Essay Grading: F

When grading Daszak's Guardian essay, it's important to remember that the author is promoted as a world-leading expert - the best-of-the-best science intellects on the planet.   Backed by millions of dollars in (taxpayer) funding & research resources, he is representing the World Health Organization on behalf of us all to understand the origin of a disaster that killed millions whilst precipitating draconian restrictions on all human freedoms.

Now, if the goal was to create a fog of irrationality to cover up the origins of Covid & spread CCP disinformation, then i'd have to give you A for effort. Though the Guardian deserves part of the credit as the mainstream mega-platform promoting you

But if it's meant as an academic argument, then even if it was written by a Year 10 student,  you couldn't in all honesty give it a pass mark.  Here's a recap as to why:

You've provided no evidence to support your contention that Richard Dearlove's call to investigate a lab-origin makes him a crackpot conspiracy theorist.  

A barrage of immature name-calling doesn't make it so, Pete, i'm sorry.   It's unscientific.  It only diminishes you.  If that's the best that you, one of our (supposedly) brightest scientific minds can muster, in the world's moment of need, then that's very disturbing. 

Your use of the pejorative term Conspiracy Theorist four times (like it means something) in the one article (& dozens of more times in other writings) betrays a lack of substance.  

Your labeling of a call to investigate the possibility of a lab-origin by Dearlove & Sorensen (& other researchers) as an outlandish claim equivalent to saying Covid came from aliens,  is nothing more than a silly Strawman.

Your only evidence to support your case is that Scientist just know.   But no explanation of how they know.  The WIV database was taken down & we haven't even had the investigation yet!  If one of the chief investigators is claiming it's a foregone conclusion even before it's happened, then straight-away we can deduce that the WHO Investigation is a sham. 

The implications of that are frightening: our world-leading experts, that we pay for, rely on, that are meant to serve uson - they are happy to betray us, & every principle of science (& ethics) in order to commit a global, academic fraud.  Why?  To protect a totalitarian regime - & their own self-interests.

IAt Formosa Hut we have this home-spunGolden (non-expert, i admit, but bear with me) theory:Rule:

‘When a person resorts to irrational name-calling in a discussion about details - they haveare anrevealing insecuritytheir about that topic.’insecurity.

For example a homophobe might be insecure about their own sexuality, or a racist about their personal value as a human. Often, theThe language used in emotive outbursts is revealing,always asrevealing.   It was this rule that first alerted us to something odd going on with yourTHE Science Community.   Why on earth are you demonizing people for stating the obvious?  In Daszak's case, for example, he can't stop using the term Conspiracy Theorist to attack his opponents & accusing them of being devoid of  "fears that dissolve logic and reason” tirade..

LogicTherefore, using Golden Rule theory, Pete, you are conspiring to cover-up the origin of Covid, & logic is your greatest insecurity. 

You see itlogic as your enemy.   Logically, the enemy.WHO Logically, the investigationInvestigation would include a deep-dive into what was going on at the labs.Bat Lab, right-next-door to where the outbreak occurred.  Logically, you would not be part of the investigation due to your massive conflict of interest.interest regarding WIV.  Logically, WIV wouldn't have shut down their database of bat-viruses (which is meant to be internationally accessible) if there was nothing to hide.  Logically, you wouldn't be ruling out a lab-event before it had even been examined.  Logically, you wouldn't be lauding a closed, totalitarian regime as open & transparent, when everyone knows they're not.

HenceNone of this would really matter - you'd be one more scientist with a COI-tainted viewpoint - who's way more interested in their next funding check than they are in the truth.  What's frightening, though, is the platform you have (MSM + WHO), from which to spread your fixationdisinformation on- labelingthe anyoneimmense who asks a logical question as a conspiracy theorist.

Using my theory,power that irrationalentails reaction- tells me you're covering something up. Judging byincluding the volumepower ofto yourforce mediapeople output,across i'dthe sayglobe Somethingto Big.comply with this fake reality.