41 plus 7 Shameless Virologists Plead for a Natural Origin [but then why do they also demand a liability waiver?]

"Unshackle us!" they beg, "So we can create wondrous countermeasures for your next pandemic."

Trust The Science.

This is a really pathetic Commentary. The virologists feel SO sorry for themselves. They are conniving liars.

They want us to pander to them.

They definitely don’t want any biosafety restrictions on their work.

And they insist the virus did not come from a lab.

How can these people look themselves in the mirror?

But when you are still trying to take over the world, it is SO much easier to do it with germs and not bombs, so you simply must keep trying, and trotting out your bought experts to recycle this utterly refuted claim. You need the zoonosis origin to push through the Pandemic Treaty, to justify One Health, and to keep these well-fed “experts” on the payroll. You need to be able to blame future pandemics on zoonoses, not labs. So you keep trying. Say it enough and people will believe you.

In fact, all these 41 authors and their seven helpers know better. You cannot look at the SARS-CoV-2 genome and not know this came from a lab. Steven Quay MD, PhD made this perfectly clear in his June 18 Congressional testimony, which I mentioned on Aug. 5.

Addendum: This paper by Arkmedic is also full of the evidence of lab origin.

Who are these people? Kristian Andersen, Ralph Baric and Michael Worobey provided additional wordsmithing, it seems, as they are mentioned in the acknowledgements.

https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jvi.01240-24

Here is a sample of their prose:

“… Intimidation and threats have significant and long-term consequences as scientists have withdrawn from social media platforms, rejected opportunities to speak in public, and taken increased safety measures to protect themselves and their families. Some have even diverted their work to less controversial and less timely topics. We now see a long-term risk of having fewer experts engaged in work that may help thwart future pandemics, and of fewer scientists willing to communicate the findings of sophisticated, fast-moving research topics that are important for global health. Research that could prepare us for future pandemics has been deferred, diverted, or abandoned (3). Most worrisome for future preparedness, the next generation of scientists has well-founded fears about entering fields related to emerging viruses and pandemic science (19–21).

The lab leak narrative fuels mistrust in science and public health infrastructures. Scientists and public health professionals stand between us and pandemic pathogens; these individuals are essential for anticipating, discovering, and mitigating future pandemic threats. Yet, scientists and public health professionals have been harmed and their institutions have been damaged by the skewed public and political opinions stirred by continued promotion of the lab leak hypothesis in the absence of evidence. [????? There is a ton of evidence.—Nass] Anti-science movements are not new. However, anti-science has become more virulent and widespread in the internet and social media age. Rejecting evidence derived from independent and controlled studies grounded in the scientific method, while embracing spectacular and unevidenced claims, leaves us in a dangerous position for confronting future threats (17). If these narratives are left unchecked, we become a society that dismisses and vilifies those with expertise and experience relevant to the challenges we face. We then base decisions affecting large populations worldwide on speculation or chosen beliefs that have no grounding in evidence-based science.

While biosafety standards are critically important for research, the anxiety evoked by the lab leak hypothesis has resulted in some proposals for policies that, if adopted, would unnecessarily restrict research required for developing vaccines and antivirals in the US (20, 22). The US has one of the strongest and safest infrastructures for research globally…

Science is humanity’s best insurance against threats from nature, but it is a fragile enterprise that must be nourished and protected (23). What is now happening to virology is a stark demonstration of what is happening to all of science. It will come to affect every aspect of science in a negative and possibly a dangerous way, as has already happened with climate science. It is the responsibility of scientists, research institutions, and scientific organizations to push back against the anti-virology attacks, because what we are seeing now may be the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Universities and research institutions need policies for protecting scientists from anti-science attacks and a legal liability framework for research conducted in accordance with institutional biosafety frameworks. [Decoded: Imdemnify us if we do let a pandemic or two escape—Nass]

For the health of scientific inquiry, the attacks on scientists should be a priority for national science institutions and foundations. Major scientific organizations must unite in developing programs to counter anti-science movements. It is imperative that we carefully prioritize threats and direct resources that allow us to strive to counter the most high-risk threats for future pandemics. If we fail to do this, then the next pandemic, like COVID-19, will largely be the result of failed policies for countering known and unknown viral threats.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful for important and insightful discussion with Drs. Florence Débarre (CNSR, Sorbonne-Université, France), Kristian Andersen (Scripps Research Institute), Ralph Baric (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill), Michael Worobey (University of Arizona), Stacey Schultz-Cherry (St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital), Anice Lowen (Emory University), and Michael Imperiale (University of Michigan) that informed and enriched this commentary.

The opinions expressed reflect those of the authors, and not necessarily the opinions of ASM, the authors’ institutions, or funding agencies. No funding was used to support the preparation of this commentary.

Who is one of the two co-editors of this journal?

Stacey Schultz-Cherry, PhD has worked on bird flu and COVID vaccines, as well as helping bring this piece of trash to publication, but get a look at a part of her bio. Mucho Fauci money here, plus a WHO connection:

Dr. Schultz-Cherry is an American Academy of Microbiology fellow, served as the deputy director of the World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Center for Studies on the Ecology of Influenza in Animals and Birds, and is co-principal investigator on the NIAID-funded Center for Excellence in Influenza Research and Research (CEIRR) and Collaborative Influenza Vaccine Innovation Centers (CIVICs). She is a past president of the American Society for Virology and is the current chair of the Public and Scientific Affairs Committee (PSAC) for the American Society for Microbiology (ASM). Dr. Schultz-Cherry is dedicated to mentoring and advocacy and thrilled to be the new co-editor in chief of the Journal of Virology.