Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- jeffrey_sachs [2022/09/17 16:02]
pamela [Interview Robert F. Kennedy Jr.]
+++ jeffrey_sachs [2022/09/19 17:10] (current)
pamela
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ===== Jeffrey Sachs =====
-{{ ::jeffrey_sachs_pic.png?200|}}
+{{ ::jeffrey_sachs_pic.png?400|}}
-Jeffrey D. Sachs is a world-renowned economics professor, bestselling author, innovative educator, and global leader in sustainable development. Professor Sachs serves as the Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, and is a University Professor, Columbia's highest academic rank. Sachs was Director of the Earth Institute from 2002 to 2016.
+Jeffrey D. Sachs is a world-renowned economics professor, bestselling author, innovative educator, and global leader in sustainable development.
-Professor Sachs is widely recognized for bold and effective strategies to address complex challenges including debt crises, hyperinflations, the transition from central planning to market economies, the control of [[:AIDS]], malaria, and other diseases, the escape from extreme poverty, and the battle against human-induced climate change. He is Director of the [[:Center for Sustainable Development]], President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, a commissioner of the UN Broadband Commission for Development, and an SDG Advocate for UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres. From 2001-18, Sachs served as Special Advisor to the UN Secretary General, for Kofi Annan (2001-7), Ban Ki-moon (2008-16), and Antonio Guterres (2017-18).
+Professor Sachs serves as the Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, and is a University Professor, Columbia's highest academic rank. Sachs was Director of the Earth Institute from 2002 to 2016.
+Professor Sachs is widely recognized for bold and effective strategies to address complex challenges including debt crises, hyperinflations, the transition from central planning to market economies, the control of [[:AIDS]], malaria, and other diseases, the escape from extreme poverty, and the battle against human-induced climate change.
+He is Director of the [[:Center for Sustainable Development]], President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, a commissioner of the UN Broadband Commission for Development, and an SDG Advocate for UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres. From 2001-18, Sachs served as Special Advisor to the UN Secretary General, for Kofi Annan (2001-7), Ban Ki-moon (2008-16), and Antonio Guterres (2017-18).
 Professor Sachs was the co-recipient of the 2015 Blue Planet Prize, the leading global prize for environmental leadership. He was twice named among Time magazine’s 100 most influential world leaders and has received 28 honorary degrees. The New York Times called Sachs “probably the most important economist in the world,” and Time magazine called Sachs “the world’s best-known economist.” A survey by The Economist ranked Sachs as among the three most influential living economists. ((https://web.archive.org/web/20201001203603/https://covid19commission.org/jeffrey-sachs))
-==== Lancet Covid-19 Commission ====
+==== 2003 Lancet Profile ====
+Jeffrey Sachs Interview by Faith McLellan
+Published:August 23, 2003
+DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14181-5
+The man The New York Times calls “probably the most important economist in the world” is more or less between presentations when I met him at the Stanhope Hotel, across from New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art. Jeffrey D Sachs, Director of Columbia University's Earth Institute, and Professor of Sustainable Development and of Health Policy and Management, had recently helped his 9-year-old daughter give a talk, complete with Powerpoint, about Tibet, and he will leave here to speak about [[:AIDS]] at Manhattan's exclusive Brearley School for girls. These were rather comforting bits of domestic information about a man who is routinely consulted by the [[:United Nations]], the [[:White House]], and governments around the world. ((https://web.archive.org/web/20220917132223/https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2803%2914181-5/fulltext))
+==== Interview Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ====
+August 25, 2022 - The Defender Show
+‘The Defender Show’ Episode 64: The Origins of COVID-19 With Jeffrey Sachs
+((https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/shows/the-defender-show/VIDcX7lZl9))
+==== Lancet Covid-19 Commission Report ====
+The [[:Lancet COVID-19 Commission]]
+Published: September 14, 2022
+Executive Summary
+{{ ::lancet_covid_19_commission_paper.png?600|}}
+The Lancet Commission on lessons for the future from the COVID-19 pandemic provides a comprehensive investigation, analysis, and response to COVID-19. The Commission delivers a number of recommendations that are divided into three main areas. First, practical steps to finally control and understand the COVID-19 pandemic. Second, realistic, feasible, and necessary investments to strengthen the first line of defence against emerging infectious agents in countries by strengthening health systems and widening universal health coverage. Third, ambitious proposals to ignite a renaissance in multilateralism, integrating the global response to the risk of future pandemics with actions to address the climate crisis and reversals in sustainable development.
+Executive summary
+As of May 31, 2022, there were 6·9 million reported deaths and 17·2 million estimated deaths from COVID-19, as reported by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME; throughout the report, we rely on IHME estimates of infections and deaths; note that the IHME gives an estimated range, and we refer to the mean estimate). This staggering death toll is both a profound tragedy and a massive global failure at multiple levels. Too many governments have failed to adhere to basic norms of institutional rationality and transparency, too many people—often influenced by misinformation—have disrespected and protested against basic public health precautions, and the world's major powers have failed to collaborate to control the pandemic.((https://web.archive.org/web/20220914235240/https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)01585-9/fulltext))
+==== Public Reaction ====
+=== Washington Post ===
+(Insincere headline they make Sachs a conspiracy theorists & anto-vax adjacent & conclude more WHO power is needed )
+{{ ::lancet_c19_comm_finding_headline_blsts_gov_untrustineffective.png?400|}}
+‘Untrustworthy and ineffective’: Panel blasts governments’ covid response
+In long-awaited report, the Lancet Covid-19 Commission also revives disputed claims about virus’s origins
+By Dan Diamond - September 14, 2022
+The Lancet commission report carries no legal or regulatory authority. But its recommendations, which draw on more than two years of work from more than 170 experts, represent one of the highest-profile attempts to identify lessons from covid-19 and how to better prepare for the next pandemic. U.S. efforts to conduct a bipartisan review of the pandemic response have stalled in Congress, and other independent bids have also struggled to win funding or capture widespread attention.
+But the Lancet report also comes after Sachs, the panel’s chairman, publicly embraced the “lab-leak theory,” which posits that the virus may have escaped from a laboratory and could even have man-made origins, leading to backlash from scientists who warned that his advocacy for the disputed theory would cloud the panel’s work.
+Government officials such as Anthony S. Fauci “are not being honest” about the virus’s origins, Sachs claimed on an August podcast with [[:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.]], who has spread conspiracy theories about vaccines. Sachs also co-authored a May article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that argued U.S. scientists may have had a role in shaping SARS-CoV-2 and called for a probe of the pandemic’s origin through a “bipartisan congressional inquiry with full investigative powers.”((https://web.archive.org/web/20220915010444/https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/09/14/lancet-covid-commission-report-who/))
 === BMJ - Childrens Health Defense ===
@@ Line 146: / Line 197: @@
 Well, that is what may have happened. And what has been true from the start is that that very real possibility, which a lot of scientists know, has not been looked at closely, even though it’s absolutely clear that it could have happened that way. They’re not looking. They just keep telling us, “Look at the market, look at the market, look at the market!” But they don’t address this alternative. They don’t even look at the data. They don’t even ask questions. And the truth is from the beginning, they haven’t asked the real questions.
-But not quite the beginning. Because at the beginning, which we could date from the first phone call of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) with a group of virologists on February 1, 2020, the virologists said “Oh my god, that is strange, that could well be a laboratory creation. What is that furin cleavage site doing in there?” Because scientists knew that was part of an active ongoing research program. And yet, by February 3, the same group is saying “No, no, it’s natural, it’s natural.”
+But not quite the beginning. Because at the beginning, which we could date from the first phone call of the [[:National Institutes of Health]] (NIH) with a group of virologists on February 1, 2020, the virologists said “Oh my god, that is strange, that could well be a laboratory creation. What is that furin cleavage site doing in there?” Because scientists knew that was part of an active ongoing research program. And yet, by February 3, the same group is saying “No, no, it’s natural, it’s natural.”
-By February 4, they start to draft the papers that are telling the public, “Don’t worry, it’s natural.” By March, they write a paper—totally spurious, in my view—called the **proximal origins paper** that is the most cited bio paper in 2020. It said: it is absolutely natural. [Note: the paper’s conclusion is “we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.”] But they didn’t have any of the data that you read about in the [[:New York Times]]. They didn’t have any of this. They just said the labs weren’t working on this alternative. But you know what, they don’t know what the labs were working on, because they never asked, and NIH hasn’t told us. ((https://web.archive.org/web/20220917134541/https://www.theinsider1.com/post/jeffrey-sachs-what-is-washington-hiding-about-covids-origin))
+By February 4, they start to draft the papers that are telling the public, “Don’t worry, it’s natural.” By March, they write a paper—totally spurious, in my view—called the **proximal origins paper** that is the most cited bio paper in 2020. It said: it is absolutely natural. [Note: the paper’s conclusion is “we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.”] But they didn’t have any of the data that you read about in the [[:New York Times]]. They didn’t have any of this. They just said the labs weren’t working on this alternative. But you know what, they don’t know what the labs were working on, because they never asked, and NIH hasn’t told us.
+And the scientists like those that talk about the Huanan market, they don’t even discuss that research that was underway. That is just misdirection, to my mind. It’s like sleight of hand art. Don’t look over there. Look over here. But we know that there was a tremendous amount of this research underway. We have interviews by the lead scientists. We have these research proposals. I know the intention of doing this research from discussions. I’ve read so many studies of the importance of this research claimed by the scientists. And yet I see NIH with its head in the ground. “Oh, no, nothing here to look at.” And then I see the scientists. “Oh, nothing here to look at. We know it’s the market. Did we find an animal? No. Do we have an explanation of where that furin cleavage site came in? No. We don’t have an explanation of the timing, which doesn’t quite look right. Oh, but don’t look over there, because there’s nothing there,” they keep telling us. Well, that’s a little silly.
+So my point is, there is a huge amount of reason to believe that that research was underway. Because there are published papers on this. There are interviews on this. There are research proposals. But NIH isn’t talking. It’s not asking. And these scientists have never asked either. From the very first day, they have kept hidden from view the alternative. And when they discuss the alternative, they don’t discuss the research program. They discuss complete straw men about the lab, not the actual kind of research that was underway, which was to stick [[:furin cleavage sites]] into SARS-like viruses in a way that could have created SARS-Cov-2.
+What I’m calling for is not the conclusion. I’m calling for the investigation. Finally, after two and a half years of this, it’s time to fess up that it might have come out of a lab and here’s the data that we need to know to find out whether it did.
+ROBINSON:
+One of the things that struck me that I didn’t know when I started writing about this and actually doing some some research is realizing that in the years leading up to the pandemic, there was a huge controversy about whether it was wise to modify viruses in the course of research in ways that could make a virus more infectious or more lethal. And some people were arguing that this kind of research was insane. And some people were warning that in the case of a lab accident—an accident, mind you, not as an intentional “[[:bioweapon]]”—a simple human error could cause a real catastrophe.
+SACHS:
+That is exactly right. There were several kinds of experiments of manipulation of the genes of dangerous viruses. And this raised a lot of alarm. And there was actually a moratorium in 2014. But the champions of this kind of research pushed on, they applied for waivers, which they got, and finally the moratorium came off in 2017. And they said how important it is to do this dangerous kind of research, because they claimed, “Well, there are lots of viruses out there. And we don’t know when they’re going to become highly pathogenic, and we need to develop drugs and [[:vaccines]] against a wide spectrum of them. So we have to test all these viruses that we can find, to see whether they have high spillover potential.”
+But they weren’t actually aiming to just test viruses that they were collecting in nature. They were aiming to modify those viruses. Because the scientists knew that a **SARS-like virus without a furin cleavage site wouldn’t be that dangerous**. But they wanted to test their drugs and vaccines and theories against dangerous viruses. Their proposal was to take hundreds, by the way—or least they talked about in one proposal more than 180 previously unreported strains—and test them for their so-called “spillover potential.” How effective would they be? And to look: do they have a furin cleavage site, or technically what’s called a proteolytic cleavage site? And if not, put them in. For heaven’s sake. My God! Are you kidding?
+Okay, **but we didn’t even ask the question from the first day**: did you guys do that? Tell us what you did. Could you give us your lab notebooks? We’re kind of curious. Instead, these people who are writing these [[:New York Times]] articles right now and publishing these pieces about the market, from the first day—without asking about the experiments—they said, “Nope, it’s natural.” That’s why I don’t trust them. Because they’ve never looked at the alternative hypothesis. And their hypothesis has so many gaps, so many holes in it. But they don’t even try to look at the alternative hypothesis.
+ROBINSON:
+I think it’s very important to make clear that the “alternative hypothesis” is mainly a hypothesis about an accident, and scientific hubris. It’s important to distinguish the kooky theories from the incredibly plausible theories. Because what you’re talking about is people who did not appreciate the dangers of what they were doing.
+SACHS:
+In fact, it’s very interesting. The alternative that is the right one to look at is part of a very extensive research program that was underway from 2015 onward, funded by the NIH, by Tony Fauci, in particular NIAID [National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases], and it was to examine the spillover potential of [[:SARS]] -like viruses. The champions of this research explained in detail their proposals. But after the event, we’d never asked them, “So what were you actually doing? What experiments did you do? What do you know?” We somehow never asked. It was better just to sweep it under the rug, which is what Fauci and the NIH have done up until this point. Maybe they could tell us, “Oh, full exoneration,” but they haven’t told us that at all. They haven’t shown us anything.
+So there’s nothing “kooky” about it, because it’s precisely what the scientists were doing. And then you can listen to the scientists on tape describing why they think the research program is so important, because they say these are dangerous viruses, and therefore we have to prepare broad spectrum vaccines and drugs. They explain it’s not good enough to test one or two viruses. We have to test all of them. And then they came to realize, as I said earlier, that just having a SARS-like virus, if it doesn’t have this piece of the gene, it’s almost surely not going to be that effective. So they got around to the idea. “Well, let’s put these in,” if you can imagine that. To my mind, it’s mind-boggling.
+But they were proud of this, because it’s actually genius at a technological level. Can you imagine: you can take a sequence of letters, which defines the genome, you can recreate the virus just from the letters. You don’t even have to have the biological virus in hand, you just need the sequence. **Then you can say “I’m going to add these four letters RRAR, the furin cleavage site, or maybe it’s eight, RRARSVAS, this is a sequence of eight amino acids—I’m going to stick it in there right at the S1 S2 junction of the spike protein, because I know from my research program that will make it more pathogenic, that is more disease-causing. And then I can see whether my drug candidates like [[:remdesivir]], or some other candidate works against it.** That is their idea. There’s nothing kooky about our claim: Hey, what were you doing? Because they told us that they wanted to do these projects. And they told us that they were wanting to do these projects in the months leading up to this outbreak. And then what is absolutely strange is that even though scientists knew right from the start, that is very weird to have that RRAR furin cleavage site in there—never saw that before in a SARS-like virus, and that that could well have come from a lab—hush, hush. Don’t talk about it. Don’t even discuss it. Just say right from the beginning: This is natural. Of course, it’s natural. Everything else is kooky.
+So you saw a narrative being created. And the scientists are not acting like scientists. Because when you’re acting like a scientist, you’re pursuing alternative hypotheses. And the scientists just wrote recently an op-ed saying the only evidence that this came out of a lab that’s been put forward is that it came in a city, Wuhan, where an institute was located. Well, that’s a lie. That is not the only coincidence that leads to this theory. What leads to this alternative hypothesis is the detailed research program the NIH funded that was underway in the years leading up to the outbreak. So I see the scientists absolutely trying to create a narrative and take our eyes off of another issue.
+Now, again, let me emphasize, we don’t have definitive evidence of either hypothesis. But what we do have is definitive evidence that officialdom has tried to keep our eyes away from the lab creation hypothesis.
+ROBINSON:
+You mentioned the lab in Wuhan. It’s not just that there was a lab in Wuhan doing research on viruses. But there were ties between the lab and those pursuing this program. What do we know about the research that was actually occurring there?
+SACHS:
+We know that at the [[:Wuhan Institute of Virology]], the scientists there had been trained by American scientists to use advanced bioengineering methodologies. And in particular, we have scientists in North Carolina, Texas, and so forth who do this kind of research, believe in it, argue for it, and say that they don’t want any regulations on it and so on. And they were in close contact with Wuhan Institute of Virology, and they were part of a joint research group that was stitched together by something called EcoHealth Alliance. And [[:EcoHealth Alliance]] was the kind of marriage maker between the American scientists and the Chinese scientists. That was the vehicle for funding from the U.S. government, especially from the National Institutes of Health, and especially from [[:Tony Fauci]]’s unit, the [[:NIAID]]. There were years of grants, there were grant proposals. We don’t know exactly what was done. But we have enough reason to know that we should be asking exactly what was done. And we know definitively that from the beginning, NIH has been running from telling us what has been done. They’re not telling us the truth, that they had reason to fear from the start that this came out of a lab. And that to this day, they have reason to suspect it, but they’re not talking.
+ROBINSON:
+A shocking thing to me was that the head of the EcoHealth Alliance was on the World Health Organization team that actually investigated the origins of COVID and concluded that it wasn’t the lab.
+SACHS:
+Well, more than that: I appointed him—this was [[:Peter Daszak]] —I appointed him to chair the task force of the pandemic commission that I was running for the Lancet. And he headed a task force on the origins. I thought, naively at the beginning, “Well, here’s a guy who is so connected, he would know.” And then I realized he was not telling me the truth. And it took me some months, but the more I saw it, the more I resented it.
+And so I told him, “Look, you have to leave.” And then the other scientists in that task force attacked me for being anti-scientific. And I asked them: “What are your connections with all of this?” They didn’t tell me. Then when the [[:Freedom of Information Act]] (FOIA) released some of these documents that NIH had been hiding from the public, I saw that people that were attacking me were also part of this thing. So I disbanded that whole task force. So my own experience was to witness close up how they’re not talking. And they’re trying to keep our eyes on something else. And away from even asking the questions that we’re talking about. We don’t have the answers. But we have good reasons to ask. And we have good reasons to know that NIH is not doing its job properly right now.((https://web.archive.org/web/20220917134541/https://www.theinsider1.com/post/jeffrey-sachs-what-is-washington-hiding-about-covids-origin))
+=== Current Affairs ===
+{{ ::current_affairs_sachs_quote.png?400|}}
+Why the Chair of the Lancet’s COVID-19 Commission Thinks The US Government Is Preventing a Real Investigation Into the Pandemic
+Prof. Jeffrey Sachs says he is “pretty convinced [COVID-19] came out of US lab biotechnology” and warns that there is dangerous virus research taking place without public oversight.
+filed 02 August 2022 in The Virus by Nathan Robinson
+Prof. Sachs recently co-authored a paper in the Proceedings of the [[:National Academy of Sciences]] calling for an independent inquiry into the virus’s origins. He believes that there is clear proof that the [[:National Institutes of Health]] and many members of the scientific community have been impeding a serious investigation of the origins of [[:COVID-19]] and deflecting attention away from the hypothesis that risky U.S.-supported research may have led to millions of deaths.
+If that hypothesis is true, the implications would be earth-shaking, because it might mean that esteemed members of the scientific community bore responsibility for a global calamity. In this interview, Prof. Sachs explains how he, as the head of the COVID-19 commission for a leading medical journal, came to the conclusion that powerful actors were preventing a real investigation from taking place. He also explains why it is so important to get to the bottom of the origins of COVID: because, he says, there is extremely dangerous research taking place with little accountability, and the public has a right to know since we are the ones whose lives are being put at risk without our consent.
+Nathan Robinson: I want to quote something that you said recently:
+“I chaired the commission for the Lancet for two years on COVID. I’m pretty convinced it came out of U.S. lab biotechnology, not out of nature, just to mention. After two years of intensive work on this. So it’s a blunder in my view of biotech, not an accident of a natural spillover. We don’t know for sure, I should be absolutely clear. But there’s enough evidence that it should be looked into. And it’s not being investigated, not in the United States, not anywhere. And I think for real reasons that they don’t want to look underneath the rug, the statement.”
+The statement that you made there is a controversial one. Just to read a couple of quotes from the New York Times in the last year
+((https://web.archive.org/web/20220909194915/https://www.currentaffairs.org/2022/08/why-the-chair-of-the-lancets-covid-19-commission-thinks-the-us-government-is-preventing-a-real-investigation-into-the-pandemic))
-==== Interview Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ====
-August 25, 2022 - The Defender Show
-‘The Defender Show’ Episode 64: The Origins of COVID-19 With Jeffrey Sachs
-((https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/shows/the-defender-show/VIDcX7lZl9))