The World Health Organisation is embroiled in a new scandal: at least a third of its team investigating the origins of COVID-19, appointed last week, have conflicts of interest due to research links or previous statements about the disease. Ian Birrell in the Mail on Sunday has more.
The team of 26 scientists, selected from 700 applicants, were named last week after the UN body had its initial efforts frustrated by China and was then widely criticised after they declared it “extremely unlikely” that the pandemic began with a laboratory leak.
Michael Ryan, a senior WHO official, said the new Scientific Advisory Group on the Origins of Novel Pathogens (Sago) had possibly the last chance to discover the origins of Covid-19 “in a collegiate, collective and mutually responsible way”.
Yet there is growing dismay over the inclusion of seven members of the discredited previous group, whose findings echoed the Beijing regime’s line – alongside others who have dismissed fears of a lab incident as conspiracy theory.
Tory MP Bob Seely, of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said: “Why does the new team include people who are compromised? Two whitewashes are not better than one. The world is owed a robust independent inquiry.”
The seven members of the previous study group include British professor John Watson and Dutch scientist Marion Koopmans.
Koopmans runs a viroscience department collaborating with EcoHealth Alliance, the US organisation headed by British scientist Peter Daszak, which funded high-risk bat-virus experiments in Wuhan.
She has published 27 papers with her colleague Ron Fouchier, one of the world’s most controversial researchers into ‘gain of function’ experiments, which aim to make animal viruses more transmissible and able to infect humans.
New members of the WHO team include German virologist Christian Drosten, who signed an influential Lancet statement last year that attacked “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin” and praised Beijing’s “rapid, open and transparent sharing of data”.
One of the two biosafety specialists is Kathrin Summermatter, a Swiss scientist who has praised the security of Chinese labs and said the idea of a research incident is “a classic conspiracy theory”.
Filippa Lentzos, a biosecurity expert at King’s College London, has insisted that it is vital to keep all theories open, and said: “There appear to be many in the group who do not have an open mind – an essential quality in any scientific investigative team.”
You can read the story in the Mail on Sunday here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“Hate Speech Law”. = The Enforcement of Liberal Progressive Dogma.
It’s just the methods pioneered by the western “liberal democratists” to subjugate hostile countries in perpetuity applied to themselves on the grounds that the history of mankind isn’t particularly pretty on either side and that there’s thus obviously no moral case for this strange victor’s exemption.
Be careful what methods you employ against others because someone might want to apply them to yourself, given that they demonstrably “work” (sort-of, at least), and that your use of them means they must be legitimate.
And you’d have thought that it would already be illegal to spit at people!
agreed, they are forcing people to accept lies as truth, I am sorry if a man who declares himself to be a woman and photographs himself with an innocent baby sucking his pectoral, for his pleasure, after all he cannot sustain a child, it would under normal circumstances be considered child abuse. but yhe well being of the baby is not even considered if a biological man forces his perceived reality on it, and the public who are horrified are the ones jailed for hurting his feelings.
Men can wear dresses, make up, and imitate women, but they are not women, and no damn politician who seeks votes over the well being of an infant is going to make me spout their untruths.
ie Maoism
So I’ll no longer be able to ridicule Britain’s greatest (IMHO) Mastermind David ‘Lamebrain’ Lammy – possibly the most intellectually-challenged politician in the world. And I’ll no longer be allowed to ridicule the (IMHO) mentally-deranged, climate fantasist Edward ‘clueless’ Milibrain. And all satirical references to thin-skinned, multi-tier, gimme-free-gear, Keir ‘granny-harmer’ Starmer will become criminal offences.
“multi-tier, gimme-free-gear, Keir ‘granny-harmer’ Starmer” this could run and run.
Let’s hope so.
There’s ‘Queer’, ‘Brown Spear’ opportunities as well.
Diane Abbot and David Lamy… it’s a close run thing.
The purpose of this round of censorship is to provide cover for the failure of madleft’s social policies: anti-whitism, mass unlimited immigration, anti-manism, worship of the Left’s Favourite Religion, worship of people of sacred skin colour, internationalism, worship of men pretending to be women, etc, etc. In particular, the feedback from reality has to broken, and people have to be prevented from noticing reality (or if they do notice reality, they have to be prevented from saying so). The longterm intention is the atomisation of the population in order to facilitate the Great Replacement.
And Great Reset!
A real gem from the “the origins are soviet” article (in itself too long to read completely):
It has been argued that the Western opposition to the prohibition against hate speech in Article 19 was disingenuous, given that the Allied Powers had imposed obligations not to permit fascist organizations and to prohibit hostile propaganda in peace treaties with countries such as Hungary, Bulgaria, Finland, Italy, and Romania in the late 1940s, as well as in the 1955 State Treaty with Austria [and Germany, obviously, but that place is just too ghastly to even admit that it exists].
[…]
However, these obligations are easily distinguishable from Article 20 […] as they were […]
related to the most exceptional of circumstances in countries that had been led by authoritarian regimes and thus had little tradition of liberal democracy.
Or, put into plain English, the Anglo-Saxians had absolutely no problems with forcing draconic “hate speech laws” onto their erstwhile enemies but – obviously – didn’t mean to be bound by them themselves. It’s such a pity that this genie, once let out of its bottle, proved to be difficult to contain because the power to employ censorship to fight “really bad-ism” of any nature, once generally legitimized, was too tempting to not try to employ it for purposes of domestic politics everywhere.
Or – as they say – chicken coming home to roost at last. Have fun with your own medicine.
So if you ridicule a female MP over the Covid jabs, would you end up in the slammer for sexism?
““Vilification laws are easily weaponised to silence free speech and suppress opposing views on contentious social issues,” he warned”
Of course they are, that is the whold fuc*ing point. Notice that is in Victoria, a haven of democracy during the Covid PsyOp.
“submissions to the Victorian Government’s consultation on the proposed anti-vilification laws” Consultations are the new foregone conclusion tactics, of plain old fascism.
This kind of “really bad stuff” censorship is a tactic of pain old antifascism. It’s just that the “no human rights for the hereditary enemies of humans rights” was meant to remain restricted to these, ie, “No freedom of speech or religion or … etc for people from Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Austria, Finland, Germany and Japan!”, not “No freedom of speech or .. etc for the coalition of Very Good And Just People who conquered them.”
But the idea that liberal democracy needs state repression to be safe from the masses evil people who might not want it – Liberal democracy doesn’t want you to have a choice because you might not chose it! – then apparently took on a life of its own as people didn’t understand why only their liberal democracy was supposed to go its way naked and alone, without this essential harness of protection against ubiquitous miscreants.
Australian, American, British and Canadian liberals hold their liberal democracy as dear as German liberals do and they absolutely want it to be protected in the same way.
—
That’s obviously sarcasm. But the notion that the universal declaration of so-called human rights was always meant to have an implied “But not for these peoples, as they’re especially bad and need to kept on much tighter leash!” condition to it, ie, that there are no human rights in the conventional sense of the word and that such human rights were never even meant to exist, was actually new to me.
OTOH, that’s probably a good reason to do away with this stupid concept. Citizens of some state have (or don’t have) rights because they’re legally subject to it. But as there’s no such thing as a global state, mere humans cannot have any rights.
“will create new criminal offences for threatening force or violence against targeted groups”
Well they certainly targeted groups of people who didn’t want the jab if I recall, and had those quarantine camps for those that were next to someone who tested PCR positive. They even had a Running Man style commentary on some who escaped.
Giving active Rights by legislation to one group ALWAYS takes away passive Common Law and Constitutional Rights to the rest of us.
It is not the rule of law, it is not equality and equity before the law, it is the two-tier justice and policing now established in the UK.
Under Common Law, freedom of speech has never been a defence when inciting hatred and violence.
So why is legislation needed?
So why is legislation needed?
To shut us up. We notice reality and therefore must be silenced.
Technically, because there’s an international (UN) anti-racism convention dating back to 1969 which demands this.
Unless you’re canny you had better keep your mouth shut because they hate you with a passion and I guarantee that thase penalties will become even more harsh in the next couple of years. Not a thing you can do about it because the police, prison service, armed forces etc are made up of the plebs who will ask how high when they are told to jump such is their fear. You should’ve gotten out of this country a while ago. Not so easy now. Some countries are imposing massive leaving taxes so if you have the means and the wherewithal then get out now.
We are moving to a situation when everything we do or say will be either compulsory or forbidden, the space between the two is getting smaller every day