Dödligt virus från Kina orsakar panik (SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19)

Characterizing persistent Post-COVID-19 vaccination symptoms using MedDRA system organ class and preferred term classifications

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-026-43949-z

A growing number of people, including prominent scientists, are calling for a full retraction of a high-profile study published in the journal Nature in March 2020 that explored the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

The paper, whose authors included immunology and microbiology professor Kristian G. Andersen, declared that evidence clearly showed that SARS-CoV-2 did not originate from a laboratory.

“Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus,” the authors wrote in February.

Yet a trove of recently published documents reveal that Andersen and his co-authors believed that the lab leak scenario was not just possible, but likely. https://fee.org/articles/nature-s-proximal-origin-paper-was-a-work-of-fraud-and-scientific-misconduct-say-scientists-demandin g-a-retraction/

The Lancet letter (also referred to as Calisher et al. 2020) was a statement made in support of scientists and medical professionals in China fighting the outbreak of COVID-19, and condemning theories suggesting that the virus does not have a natural origin, which it referred to as "conspiracy theories".[1][2] The letter was published in The Lancet on February 19, 2020, and signed by 27 prominent scientists, gaining a further 20,000 signatures in a Change.org petition.[3][4] The letter generated significant controversy over the allegations of conflicts of interest of its authors, most notably Peter Daszak's undisclosed relationship with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and the chilling effect it had on scientists proposing that the COVID-19 lab leak theory be investigated.[5][6][7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_letter_(COVID-19)

According to journalist Paul Thacker, the Lancet letter "helped to guide almost a year of reporting, as journalists helped to amplify Daszak's message and to silence scientific and public debate." This affected reporting on the origins of the virus, "characterising the lab leak theory as unworthy of serious consideration".[9]

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, social scientist Filippa Lentzos said that the letter's conclusion was premature, saying that some scientists "closed ranks", fearing for their careers and grants.[9]

The letter was criticized by media commentator Jamie Metzl for "scientific propaganda and thuggery"

Addendum
Following criticisms from the public that Daszak had failed to disclose certain relationships, The Lancet published an addendum, saying "There may be differences in opinion as to what constitutes a competing interest." It also invited Daszak and other authors of the letter to amend their competing interest statements. Daszak amended his statement to describe the research he has done in southeast Asia, with various different institutions including the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Daszak also recused himself from The Lancet's COVID-19 origins inquiry.[23][24][25][15]

The Lancet
In September 2021, The Lancet published a letter from a group of 16 virologists, biologists, and biosecurity specialists saying that more evidence is needed before any definitive conclusions on the origins question and calling for further investigations into a lab leak. The letter stressed that "Research-related hypotheses are not misinformation or conjecture" and that "Scientific journals should open their columns to in-depth analyses of all hypotheses."[35][36][37] The Times of India described The Lancet's decision to publish the letter as a "u-turn".[38]

Med COVIDs förutsägbara sjukdomsförlopp lärde jag mig hur viktig tidig behandling var för att förhindra möjliga dödsfall. I mina händer garanterade rätt behandling före dag åtta överlevnad. Efter dag åtta försämrades en delmängd av patienterna – typiskt de med flera samtidiga sjukdomar som inte fått tidig behandling – dramatiskt, när en flodvåg av inflammation grep tag om deras kroppar. Jag skaffade mig omfattande erfarenhet av att hindra patienter från att nå detta stadium, och en mer begränsad men mycket givande erfarenhet av att rädda patienter som kom till mig sent och som under andra omständigheter sannolikt hade dött på sjukhus. Jag behandlade framgångsrikt över sextusen COVID-patienter. Jag har aldrig behandlat så många patienter med en och samma sjukdom under min karriär, och kommer troligen aldrig att göra det igen.

”Vetenskap eller galenskap?”
Vetenskapsrådet har beviljat över en halv miljon kronor till ett treårigt projekt i musikvetenskap, ”Trumpeten som genussymbol”, som ska söka misstänkt genusspecifika klanger hos instrumentet

(...) Inom Vetenskapsrådet finns en särskild genuskommitté med uppgift att ”verka för att genusperspektiv får genomslag i forskningen”.

(...) Rådet har beviljat över en halv miljon kronor för ett treårigt projekt inom musikvetenskap med titeln ”Trumpeten som genussymbol” (dnr 2008-528), där man bland annat ska ”problematisera begreppen manligt och kvinnligt och undersöka närmare de föreställningar som är verksamma och skapar trumpeten som markör för manlighet.” https://www.svd.se/a/5b95d877-ba5b-3965-bc41-581ee5647083/vetenskap-eller-galenskap