Are 75 Nobel Prize Winners All Grifters or Do They Just Do What Richard Roberts Tells Them?

Roberts et. al. also scandalously defended EcoHealth Alliance when it was credibly charged with helping cause the Covid pandemic. Big Science has a political economy and seemingly no accountability.

The New York Times and tons of other media are eating up a statement by 75 “Nobel laureates” led by Richard J. Roberts, of New England Biolabs.

“Prominent scientist” and “Nobel laureates” must be NYT propaganda for grifters or overeducated morons who defended Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliances’s funding in 2020 when he was credibly accused of having a role in causing the Covid pandemic. On May 21, 2020, the NYT solemnly reported that Richard Roberts organized a letter on that too:

The pre-eminent scientists characterized the explanation for the decision by the National Institutes of Health as “preposterous.” The agency said the investigation into the sources of pandemics did not fit “with program goals and agency priorities.”

The Nobel laureates’ letter followed by a day a letter of protest from the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology to the National Institutes on behalf of 31 scientific societies. The societies include tens of thousands of members, the letter stated. It said the grant cancelation politicized science and concluded, “The action taken by the NIH must be immediately reconsidered.”

I had just written "Contrary to claims, the pandemic may have come from a lab — and regardless, it exposes the threat of biowarfare arms race” for Salon and was being viciously attacked by many — including ignorant “leftists” — for the crime of desperately trying to warn the global public that the pandemic could well have lab origin.

I’d highlighted the nefarious role of these “scientists” in a lengthy overview piece, see below:

* Worse than silence -- you had 77 Nobel Prize winners denouncing the cutoff of funding to EcoHealth Alliance. They were organized by Richard J. Roberts of New England Biolabs. That organization makes a great deal of money from lab equipment purchased by institutions from money doled out by the government. Where is the accountability from these revered scientists? Such scientists should have been in the forefront denouncing Daszak's conflicts of interest -- instead, they covered it up.

I also had a letter on this published in the Boston Globe on August 15, 2021.

Investigative reporter Tim Schwab responded to my letter: “I'm surprised that @NobelPrize has never intervened w/ Richard Roberts's petitions over the years. I remember one---signed by 100+ Nobel laureates in literature et al---that said criticism of GMOs is a ‘crime against humanity.’ Bizarre on so many levels.”

Schwab reported in 2016 in "I Was Barred from a Nobel Laureate Press Conference by a PR Consultant with Monsanto Ties" — writing that "leading the event was Dr. Richard Roberts of New England Biolabs, a private biotech firm whose products are mentioned in patents from Dow Agrosciences and Monsanto. Roberts, a Nobel winner, organized the Nobel campaign against Greenpeace."

Richard Ebright at Rutgers now charges:

It should be evident that science, like everything else, has a political economy. And in the case of “biodefense” — read: biowarfare — the corruption is off the charts.

Regular readers will know that I’ve written extensively on Kennedy and don’t expect any good will come from him. I think I was the first journalist to suspect his position on Israel was genocidal. On biowarfare, if he were serious about reforming science, he would have had rallies outside the labs and organizations across the US engaging in making more deadly pathogens when he was pretending to run for president. He may certainly be in a strong position to shut it down soon. Despite my low expectations, I certainly hope he does. The possibility that he might do so — however remote — could be the real reason for this attack on him.

See related pieces: