The Moral Depravity of America's Academic Elites Will Kill Us All
Why the wanton immorality of America's institutions of higher learning and scientific research is the deadliest force on the planet.
Dan Sirotkin is the co-author of the first peer-reviewed paper examining a laboratory origin for SARS-CoV-2, as well as its addendum, which settled a 50-year mystery and formally linked the H1N1 Spanish Flu pandemic strain release of 1977 to gain-of-function research.
Although it took a shocking display of antisemitism, many normal Americans seem to finally be waking up to the reality that the Ivy Leagues and the rest of our oh-so-very prestigious institutions are in fact intellectually bankrupt cesspools.
But this isn’t anything new, and the worst part is this widespread institutional immorality has been central in the efforts to hide COVID’s origins as a reverting live-attenuated vaccine (LAV). Because Harvard and MIT’s joint efforts at the Broad Institute to use DARPA’s $32 million grant to extensively engineer human DNA are just a small step away:
BTL’s Nicol pioneered the application of manufacturing principles to DNA sequencing. This technology quickly scaled from deciphering a single human genome to examining thousands of organisms, including everything from soil bacteria to elephants. The Foundry is working to realize an analogous revolution in designing and writing DNA, in which instructions for useful biological functions are converted into physical DNA that can be put into living cells. This effort will be supported by DARPA funding derived from the agency’s “Living Foundries: 1000 Molecules” program, which seeks to establish facilities that can rapidly engineer cells to make chemicals and materials not found in nature.
And so not wanting to interrupt the ultimate possibility to play God, Alina Chan was rolled out a few weeks after our first peer-reviewed paper hit the press in August 2020, to distract from the idea of “serial passage,” which the authors of “Proximal Origins” and Tony Fauci and the rest of his friends have so obviously been attempting to bury from the start, since it points directly to the development of LAVs, especially when considering SARS-CoV-2’s early affinity for farmed mink, a sister-species with the lab ferrets used to attenuate vaccines:
But strangely enough, neither Harvard nor MIT were interested about the fact Alina Chan wrote several articles then a book which openly plagiarized from the original peer-reviewed science that I wrote with my dad’s guidance:
Ms. Chan's refusal to act like a responsible and ethical member of the scientific community, and defer to the primacy of the already published scientific research, was compounded when after continually refusing to engage with our paper at all she made the public statement on Twitter aimed at press covering the pandemic that: "You have to decide what peer review means to you. You can't criticize some peer-reviewed papers as bogus while also saying 'my paper is peer-reviewed why isn't everyone citing me? My opinion is to let the journalists/sci writers make their own judgement. Peer reviewed or not."
By encouraging the press at large to ignore the process and importance of peer reviewed publication, Ms. Chan makes it clear that she has no interest in being an honest member of the wider scientific community, and given her open association with Harvard/MIT reflects on your institutions as well. And she corrodes the very underpinnings of a functioning society, which relies upon institutional trust between the journalistic scientific communities and publication processes.
This is finally demonstrated by her apparent drive to have me placed back in prison, as there have been indications from multiple people that Ms. Chan has contacted them to tell them about my criminal past, something I already served many years in prison for and paid my debt and completed therapy for, however Ms. Chan seems to be intent on informing people of that past and trying to somehow make that relevant to the scientific discussion at hand. My charges involved my relationship with a teenage girl who I had known for years and became far too close to, to the point where the relationship became intermittently sexual, they have nothing to do with any sort of institutional dishonesty or stealing or cheating.
And as the years of passed, multiple other grifting idiots have written books pretending like the original work me and my dad did together doesn’t exist at all, or given countless interviews acting like they came up with ideas we published first: such as David Relman at Stanford, who is so hilariously ethically bankrupt that he tried to argue that ignorance of an article excuses stealing from it:
On Jul 29, 2023, at 4:32 PM, Karl Sirotkin, PhD wrote:
Dr. Relman:
It's recently come to my attention that you authored a piece in November 2020 (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2021133117) about the origins of the pandemic, which strangely makes no reference at all to the peer-reviewed papers my son wrote with my guidance, published August 2020:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7435492/
This paper was followed by a clarification, which provides proof the 1977 H1N1 strain was in fact engineered presumably by passaging: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202100017
Even though not peer reviewed, since it was so timely I would expect that one of your papers either formal or informal, would make reference to the first white paper on COVID origins, originally published January 31, 2020:
https://harvard2thebighouse.substack.com/p/logistical-and-technical-exploration
Strangely, your paper, as from other senior, well connected academics, makes no mention at all of the phenomenon of reverting LAVs, which happened in 1977, likely happened again with H1N1 in 2009 but this time because of industrial pork farming and their LAVs, and is happening all over the world with OPV as we speak.
You have a massive audience and a gigantic reach, why would you publish something that acts like our peer-reviewed paper does not exist at all? Especially when our first paper entirely undermines all of the specious arguments in the "Proximal Origins" paper, which subpoenas have now revealed intentionally left-out the main subject of our paper: serial passage through cell cultures as well as whole hosts.
Please correct this oversight, or we will be reaching out to Stanford's ethics board, which has been a bit busy recently but I'm sure won't mind more work, and additionally be taking out a national press release that highlights your wanton plagiarism. Millions are dead, have some shame, make this right. Even if this was an oversight, you should have known as it was clearly available by any search in the National Library of Medicines, PubMed and PMC site. And even if it was an oversight, you should correct this, ethically.
-Dr. Karl Sirotkin
And his response:
Dr. Sirotkin:
I appreciate your writing me and bringing to my attention this paper you coauthored on the origins of SARS-CoV2.
My purpose in writing that 2020 PNAS Opinion piece was to bring additional attention to the inappropriate rush to judgment about the origins of the pandemic and to add my own voice to those who had already called for a more objective examination of the issue. I certainly did not claim or intend to suggest that I was the first to question the assumptions of those who insisted on a natural spillover mechanism. There had been many others early in 2020 including Jamie Metzl, Alina Chan, and the DRASTIC group, who had highlighted the possibility of a laboratory-associated origin. I was aware of many others who had posted blogs, analyses, and other communications, and assumed there were many many other postings on this topic that I would not be able to read and review. I was also limited in words and references. Because I was not aware of your or your son’s writings I could not have copied your ideas or words; hence, I did not plagiarize your work.
The quest for greater clarity about the origins of the pandemic, which we should all support, would be a bit easier without personal attacks. I hope that good science and dispassionate discussion rule the day.
Regards,
David Relman
Which was followed-up by a letter I wrote to several dozen biologists at Stanford, basically everyone I could find online:
To Whom It May Concern:
In late July my father and I wrote to David Relman to ask him to correct the record, because his published work on the origins of the pandemic openly and hilariously plagiarized from the peer-reviewed paper my father and I wrote.
Mr. Relman published in November 2020:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2021133117
However strangely, someone with a bunch of fancy titles after his name and all sorts of previous publications failed to do the very first thing every student learns to do in an academic setting: Search the existing literature to make sure you do not steal anyone else's ideas, so that you can properly attribute them.
Because if Mr. Relman had done this and done the most cursory search within PubMed, he would've found our original peer-reviewed paper, submitted April 2020 and published August 2020:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7435492/
When we contacted Mr. Relman to ask for attribution and to correct his oversight, he made the most vacuous excuse imaginable:
"Because I was not aware of your or your son’s writings I could not have copied your ideas or words; hence, I did not plagiarize your work."
There is no academic reality where ignorance of previously published work excuses stealing from others. Mr. Relman refused to apologize for his thievery, and instead attempted to act like lots of other people had been writing about the pandemic so he couldn't possibly have known about us:
"There had been many others early in 2020 including Jamie Metzl, Alina Chan, and the DRASTIC group, who had highlighted the possibility of a laboratory-associated origin. I was aware of many others who had posted blogs, analyses, and other communications, and assumed there were many many other postings on this topic that I would not be able to read and review. I was also limited in words and references."
None of these parties have published anything that passed peer-review, nonetheless with the primacy that comes with submitting our paper for peer-review all the way back in April 2020. So why in the world would Mr. Relman seek to attribute a bunch of people whose ideas hadn't even passed scientific scrutiny? Maybe this is because after my father and I published our first whitepaper back in January 2020, it was put in front of the National Security Council by its sitting Director for Intelligence Programs, Jason Shell:
DRASTIC, Jamie Metzl, Alina Chan, Matt Ridley, and all the rest begin going public months after that original report on the pandemic was inside of the White House in front of the National Security Council, because they're all acting as controlled opposition from elements inside the US government aligned with DARPA, who in turn helped China's People's Liberation Army design their LAV that went wrong. Technically, Mr. Relman is mostly plagiarizing this original paper, so even if he wants to hide behind the idea lots of people were writing about the pandemic early on, there was in fact just one original paper that journalistically explored the idea this pandemic could have begun in a lab.
No one who came after us made a salient point that we didn't already attribute in our published works, it was all smoke and mirrors to distract from the truth.
Additionally beyond our original paper, after a former Secretary of the Navy who'd previously written whitepapers with Avril Haines about cooperating more with China on STEM issues, Richard Danzig, contacted us along with several other scientists including JHU's Gigi Kwok-Gronvell, because they noticed we had an unsubstantiated claim about the H1N1 pandemic of 1977, which we asserted had in fact been engineered.
As we explained in our correction, a doubled citation was accidentally elided during the process of juggling several drafts, so in that peer-reviewed correction we highlighted that old Soviet paper which demonstrated that the 1977 H1N1's temporally mismatched genes demonstrated that it had in fact been engineered, almost certainly by serial passage given the technology available at the time:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202100017
What's particular strange is that David Relman has a longstanding relationship with The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which has also refused to acknowledge that our peer-reviewed papers at all, despite the fact that it's editor-in-chief solicited an article from us all the way back in the early spring of 2020 after seeing our articles reprinted on Zero Hedge in early 2020:
https://thebulletin.org/2022/04/welcoming-david-relman-to-the-science-and-security-board/
Demonstrating that the virus of 1977 was engineered via serial passage makes previous reports that the virus was the result of a military live-attenuated vaccine trial that reverted faster than expected highly credible, and all-but-proven. So if that was the source of the last truly global viral pandemic, why is Mr. Relman and the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, New York Magazine, The Bulletin, and others refusing to cite our papers, or even admit that they admit at all? Despite the fact that each of those companies directly communicated with me and my father before publishing articles that went on to not only plagiarize from our work, but act like it does not exist at all.
Probably because Mr. Relman and the rest of the sociopathic journalists who can't get high enough on listening to themselves talk are all functionally acting as agents of China's People Liberation Army, whose SARS-like live-attenuated vaccine attenuated faster than expected at the Wuhan Military Games, in a fairly direct parallel to 1977.
A cover-up that points directly to UNC, the only place in the world that was working on a LAV for SARS-like viruses, and which notoriously had extensive interactions with the first scientific team from Wuhan to discover a bat-borne virus that could use ACE2 at all. Which would explain why Mr. Relman wrote such a laughably fluffy and vaccous paper compared to the one I wrote with my father's scientific oversight, and then go on to argue that he had no responsibility to cite us because he had not bothered to do even a cursory search of the extant literature.
Not only is Mr. Relman an unethical hack who's lies are responsible for tens of millions of innocent deaths across the world, he is also acting as an agent of China's PLA, openly committing treason against American interests.
Stanford should probably do something about this, because otherwise in a little bit more time, when this society has collapsed enough - every single survivor is going to be looking for answers, and people to blame. And right now the blame for all of this lies squarely on the shoulders of murderous clowns like Mr. Relman, who use their seniority to whitewash war-crimes, and refuse to exercise even the most basic academic ethics, because doing so would help the truth get out:
SARS-CoV-2 is a live-attenuated vaccine that's reverting out-of-control that was orally administered before the Wuhan Military Games (which explains its initial preference for colder tissue, this is a modern tactic to attenuate LAVs since it makes it harder for them to colonize respiratory tissue deeper in the body), as Avril Haines, George Gao, and Bill Gates watched from Event 201.
In a few weeks we'll be sending out a series of press releases to explain everything that's happened, we tried a while ago but no company would carry a press release about the origins of the pandemic. Luckily that moratorium has ended, so hopefully Stanford pretends it cares about innocent human life at some point leading up to that, since otherwise your institution is going to join JHU and MIT as being instrumental parts of covering-up the worst crime against humanity in our shared history:
https://harvard2thebighouse.substack.com/p/understanding-covid-19-and-seasonal
Don't let one unethical hack poison your entire institution, do the right thing -Dan Sirotkin
And just to illustrate the arrogance, hubris, and utter idiocy that runs so thick throughout these academic institutions, here’s the only response I got back:
Gavin James Sherlock <gsherloc@stanford.edu>
Tue, Aug 29, 4:51 PM
David (actually Dr. or Professor) Relman (seeing as you’re so keen on having you father’s degree recognized when you refer to him) clearly did not plagiarize your work. He should have cited it, but missed it, and that’s about it. While your father’s credentials are impressive, I think you’ll find David’s are equally so. Waging some kind of conspiracy-laden campaign against him is really rather sad and reflects poorly on you and comes across as sour grapes. Grow up and move on.
So of course we started a friendly little dialogue:
Dan Sirotkin <harvard2thebighouse@gmail.com>
Aug 29, 2023, 4:53 PM
to Gavin
I can't wait to publish this email, thank you for reinforcing how vapid and morally bankrupt the academic community has become as a whole.
The survivors are going to find you.
Gavin James Sherlock <gsherloc@stanford.edu>
Aug 29, 2023, 4:56 PM
to me
Good luck with that
Dan Sirotkin <harvard2thebighouse@gmail.com>
Aug 29, 2023, 4:58 PM
to Gavin
Also, if you're so smart and clearly had the time to read and reply to this email, why haven't you been speaking out against the idea that a laboratory engineered virus was a conspiracy theory?
You remained silent, because you're some combination of stupid and spineless.
If you had anything useful to say, you would've been speaking out against the lies that were propagated over the past three years by the scientific and academic communities as millions of innocent people died all around you all.
You remained silent, because you have nothing to offer the world other than lies. Enjoy the view from the ivory tower while it lasts, you absolutely worthless turd.
Gavin James Sherlock <gsherloc@stanford.edu>
Aug 29, 2023, 5:06
to me
Or, it’s simply not my area of expertise. Yes, I am a professor of genetics, but I’m not a virologist, nor am I an epidemiologist. There are countless scientists out there far better qualified that I to analyze the data and draw reasonable conclusions (my understanding from having read a smattering of such articles is that it will likely never be proven definitively one way or another), so there really was no need to me to embarrass myself and put on a cloak of coronavirus expertise that I did not possess. I saw several scientists suddenly proclaim themselves as experts and I certainly had no such pretensions.
I am neither stupid nor spineless; I simply recognize my limitations and narrow scope of my expertise (which is largely experimental evolution, using yeast as a model system). That does not make me a worthless turd; my worth simply lies elsewhere. Not every scientist who is faculty has the expertise to have analyzed these data in a robust and rigorous way, and I would argue that they should not have wasted their time.
Dan Sirotkin <harvard2thebighouse@gmail.com>
Aug 29, 2023, 5:15
to Gavin
My last formal academic experience with biology was taking AP Bio about 25 years ago, I only got a 4.
Despite that lack of background, it was transparently obvious that nothing about the emergence of this virus was normal or natural, it doesn't take long on Google to learn that neither SARS nor MERS have demonstrated zoonotic origins either.
And neither does HIV.
Throughout this process, I had to argue with my father, as well as Phil Murphy, who is acknowledged in our original paper:
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/philip-murphy-md
The idea that you don't have a responsibility to engage with this kind of thing is utterly absurd, I didn't need any kind of expertise or even previous background to write the two papers that I wrote, otherwise actually having my father around to fact-check was invaluable. But I wrote those papers, he just told me where I was wrong or out on the wrong limb, it took a while, but I put the puzzle together within a few months.
Serial passage is not some esoteric unknown approach to manipulating viruses, it's one of the very first methods developed as far as I understand. And besides, the idea that an engineered virus could propagate was absolutely never a conspiracy, despite what Francis Collins and Tony Fauci wanted to say, and you and the rest of your colleagues were never going to contradict them publicly, because they control the funding for all of your projects.
Maybe take the time to read the two papers that I wrote with my father's guidance, and ask yourself why an ex-con with no formal biological education for over 20 years was the one who got all of this past peer-review?
You shouldn't be circling the wagons with other academics, you should be opening your eyes and looking around and seeing all the corpses and trying to make a difference and get the dying to stop. And that is not going to happen until the truth gets out ther
Dan Sirotkin <harvard2thebighouse@gmail.com>
Aug 29, 2023, 5:30 PM
to Gavin
P.S. Given your lab's work you'll probably be interested in Dr. Shi Huang's theory of maximum genetic diversity, my hobby project before the pandemic:
https://harvard2thebighouse.substack.com/p/maximum-genetic-diversity-mgd
Gavin James Sherlock <gsherloc@stanford.edu>
Aug 29, 2023, 5:32
to me
Well, given what you were jailed for, I don’t think you have any standing to question my morality
Dan Sirotkin <harvard2thebighouse@gmail.com>
Aug 29, 2023, 5:32 PM
to Gavin
Yes, because being involved with a teenage girl is definitely in the same moral universe as millions and millions of innocent dead people.
Like I said, the academic community is completely morally bankrupt.
Gavin James Sherlock <gsherloc@stanford.edu>
Aug 29, 2023, 5:35
to me
No action I did or could have done would have affected the course of the pandemic.
Dan Sirotkin <harvard2thebighouse@gmail.com>
Aug 29, 2023, 5:38 PM
to Gavin
Okay, you can explain all that to the survivors after they come for you.
All of you tenured fancy morons feeding on public funds are no different than the Nazi accountants who sat back and watched the slaughter, but thought because they had nothing directly to do with the death camps it wasn't their problem.
All of you have an obligation to the truth, especially regarding a virus that is killing millions of people and maiming hundreds of millions besides.
Your silence tells the world exactly who you are, you were never going to rock the boat, because then your lab wouldn't get funding from NIH
Gavin James Sherlock <gsherloc@stanford.edu>
Aug 29, 2023, 5:48 PM
to me
Maybe take a look at the serenity prayer. I’m not religious in the slightest (indeed am an ardent atheist) but the serenity prayer serves as a useful guide to how I live my life. I have the greatest impact in teaching and mentoring, things which I enjoy and I hope I am effective at. My research career had been fairly successful - I have more successful colleagues of course, but I’ve published a substantial number of papers that have been widely cited.
I see injustice everywhere, especially in the US, but they are injustices upon which I have little to no ability to have an impact. Mass incarceration is an outrage; lack of universal healthcare is an outrage; the level of child poverty is an outrage; political corruption and corrupt justices on the supreme court is an outrage; climate change is an outrage. If I had trained differently, maybe I would be working in public policy trying to effect change. But I didn’t - I was fascinated by science. Both my parents left school at 16, so I was the first to go to college and the first to get a PhD. My ancestors were agricultural laborers, bricklayers or worked in pubs. I was lucky enough to get my shot (thanks to a free university education) and I took it. I work at doing what I think has an impact as best I can. I’m not responsible for every moral failing of humanity, and you certainly don’t get to judge me for what I do or do not speak out about. In the end, I have but a small hope to impact any of these larger issues, and that is through the ballot box and to which political candidates I choose to donate.
Go fight your crusade if you must, but I will not join you.
Dan Sirotkin <harvard2thebighouse@gmail.com>
Aug 29, 2023, 5:54 PM
to Gavin
Congratulations on squandering all of the sacrifice and hard work and risk your ancestors put in to put you in the position you have now.
You're a stain on their legacy.
Tell the dead to say the serenity prayer, see how that goes.
Our “institutions of higher learning” are simple homes for very cowardly and very close-minded idiots who thrive on using complicated terms and broken ideologies to confuse the general public, and paint the perception that you somehow need years and years of study to even vaguely comprehend anything they’re doing.
And at this point, it doesn’t look like anything is going to chance until the entirety of society collapses alongside those institutions.
I plan additional follow up, but for now, I just want to note that it is symptomatic of the cliquish and unethical and actually unscientific nature, paradoxically, of most of academia. Frankly, this is such a surprise to me, as my major professor, Dr. Loren Snyder, would have corrected this error as would I. I simply do not understand why, as multiple folks have told me, this is now the norm.
Isn't experimental evolution precisely the relevant field for this question? It comes down to whether the virus emerged through natural evolution in the wild or artificial evolution in the lab. Someone with expertise in the capabilities of evolution would be able to shed light on which scenario is most likely to explain the virus' origin.
I am starting to see what you mean when you say your work was plagiarized. It does look like there is a concerted effort by the powers that be to control the narrative around the lab leak by creating their own 'lab leak' theorists.
It's also not right that they bring up your past. Completely irrelevant to the question at hand, and smacks of they have something to hide so they dodge the question with irrelevant accusations.