These scientists must be related to those who destroyed Ignaz Semmelweis.
If you don't know who he is, look him up quickly
Oh, BTW. If you are using Google or Chrome, you are just feeding the crocodile that is planning to eat you later in the afternoon. Try Ecosia, SwissCows, FreeSpoke or Presearch, and free browser Brave.com and/or its search engine.
***BUT GET OFF "FIRST, LET'S ONLY DO EVIL" GOOGLE. That is, unless you want to destroy yourself.
August 2020-The National Institutes of Health has awarded a grant worth $7.5 million over five years to EcoHealth Alliance, a U.S.-based nonprofit that hunts emerging viruses. The award comes months after NIH revoked an earlier grant to EcoHealth
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), one of the National Institutes of Health, announced that it has awarded 11 grants with a total first-year value of approximately $17 million to establish the Centers for Research in Emerging Infectious Diseases (CREID). The global network will involve multidisciplinary investigations into how and where viruses and other pathogens emerge from wildlife and spillover to cause disease in people. NIAID intends to provide approximately $82 million over 5 years to support the network.
Primary awardees for the CREID network and regions of focus include:
* Kristian Andersen, Ph.D., Scripps Research, La Jolla, California
* Peter Daszak, Ph.D., EcoHealth Alliance, Inc., New York, New York
"in the end, all corruption will come about as a consequence of the natural sciences" Søren Kirkegård, 1813 - 1855. Here, not dissing science, but corrupt scientists.
Here is the full quote for context:
Almost everything that nowadays flourishes most conspicuously under the name of science (especially as natural science) is not really science but curiosity. In the end all corruption will come about as a consequence of the natural sciences… But such a scientific method become especially dangerous and pernicious when it would encroach also upon the sphere of the spirit, let it deal with plants and animals and stars in that way; but to deal with the human spirit in that way is blasphemy, which only weakens ethical and religious passion. Even the act of eating is more reasonable than the speculating with a microscope upon the functions of digestion… A dreadful sophistry spreads microscopically and telescopically into tomes, and yet it the last resort produces nothing, qualitatively understood, though it does, to be sure, cheat men out of the simple profound and passionate wonder which gives impetus to the ethical… the only thing certain is the ethical-religious.
Tom Knight at Harvard jokes about a scientist that does an experiment and finds something twice as complicated as he thought. “Great,” he says. “Now I get to research it more and write a paper.” Meanwhile, an engineer encounters the same issue. “Dang,” he complains, “Now how do I get rid of that.
!!!!! Perhaps all these Nobel laureates suffered a severe case of TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) that shut down their capacity for scientific inquiry. And that's being generous.....
Thx for sharing this hard evidence of gross misconduct!
Practically all those signing the petition who are US citizens are traitors. After 2020, I say the same can be applied to practically all staunch Democrats. So the state of the Union is hopeless.
Truth is, as GK Chesterton wrote, when men cease to believe in God, they don't believe in nothing, but **anything.** And this story is QED.
--------------
BTW, relative to faith and science, per Professor Emeritus of maths at Oxford University:
How Many Nobel Prize Winners Believed In God? Dr. John Lennox (Short answer: about 2 out of 3; Religious Forums says 65.4%, and here are 25 famous scientists who believed in some kinds of God, some Christian, some not )
If you listen to some commentators today, you get the impression that science has replaced religion as the only credible way of learning about the world, and that few academics now believe in God. So what then do we make of Prof John Lennox’s claim, made in a recent Radio 4 interview, that over 65% of Nobel prize winners between 1901 and 2000 believed in God? Could such a surprising statement really be true, given what we know of the culture around us?
The statistics were taken from Baruch Shalev’s 100 Years of Nobel Prizes (Los Angeles, 2005)1 and, far from being over–stated, the number of theists may even have been higher still, as the he records that just over 65% of the overall winners identified as Christian,2 whilst over 20% were Jewish and just under 1% were Muslim.3 Although the author’s methodology is not explained in detail, it is certainly significant if the Nobel Laureates identified as such, even though some may have been associating themselves with a religion in more of a nominal or cultural sense. The Jewish figure is particularly striking, as they only represented about 0.02% of the world’s population, whereas, by contrast, Muslims made up around 20%. Just under 11% of the winners had no belief in God (e.g. atheists and agnostics), although, interestingly, far more of them were in the field of literature (around 35% of winners), than in scientific disciplines (7% of winners in chemistry, 9% in medicine and 5% in physics).
Indeed, one of the fascinating features of the research is some of the differences across the subjects. Rather than being less represented in the scientific disciplines, Christians made up just under two–thirds of those receiving the physics and medicine awards (64% and 65% respectively), whilst the figure was even higher for chemistry, as they accounted for nearly three–quarters of the winners (74%). As for the peace prize, if you exclude those going to organisations, 78% of them went to Christians, 11% to Jews, 4% to non–believers, 2% to Buddhists, 2% to Muslims, 1% to Quakers and 1% to those holding Shinto beliefs.4
The study certainly raises all kinds of interesting questions about how we account for the differences, as it is important to acknowledge, for example, the way in which the prize is awarded, how people identify themselves, as well as factors like the age and location of the recipients. Nevertheless, although the findings do not include the past two decades, they do at least support John Lennox’s contention that science and religion are not considered to be opposed to one another, and that, up until very recently, many of the world’s most eminent academics believed in God.
one estimate made by Weijia Zhang from Arizona State University and Robert G. Fuller from University of Nebraska–Lincoln, between 1901 and 1990, 60% of Physics Nobel prize winners had Christian backgrounds.[2] In an estimate by Baruch Shalev, between 1901 and 2000, about 65.3% of Physics Nobel prize winners were either Christians or had a Christian background.[1]
Note: Note: Einstein is a big of an enigma, stating "I believe in Spinoza’s God" but not a personal God. He stated "I am not an atheist" then also called himself an agnostic or a "religious nonbeliever." On the other hand, Nobels weren’t around then, but November 23, 1654: French scientist and mathematician Blaise Pascal experiences a mystical vision and converts to Christianity. The creator of the first wristwatch, the first bus route, the first workable calculating machine, and other inventions then turned his life to theology
Footnotes
1: See B. Shalev, 100 Years of Nobel Prizes, 3rd edn (Los Angeles, 2005), pp. 57–61.
2: Those included were those who identified as Anglicans, Baptists, Calvinists, Catholics, Christians, Congregationalists, Dutch–Mennonites, Dutch–Reformed, Eastern Orthodox, Episcopalian, Greek Orthodox, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterians, Protestants and Unitarians.
3: 5 of the 654 recipients were Muslims, whilst Buddhists and Hindus numbered only 7 and 3 respectively.
4: These and other figures are rounded to the nearest percent
awesome- and add to that Whitney Webb's latest on CHD TV- Gain of Function research. According to Lawyer, Andrew KImbrell of anti-gmo fame, his law firm sued the Feds into stopping all 'gain of function' research and funding. After the 9/11 "attack" for "national security reasons- the ban was lifted and it became business as usual-the same bad actors went right back to it-- and FOIA requests were no longer granted. Whitney and Johnny Vedmore really hit this topic ouf of the park. Listening to what 'Gain of Function' has meant over historical times in Britain and elsewhere, is unbelievable- the level of evil that governments and their operators were willing to do to the people . https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/shows/good-morning-chd/the-gain-of-function-industry-with-whitney-webb/
So much for trust the science.... if the scientists are all whored to the money funnel so is their product.
This speaks volumes on what we're up against.
When money speaks, truth is silent
These scientists must be related to those who destroyed Ignaz Semmelweis.
If you don't know who he is, look him up quickly
Oh, BTW. If you are using Google or Chrome, you are just feeding the crocodile that is planning to eat you later in the afternoon. Try Ecosia, SwissCows, FreeSpoke or Presearch, and free browser Brave.com and/or its search engine.
***BUT GET OFF "FIRST, LET'S ONLY DO EVIL" GOOGLE. That is, unless you want to destroy yourself.
Wow. Just holy wow.
Makes me want to bathe, thoroughly...
So Trumps NIH
August 2020-The National Institutes of Health has awarded a grant worth $7.5 million over five years to EcoHealth Alliance, a U.S.-based nonprofit that hunts emerging viruses. The award comes months after NIH revoked an earlier grant to EcoHealth
This was almost twice as much
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/08/29/907237520/group-whose-nih-grant-for-virus-research-was-revoked-just-got-a-new-grant
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), one of the National Institutes of Health, announced that it has awarded 11 grants with a total first-year value of approximately $17 million to establish the Centers for Research in Emerging Infectious Diseases (CREID). The global network will involve multidisciplinary investigations into how and where viruses and other pathogens emerge from wildlife and spillover to cause disease in people. NIAID intends to provide approximately $82 million over 5 years to support the network.
Primary awardees for the CREID network and regions of focus include:
* Kristian Andersen, Ph.D., Scripps Research, La Jolla, California
* Peter Daszak, Ph.D., EcoHealth Alliance, Inc., New York, New York
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/news-events/niaid-establishes-centers-research-emerging-infectious-diseases
Now Daszak can play with bat viruses from South East Asia instead of Chinese bats
"in the end, all corruption will come about as a consequence of the natural sciences" Søren Kirkegård, 1813 - 1855. Here, not dissing science, but corrupt scientists.
Here is the full quote for context:
Almost everything that nowadays flourishes most conspicuously under the name of science (especially as natural science) is not really science but curiosity. In the end all corruption will come about as a consequence of the natural sciences… But such a scientific method become especially dangerous and pernicious when it would encroach also upon the sphere of the spirit, let it deal with plants and animals and stars in that way; but to deal with the human spirit in that way is blasphemy, which only weakens ethical and religious passion. Even the act of eating is more reasonable than the speculating with a microscope upon the functions of digestion… A dreadful sophistry spreads microscopically and telescopically into tomes, and yet it the last resort produces nothing, qualitatively understood, though it does, to be sure, cheat men out of the simple profound and passionate wonder which gives impetus to the ethical… the only thing certain is the ethical-religious.
Tom Knight at Harvard jokes about a scientist that does an experiment and finds something twice as complicated as he thought. “Great,” he says. “Now I get to research it more and write a paper.” Meanwhile, an engineer encounters the same issue. “Dang,” he complains, “Now how do I get rid of that.
!!!!! Perhaps all these Nobel laureates suffered a severe case of TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) that shut down their capacity for scientific inquiry. And that's being generous.....
Thx for sharing this hard evidence of gross misconduct!
Practically all those signing the petition who are US citizens are traitors. After 2020, I say the same can be applied to practically all staunch Democrats. So the state of the Union is hopeless.
Remember Lancets' bogus hydroxychloroquine "study?"
Truth is, as GK Chesterton wrote, when men cease to believe in God, they don't believe in nothing, but **anything.** And this story is QED.
--------------
BTW, relative to faith and science, per Professor Emeritus of maths at Oxford University:
How Many Nobel Prize Winners Believed In God? Dr. John Lennox (Short answer: about 2 out of 3; Religious Forums says 65.4%, and here are 25 famous scientists who believed in some kinds of God, some Christian, some not )
If you listen to some commentators today, you get the impression that science has replaced religion as the only credible way of learning about the world, and that few academics now believe in God. So what then do we make of Prof John Lennox’s claim, made in a recent Radio 4 interview, that over 65% of Nobel prize winners between 1901 and 2000 believed in God? Could such a surprising statement really be true, given what we know of the culture around us?
The statistics were taken from Baruch Shalev’s 100 Years of Nobel Prizes (Los Angeles, 2005)1 and, far from being over–stated, the number of theists may even have been higher still, as the he records that just over 65% of the overall winners identified as Christian,2 whilst over 20% were Jewish and just under 1% were Muslim.3 Although the author’s methodology is not explained in detail, it is certainly significant if the Nobel Laureates identified as such, even though some may have been associating themselves with a religion in more of a nominal or cultural sense. The Jewish figure is particularly striking, as they only represented about 0.02% of the world’s population, whereas, by contrast, Muslims made up around 20%. Just under 11% of the winners had no belief in God (e.g. atheists and agnostics), although, interestingly, far more of them were in the field of literature (around 35% of winners), than in scientific disciplines (7% of winners in chemistry, 9% in medicine and 5% in physics).
Indeed, one of the fascinating features of the research is some of the differences across the subjects. Rather than being less represented in the scientific disciplines, Christians made up just under two–thirds of those receiving the physics and medicine awards (64% and 65% respectively), whilst the figure was even higher for chemistry, as they accounted for nearly three–quarters of the winners (74%). As for the peace prize, if you exclude those going to organisations, 78% of them went to Christians, 11% to Jews, 4% to non–believers, 2% to Buddhists, 2% to Muslims, 1% to Quakers and 1% to those holding Shinto beliefs.4
The study certainly raises all kinds of interesting questions about how we account for the differences, as it is important to acknowledge, for example, the way in which the prize is awarded, how people identify themselves, as well as factors like the age and location of the recipients. Nevertheless, although the findings do not include the past two decades, they do at least support John Lennox’s contention that science and religion are not considered to be opposed to one another, and that, up until very recently, many of the world’s most eminent academics believed in God.
one estimate made by Weijia Zhang from Arizona State University and Robert G. Fuller from University of Nebraska–Lincoln, between 1901 and 1990, 60% of Physics Nobel prize winners had Christian backgrounds.[2] In an estimate by Baruch Shalev, between 1901 and 2000, about 65.3% of Physics Nobel prize winners were either Christians or had a Christian background.[1]
Note: Note: Einstein is a big of an enigma, stating "I believe in Spinoza’s God" but not a personal God. He stated "I am not an atheist" then also called himself an agnostic or a "religious nonbeliever." On the other hand, Nobels weren’t around then, but November 23, 1654: French scientist and mathematician Blaise Pascal experiences a mystical vision and converts to Christianity. The creator of the first wristwatch, the first bus route, the first workable calculating machine, and other inventions then turned his life to theology
Footnotes
1: See B. Shalev, 100 Years of Nobel Prizes, 3rd edn (Los Angeles, 2005), pp. 57–61.
2: Those included were those who identified as Anglicans, Baptists, Calvinists, Catholics, Christians, Congregationalists, Dutch–Mennonites, Dutch–Reformed, Eastern Orthodox, Episcopalian, Greek Orthodox, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterians, Protestants and Unitarians.
3: 5 of the 654 recipients were Muslims, whilst Buddhists and Hindus numbered only 7 and 3 respectively.
4: These and other figures are rounded to the nearest percent
Friends don't let friends get defunded?
awesome- and add to that Whitney Webb's latest on CHD TV- Gain of Function research. According to Lawyer, Andrew KImbrell of anti-gmo fame, his law firm sued the Feds into stopping all 'gain of function' research and funding. After the 9/11 "attack" for "national security reasons- the ban was lifted and it became business as usual-the same bad actors went right back to it-- and FOIA requests were no longer granted. Whitney and Johnny Vedmore really hit this topic ouf of the park. Listening to what 'Gain of Function' has meant over historical times in Britain and elsewhere, is unbelievable- the level of evil that governments and their operators were willing to do to the people . https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/shows/good-morning-chd/the-gain-of-function-industry-with-whitney-webb/
The swamp is deeper & far more vast than I could have imagined.
Would love to see all the names.
The only way too win this fight is to quit funding your enemy.