1) There’s common sense, decency and plenty of mandate to address the madness among the public.
So, the unique problem, the mystery faced is the complete unwillingness to discuss, face, much less reason through possible solutions. Perhaps this is because it is an end-of-civilization technology, and there is a deep, unconscious concern that once the floodgates are opened to addressing the problem, the variety of responses will amount to a horrible and permanent degradation in the quality of life — all sorts of preoccupations with preparing for the inevitable, children and the elderly confused and in fear, apocalyptic theory preoccupations galore. I imagine the entirety of that is overblown. What is true is that the nature of what is the good and bad assessment of science and our future have to be altered, and downward is what most will conclude is called for.
2) Because of the apocalyptic stakes, the behavior of the reckless jump out as seeming more than just wrongheaded.
Perhaps it isn’t. It’s human behavior, typical range, except the stakes are beyond imagination. What would be fair to call evil, working in a way that seems to increase death and suffering is without question in this case, an unprecedented evil in size that is too vast to fully comprehend.
Psychology would probably say that there is a spectrum of net evil persons that stretch from the misinformed to the sociopathic or psychopathic generals and leaders.
3) The spiritual dimension. What is going on? Is there some chess game of great good and evil forces being played out. The terminal science technologies are the same across the universe, isn’t this a ‘drama’ that erupts in a ‘flash’ at the point of science understanding throughout the universe? Does good always win and is there a form it takes that we can’t imagine or see? Is it best to not accord evil anymore power than that which we see in the people, like Fauci, etc., that traffic in evil? Yet some amount of faith in the inevitable victory of goodness is certainly a big help, even as there would be no science to fall back on to support it.
Every interaction on this subject is to some degree incomplete. The darkest possibilities have only negative value to the good, and there’s enough there on the surface to know right from wrong and act accordingly.
The SAGO team are very well informed and have followed up with research, and as yet undisclosed sources, that have examined the question of the providence of sampling and in particular for the BANAL series they mention:
<<The closest related viruses to this novel coronavirus at the time was the known bat SARS-like coronavirus RaTG13 with a 96.1% genomic similarity, collected in China in 2013 (Zhou et al., 2020b), as well as Banal-52 (96.8% homology) collected in Lao People’s Democratic Republic in 2018, and the sequence later reported (Temmam et al., 2022).>>
Together with the as yet undisclosed serology results generously disclosed by EHA but not published in peer review and required detail to date.
Both these issues are important for the Editorial team of Nature and the relevant authors of Temmam2022&2023 to address.
How are these issues able to be addressed by the Nature Springer Editorial team?
Have any of your team been given access to the WIV database that ZLShi below has explained was taken offline at the outbreak of this ongoing pandemic and as yet has not been restored for public use, but ZLShi assures me that access can be given <<We have only entered a limit data in this database and the access to the visitors is limited and granted with permission considering the knowledge property.>>
Given the principle of <<No Data No Publication>>, and given that there are now known EHA & WIV archived Laos linked serology results, would this data not need to be disclosed in order to satisfy the undertakings of authors of Temmem2022 and the various WIV/EHA/NUS Springer Nature publications to date…where one of these papers has been retracted citing the unintended inclusion of Laos linked samples…The Laos Archived samples have been analysed by LinFa Wang’s lab that was involved with this retracted paper.
NIAID R01 Monthly Meeting details from Tue 25 Jul 2023 21:00 have been made generously available to the public by EHA, which makes sense as this research was apparently publicly funded by the US taxpayer towards the purpose of mitigating and seeking curative value with respect to pandemics with novel viruses. Data is vital to this shared global enterprise.
<<Summary: Agenda
Description:
NIAID ROI Monthly Meeting, July 25, 2023
New meeting participants
- Zhu Feng from Duke NUS;
- Audrey Dubot-Pérés, the head of Virology at LOMWRU, who has questions about the assay (Elizabeth
(Liz) Ashley can't join)
Zhu Feng and Chee Wah to present the serology results from archived samples in Laos >>
It appears this issue with Laos linked samples has not yet been resolved…and retraction details have not been adequate to the task of Discrepant Epidemiology issues raised.
Please also understand the close relationship between WIV and IP and the special interest that there is in how much access the authors of Temmam2022&2023 had to data from WIV.
The Editorial team of Springer Nature should also be given access to these WIV databases in order to understand the validity of the knowledge claims made in their publications…or take steps to address their readers directly as to the validity of their publications; science or propaganda?
Thanks for the picture of a variety of things:
1) There’s common sense, decency and plenty of mandate to address the madness among the public.
So, the unique problem, the mystery faced is the complete unwillingness to discuss, face, much less reason through possible solutions. Perhaps this is because it is an end-of-civilization technology, and there is a deep, unconscious concern that once the floodgates are opened to addressing the problem, the variety of responses will amount to a horrible and permanent degradation in the quality of life — all sorts of preoccupations with preparing for the inevitable, children and the elderly confused and in fear, apocalyptic theory preoccupations galore. I imagine the entirety of that is overblown. What is true is that the nature of what is the good and bad assessment of science and our future have to be altered, and downward is what most will conclude is called for.
2) Because of the apocalyptic stakes, the behavior of the reckless jump out as seeming more than just wrongheaded.
Perhaps it isn’t. It’s human behavior, typical range, except the stakes are beyond imagination. What would be fair to call evil, working in a way that seems to increase death and suffering is without question in this case, an unprecedented evil in size that is too vast to fully comprehend.
Psychology would probably say that there is a spectrum of net evil persons that stretch from the misinformed to the sociopathic or psychopathic generals and leaders.
3) The spiritual dimension. What is going on? Is there some chess game of great good and evil forces being played out. The terminal science technologies are the same across the universe, isn’t this a ‘drama’ that erupts in a ‘flash’ at the point of science understanding throughout the universe? Does good always win and is there a form it takes that we can’t imagine or see? Is it best to not accord evil anymore power than that which we see in the people, like Fauci, etc., that traffic in evil? Yet some amount of faith in the inevitable victory of goodness is certainly a big help, even as there would be no science to fall back on to support it.
Every interaction on this subject is to some degree incomplete. The darkest possibilities have only negative value to the good, and there’s enough there on the surface to know right from wrong and act accordingly.
Yes, all important analysis and reading. Thank you.
But having these institutions take initiative even in this current ongoing crisis is very difficult.
<<Shenelyn Bautista
Author Support Specialist
Publishing Support
Springer Nature
www.springernature.com
Dear Shenelyn Bautista,
The SAGO team are very well informed and have followed up with research, and as yet undisclosed sources, that have examined the question of the providence of sampling and in particular for the BANAL series they mention:
<<The closest related viruses to this novel coronavirus at the time was the known bat SARS-like coronavirus RaTG13 with a 96.1% genomic similarity, collected in China in 2013 (Zhou et al., 2020b), as well as Banal-52 (96.8% homology) collected in Lao People’s Democratic Republic in 2018, and the sequence later reported (Temmam et al., 2022).>>
https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/documents/epp/sago/independent-assessment-of-the-origins-of-sars-cov-2-by-sago.pdf?sfvrsn=b0f90ad4_6&download=true
Together with the as yet undisclosed serology results generously disclosed by EHA but not published in peer review and required detail to date.
Both these issues are important for the Editorial team of Nature and the relevant authors of Temmam2022&2023 to address.
How are these issues able to be addressed by the Nature Springer Editorial team?
Have any of your team been given access to the WIV database that ZLShi below has explained was taken offline at the outbreak of this ongoing pandemic and as yet has not been restored for public use, but ZLShi assures me that access can be given <<We have only entered a limit data in this database and the access to the visitors is limited and granted with permission considering the knowledge property.>>
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7
Given the principle of <<No Data No Publication>>, and given that there are now known EHA & WIV archived Laos linked serology results, would this data not need to be disclosed in order to satisfy the undertakings of authors of Temmem2022 and the various WIV/EHA/NUS Springer Nature publications to date…where one of these papers has been retracted citing the unintended inclusion of Laos linked samples…The Laos Archived samples have been analysed by LinFa Wang’s lab that was involved with this retracted paper.
NIAID R01 Monthly Meeting details from Tue 25 Jul 2023 21:00 have been made generously available to the public by EHA, which makes sense as this research was apparently publicly funded by the US taxpayer towards the purpose of mitigating and seeking curative value with respect to pandemics with novel viruses. Data is vital to this shared global enterprise.
<<Summary: Agenda
Description:
NIAID ROI Monthly Meeting, July 25, 2023
New meeting participants
- Zhu Feng from Duke NUS;
- Audrey Dubot-Pérés, the head of Virology at LOMWRU, who has questions about the assay (Elizabeth
(Liz) Ashley can't join)
Zhu Feng and Chee Wah to present the serology results from archived samples in Laos >>
It appears this issue with Laos linked samples has not yet been resolved…and retraction details have not been adequate to the task of Discrepant Epidemiology issues raised.
Please provide more details ASAP
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-55454-w
https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:11be74c
Please also understand the close relationship between WIV and IP and the special interest that there is in how much access the authors of Temmam2022&2023 had to data from WIV.
The Editorial team of Springer Nature should also be given access to these WIV databases in order to understand the validity of the knowledge claims made in their publications…or take steps to address their readers directly as to the validity of their publications; science or propaganda?
http://english.siii.cas.cn/news/ln/202310/t20231009_378411.html
Kind regards
Tommy Cleary>>