In this video, released 21st December 2020 on youtube, professor Vincent Racaniello, in addition to explaining why the variant is not a mutation, he gives his objections to the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG) document
NERVTAG meeting on SARS-CoV-2 variant under investigation
VUI-202012/01. See https://khub.net/documents/135939561/338928724/SARS-CoV-2+variant+under+investigation%2C+meeting+minutes.pdf/962e866b-161f-2fd5-1030-32b6ab467896?t=1608470511452
The video link here starts at his reading of this document:
https://youtu.be/wC8ObD2W4Rk?t=917
Vincent explains the properties of the SARS-CoV-2 UK variant and why claims that it is more transmissible are not supported by experimental data.
From http://microbe.tv/people
Vincent Racaniello, Ph.D. is Higgins Professor of Microbiology & Immunology at Columbia University Medical Center. He has been studying viruses for over 40 years, starting in 1975, when he entered the Ph.D. program in Biomedical Sciences at Mt. Sinai School of Medicine of the City University of New York. His thesis research, in the laboratory of Dr. Peter Palese, was focussed on influenza viruses. In 1979 he joined the laboratory of Dr. David Baltimore at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for postdoctoral work on poliovirus. In 1982 Vincent joined the faculty in the Department of Microbiology at Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons in New York City. There he established a laboratory to study viruses, and to train other scientists to become virologists. Over the years his laboratory has studied a variety of viruses including poliovirus, echovirus, enteroviruses 70 and D68, rhinovirus, Zika virus and hepatitis C virus. As principal investigator of his laboratory, he oversees the research that is carried out by Ph.D. students and postdoctoral fellows. He also teaches virology to undergraduate and graduate students, as well as medical, dental, and nursing students. His virology lectures are available online at iTunes University, YouTube, and Coursera.
Its kind of hard for anyone to disagree with NervTag so far when they havent released any data for anyone to scrutinise.
Until they do, nobody can possibly state one way or another.
It is increasingly clear that the agenda is being dictated by a small clique of scientists who are pushing their own “zero-covid” policy, which is basically a huge experiment to try and do something that has never been done – or even attempted – before: controlling the spread of an airborne viral particle.
The huge cost of this experiment may be worth paying, if this viral particle was truly dangerous.
The fact that groups such as Sage in the UK are under the control of this one theory is evidenced by the continued presence of Neil Fergusson in sub-committees like NervTag.
In any healthy scientific atmosphere, he would be damaged goods. Not because he met his girlfriend. That is irrelevant tittle-tattle. But because he has been consistently proven wrong. Yet, it now emerges from the minutes of the covid policy meeting on Friday, that the “70% transmission” figure that is being bandied about, is based exclusively on “modelling” done by …
Basically, it is entirely hypothetical presumption. (And even then, it is still the same largely harmless underlying contagion.)
This dodgy work is being tolerated – perhaps even wilfully sought out – because it is supporting the narrative, which is necessary to continue running the experiment.
Anyone who is familiar with scientific madness can feel it … the burning urge to pursue a line of thinking, driven by an intense desire to be proven right, and blocking out any adverse suggestion or conflicting evidence. And every time the experiment fails to perform, the reaction is to increase the dose! Do the same thing, but harder. Again. Again. Again.
This could be fine if it is happening in some lab and the only consequences will be a waste of time and grant money and some pissed off RA and failed PhD thesis, but this experiment is being conducted on 100s of millions of live specimens.
All minutes of all Sage meetings leaked or released so far show a distinct pattern: they make one big recommendation and push hard for it. Expert committees usually offer a range of options for policymaking. Not this outfit.
Sage tells Hancock what to do, who in turn tells BoJo. (One of the main criticisms always levelled at BoJo is his notorious inability to delve into any detail. He is guided by headlines.) For Hancock and BoJo, and especially in the absence of any opposition, the easy option is just to let Sage get on with it. After all, what is the cost or consequences to them?
Absolutely correct Teebs. I've been there and done that. Had to put some really bright peopleglued to a line of thinking back on the rails. Diffence is as a smallish commercial scientific company we actually had to deliver what we had promised we would achieve. And what we delivered had to work - any customer would see right away if it didn't. In the private sector,
No deliverable = no income= no salaries
in fairly short order.. And we didn't have a Behavioural Insights team to laugh off failure or terrify the customers into acceptance.
Wish that applied to this halfrate crowd.
Its kind of hard for anyone to disagree with NervTag so far when they havent released any data for anyone to scrutinise.
Until they do, nobody can possibly state one way or another.
did you watch the video?
