box. Critics say the WHO investigators who delivered a report on the virus origin did only a cursory investigation of the institute. They also note that the WHO investigators included Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance, an organization that directed a grant from Fauci’s institute to the Wuhan lab. Daszak also signed the 2020 Lancet letter denouncing conspiracy theories about a lab origin.

Even the director general of the WHO, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, distanced himself from the WHO report’s dismissal of the lab theory and called for a more thorough investigation.

That was followed by calls from scientists to probe more deeply into lab-leak scenarios. The letter to the journal Science, in particular, helped put the imprimatur of mainstream science on an idea previously marginalized as a conspiracy theory.

Perlman said he would not have signed the letter if asked, because of “false balance.”

“It made it sound like all possibilities are equal, which I don’t think is true,” Perlman said.

“There isn’t any balance of plausibility,” Columbia University epidemiologist W. Ian Lipkin said.

Stanford University microbiologist David A. Relman, one of the organizers of the letter to Science, said the political climate last year made many scientists hesitant to express openness to the lab-leak idea. They did not want to align themselves with a theory closely associated with Trump and his allies, who referred to the coronavirus as “the China virus.”

Relman took the leap, though: In November, he published an essay in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences discussing possible origins of SARS-CoV-2, including laboratory manipulation: “Even though a definitive answer may not be forthcoming, and even though an objective analysis requires addressing some uncomfortable possibilities, it is crucial that we pursue this question.”

Relman said two scientists who were asked to sign the letter to Science expressed concern that it could contribute to anti-Asian bigotry. Only one signed. Relman noted that the letter concluded with an affirmation of support for Chinese scientists fighting the pandemic.

Relman said he goes back and forth on whether a natural or laboratory origin of SARS-CoV-2 is more likely. He is open to the possibility that Chinese officials haven’t been forthcoming about their laboratory experiments.

“It seems more likely that either the virus was grown unknowingly and produced an asymptomatic infection, and none of that was recognized, or a laboratory worker infected themselves unknowingly during collection of samples from a natural viral reservoir, like a cave with bats,” Relman said.

“It is also theoretically possible there was some engineering going on there with some recent ancestor viruses that haven’t been talked about, that haven’t been published,” he said. “That would then suggest there has been a deliberate effort to not talk about some work that was going on there.”

'We may never know'

Some scientists are dismayed by what they’re reading and hearing. They think the case for natural zoonosis remains strong. A significant fraction of early coronavirus infections were linked to a sprawling Wuhan market where, according to the WHO report, traces of SARS-CoV-2 were found in drains and other surfaces near animal stalls.

A report published this month in the journal Nature said the Wuhan markets in the 2½ years before the pandemic sold more than 47,000 animals from 38 species, including raccoon dogs, weasels, badgers, hedgehogs, marmots, minks, bamboo rats and flying squirrels. SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to be a highly precocious virus that can infect many different kinds of animals. It has been found in domesticated and stray cats across Wuhan.

Although tens of thousands of animals have been tested in China in the search for the intermediate host, researchers have not found a precursor strain of SARS-CoV-2. The animal origins of many zoonotic diseases, including Ebola, have never been conclusively established. Surveillance of viruses capable of jumping into the human species remains spotty.

“Somewhere it’s out there, and there’s a ton of it, and we just haven’t flipped over enough stones yet,” said Benjamin Neuman, a virologist at Texas A&M University who, like Perlman, was one of the scientists who gave SARS-CoV-2 its name in early 2020.

He is irritated that some fellow virologists have lent weight to the lab-leak idea.

“This is distressing,” he said. “I feel like they’re taking the lab coat off when they say these things.”

Robert F. Garry Jr., a Tulane University virologist who co-authored an influential Nature Medicine paper in March 2020 saying SARS-CoV-2 was not engineered, is similarly emphatic that a natural origin outside of a lab remains most likely. He said the virus has genetic features that “scream” natural evolution. He noted the clustering of early cases linked to the market and pointed out that the virus has mutated into more transmissible variants — a sign, he said, that the virus is still adapting to the human species.

“I think people are frustrated, and a lot of people are looking for somebody to hang this on,” he said. He added, “You can’t get over the fact that the outbreak started in Wuhan and there’s a large institute of virology that studies coronaviruses there.”

A fact sheet posted by the State Department on Jan. 15, during the final days of the Trump administration, said several people who worked at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were hospitalized in fall 2019 with symptoms consistent with covid-19 or seasonal influenza. There has been no public documentation of who these workers were, their medical diagnoses or any illnesses among their close contacts.

The controversy put a spotlight on earlier documented instances in which a laboratory accident led to an infection. For example, nine SARS infections in 2004 were traced to laboratory research in Beijing that came after the original outbreak of SARS. And in 1977, Russian research on influenza may have led to the escape of a flu strain that became pandemic.

At the center of the Wuhan lab controversy is Shi Zhengli, a world-renowned coronavirus researcher who has collaborated with U.S. scientists. Shi has said she scoured records in her lab and found no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was ever present. In an interview with the journal Science last year, she said Trump’s allegations jeopardized the academic work and personal lives of her team, adding, “He owes us an apology.”

Although they may be skeptical about a colleague’s research findings, scientists generally assume their colleagues in the international scientific community are honest. But there are lab-leak scenarios that do not require deception. Accidents can happen unknowingly.

Lipkin, the Columbia epidemiologist, was a co-author of the Nature Medicine paper saying the virus was not engineered, and he hasn’t changed his mind. But he has hedged his assessment in recent months, as first noted in a Medium post by science journalist Donald G. McNeil Jr. Lipkin said it’s possible that the Wuhan scientists had the coronavirus in-house and simply didn’t realize it.

“If they’ve got hundreds of bat samples that are coming in, and some of them aren’t characterized, how would they know whether this virus was or wasn’t in this lab? They wouldn’t,” Lipkin said.

Lipkin said two scientific papers co-authored by Shi indicated bat coronaviruses were handled in biosafety level 2 laboratories, rather than more secure BSL-3 or BSL-4 labs. That raises the possibility of sloppy handling of a dangerous virus, he said.

An accidental infection in a lab with an undocumented virus would be nearly impossible to distinguish from one that occurred outside the lab, he said.

“We may never know where this thing came from,” Lipkin said.

Science is not a list of knowns so much as a process of exploring the unknown, and scientists by nature are comfortable with uncertainty, ambiguity and provisional conclusions. But the pandemic is a global catastrophe that has killed and sickened millions of people, and there are demands for definitive answers about how this happened. Scientists may never be able to provide answers that satisfy everyone.

“On both sides, there’s really a lack of information. That’s why we have such extensive discussions and, in some cases, vituperative discussions,” Perlman said. “There’s really no data. It’s really just opinions.”

[jhu72]

Because the FDA has process and procedures. They initially send a warning letter to the organization and individuals involved. Generally people only get prosecuted if they do it repeatedly ignoring notifications from the FDA. It is known as an FDA Form 483. Each instance of it being "shown" to the public could illicit a warning letter and ultimately a fine or other action. YouTube has a greater liability than the individuals in this case.

[tech37]

Because the FDA has process and procedures. They initially send a warning letter to the organization and individuals involved. Generally people only get prosecuted if they do it repeatedly ignoring notifications from the FDA. It is known as an FDA Form 483. Each instance of it being "shown" to the public could illicit a warning letter and ultimately a fine or other action. YouTube has a greater liability than the individuals in this case.

Do you have evidence they have been issued a warning?... if not, just speculation on your part. Their website is a year old and some have testified in front of the US Senate over the past year. I'll believe they are breaking laws when they're shut down, fined, and/or arrested.

[MDlaxfan76]

Because the FDA has process and procedures. They initially send a warning letter to the organization and individuals involved. Generally people only get prosecuted if they do it repeatedly ignoring notifications from the FDA. It is known as an FDA Form 483. Each instance of it being "shown" to the public could illicit a warning letter and ultimately a fine or other action. YouTube has a greater liability than the individuals in this case.

Do you have evidence they have been issued a warning?... if not, just speculation on your part. Their website is a year old and some have testified in front of the US Senate over the past year. I'll believe they are breaking laws when they're shut down, fined, and/or arrested.

tech, like this site, youtube has the right to permit or not permit what it wants, however those decisions do incur various costs, including regulatory risk as well as user response.

It is highly likely that Youtube was warned by the FDA about its users promoting drugs on the platform for unauthorized usage. It's a significant issue. It is less likely, though not impossible, that Youtube was specifically warned by the FDA about this particular podcast video.

However, it is certainly possible that other users complained/notified Youtube that Weinstein had breached the standards of Youtube. Given what I've seen of other Dark Horse podcasts, I wouldn't be surprised that such objections may have been raised earlier and that Weinstein had heard from Youtube previously to be careful. This one stepped way over the line IMO...apparently Youtube thought so too. Again, simply speculation, but a series of prior communications, or Weinstein's response, would explain why Weinstein is off the platform altogether, not just that specific video.

You yourself in your very first post of the podcast predicted its removal from Youtube.

These platforms have been getting all sorts of regulatory oversight pressure regarding content that is potentially damaging to public health, with such speech not protected under the First Amendment, akin to the illegality of yelling fire in a crowded movie theater.

Whether it's 'speech' fomenting violence or 'speech' touting drugs for potentially dangerous, unauthorized, usage, this is not protected speech...and the platforms are very concerned about regulatory oversight.

That said, alternative platforms may be willing to take the risk of violations, so provide avenues to reach an audience for the violence and snake oil peddlers.

Let me say that I don't think you sound "stupid" with your claims of a conspiracy to not investigate ivermectin because of some sort of nefarious, profit-seeking cabal of FDA and pharma, business people and scientists in cahoots to prevent a miracle solution (made by Merck) from being adopted, but you do sound like you're deep down the rabbit hole...

[jhu72]

Because the FDA has process and procedures. They initially send a warning letter to the organization and individuals involved. Generally people only get prosecuted if they do it repeatedly ignoring notifications from the FDA. It is known as an FDA Form 483. Each instance of it being "shown" to the public could illicit a warning letter and ultimately a fine or other action. YouTube has a greater liability than the individuals in this case.

Do you have evidence they have been issued a warning?... if not, just speculation on your part. Their website is a year old and some have testified in front of the US Senate over the past year. I'll believe they are breaking laws when they're shut down, fined, and/or arrested.

I have not checked FDA if they have issued warning. Not going to. You can get the information. It really does not matter. YouTube lawyers are aware of how the process works. Their lawyers will have advised them to take it down. Believe what you want, they have been taken down and for a perfectly legitimate reason. YouTube is placing themselves in jeopardy. The fact that the doctor has testified before the Senate means diddly.

News report on Jim Baker case. I guess he thought there was a religious exemption.

WEBMD reports on FDA Warning Letters going to a number doctors.

[jhu72]

Because the FDA has process and procedures. They initially send a warning letter to the organization and individuals involved. Generally people only get prosecuted if they do it repeatedly ignoring notifications from the FDA. It is known as an FDA Form 483. Each instance of it being "shown" to the public could illicit a warning letter and ultimately a fine or other action. YouTube has a greater liability than the individuals in this case.

Do you have evidence they have been issued a warning?... if not, just speculation on your part. Their website is a year old and some have testified in front of the US Senate over the past year. I'll believe they are breaking laws when they're shut down, fined, and/or arrested.

tech, like this site, youtube has the right to permit or not permit what it wants, however those decisions do incur various costs, including regulatory risk as well as user response.

It is highly likely that Youtube was warned by the FDA about its users promoting drugs on the platform for unauthorized usage. It's a significant issue. It is less likely, though not impossible, that Youtube was specifically warned by the FDA about this particular podcast video.

However, it is certainly possible that other users complained/notified Youtube that Weinstein had breached the standards of Youtube. Given what I've seen of other Dark Horse podcasts, I wouldn't be surprised that such objections may have been raised earlier and that Weinstein had heard from Youtube previously to be careful. This one stepped way over the line IMO...apparently Youtube thought so too. Again, simply speculation, but a series of prior communications, or Weinstein's response, would explain why Weinstein is off the platform altogether, not just that specific video.

You yourself in your very first post of the podcast predicted its removal from Youtube.

These platforms have been getting all sorts of regulatory oversight pressure regarding content that is potentially damaging to public health, with such speech not protected under the First Amendment, akin to the illegality of yelling fire in a crowded movie theater.

Whether it's 'speech' fomenting violence or 'speech' touting drugs for potentially dangerous, unauthorized, usage, this is not protected speech...and the platforms are very concerned about regulatory oversight.

That said, alternative platforms may be willing to take the risk of violations, so provide avenues to reach an audience for the violence and snake oil peddlers.

Let me say that I don't think you sound "stupid" with your claims of a conspiracy to not investigate ivermectin because of some sort of nefarious, profit-seeking cabal of FDA and pharma, business people and scientists in cahoots to prevent a miracle solution (made by Merck) from being adopted, but you do sound like you're deep down the rabbit hole...

... youtube isn't a newbie to how this works. They have content police and lawyers. Internally when they recognize what they have, they likely would pull it down on their own. Best way to stay on the right side of the FDA (any regulatory body), is to be proactive. They get folks selling snake oil all the time posting videos.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Because the FDA has process and procedures. They initially send a warning letter to the organization and individuals involved. Generally people only get prosecuted if they do it repeatedly ignoring notifications from the FDA. It is known as an FDA Form 483. Each instance of it being "shown" to the public could illicit a warning letter and ultimately a fine or other action. YouTube has a greater liability than the individuals in this case.

Do you have evidence they have been issued a warning?... if not, just speculation on your part. Their website is a year old and some have testified in front of the US Senate over the past year. I'll believe they are breaking laws when they're shut down, fined, and/or arrested.

tech, like this site, youtube has the right to permit or not permit what it wants, however those decisions do incur various costs, including regulatory risk as well as user response.

It is highly likely that Youtube was warned by the FDA about its users promoting drugs on the platform for unauthorized usage. It's a significant issue. It is less likely, though not impossible, that Youtube was specifically warned by the FDA about this particular podcast video.

However, it is certainly possible that other users complained/notified Youtube that Weinstein had breached the standards of Youtube. Given what I've seen of other Dark Horse podcasts, I wouldn't be surprised that such objections may have been raised earlier and that Weinstein had heard from Youtube previously to be careful. This one stepped way over the line IMO...apparently Youtube thought so too. Again, simply speculation, but a series of prior communications, or Weinstein's response, would explain why Weinstein is off the platform altogether, not just that specific video.

You yourself in your very first post of the podcast predicted its removal from Youtube.

These platforms have been getting all sorts of regulatory oversight pressure regarding content that is potentially damaging to public health, with such speech not protected under the First Amendment, akin to the illegality of yelling fire in a crowded movie theater.

Whether it's 'speech' fomenting violence or 'speech' touting drugs for potentially dangerous, unauthorized, usage, this is not protected speech...and the platforms are very concerned about regulatory oversight.

That said, alternative platforms may be willing to take the risk of violations, so provide avenues to reach an audience for the violence and snake oil peddlers.

Let me say that I don't think you sound "stupid" with your claims of a conspiracy to not investigate ivermectin because of some sort of nefarious, profit-seeking cabal of FDA and pharma, business people and scientists in cahoots to prevent a miracle solution (made by Merck) from being adopted, but you do sound like you're deep down the rabbit hole...

Treasurer at a pharmaceutical client had an existing drug that was being considered for therapeutic purposes for COVID. The company was tasked with investigating it although they did not expect to make much money off of it…..must not be part of the cabal. Drug wouldn’t work off the shelf but the mechanism which contributed to its effectiveness was similar. Anyway, I was told fairly early that treatment and outcomes were improving as doctors gained more and more experience……but hey, you can get a script from your vet.

[jhu72]

People really don't understand how the FDA works. The FDA does not approve the drug itself. The FDA approves the sales and marketing of the drug. It is the advertising which counts. THE LABELING. Companies get into trouble for selling and marketing without approval. The FDA requires the manufacturer to prove to the FDA's satisfaction that the drug is safe and effective. The FDA will get in your face if you claim they approved of the drug. That don't approve of the drug. They approve of the sales and marketing of the drug. If you are selling drugs, you can only advertise what is on the LABEL. It is the same for food stuffs. If the product does not do what the LABEL says, that is fraud.