Timeline of Covid, China and More UNC-CH, Gain of Function, Moderna and The Connections Documented

It starts with this:

November: University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill (UNC) researcher Ralph Baric publishes a “breakthrough work” in gain-of-function research (studies that alter pathogens to make them more transmissible or deadly), describing the creation of a synthetic clone of a natural mouse coronavirus.

November: China’s Guangdong province reports the first case of “atypical pneumonia” (later labeled as SARS).

2003

October 28: A paper by the Baric research group at UNC describes their synthetic recreation of the “previously undescribed” SARS coronavirus. (Writing in 2020, a scientist states, “The speed of the Baric group illustrates how quickly a qualified team of virologists can create a synthetic clone from a natural virus, and therefore make genetic modifications to it. Moreover, that was back in 2003. Today, a qualified laboratory can repeat those steps in a matter of weeks.”)

2011

December 30: Dr. Fauci promotes gain-of-function research on bird flu viruses, arguing that the research is worth the risk. The risks worry other “seasoned researchers.”

It goes on to the article I posted a few down about China and UNC.

December 12: Confidential documents show agreements between U.S. NIAID and Moderna, revealing that they transferred “potential Coronavirus vaccine candidate” (19 days before outbreak in China).

December: Moderna Shareholder letter: Under sub-heading “Partnerships” CEO Bancel mentions having $187 million in funding from grants. Footnote mentions partners being DARPA and Gates Foundation.

2020

January: Covid-19 propaganda videos start to emerge from China.

Read the whole timeline here courtesy of Gates of Vienna.

Yes, the B&M Gates foundation (not related to the blog) has it’s tainted fingers on this one too.

Anyone can see what is going on here. They do take us for idiots I guess to think we would believe what is being sold. Screw the conspiracy theories because that is guessing. When you put some facts on the table like this, it’s kind of hard to ignore what is going on.

Connecting the dots and seeing patterns show a lot of coverup starting to happen. There will be a lot of finger pointing if the MSM can’t cover this up like everything else. What else is undiscovered?

Secret Docs Reveal Moderna Sent Coronavirus Vaccine To University of North Carolina Weeks Before Pandemic

Why are facts like this surfacing now:

A confidentiality agreement shows potential coronavirus vaccine candidates were transferred from Moderna to the University of North Carolina in 2019, nineteen days prior to the official emergence of Covid-19 pandemic.

इस लेख को हिंदी में पढ़ें – महामारी के एक हफ्ते पहले मॉडर्ना ने उत्तरी कैरोलिना विश्वविद्यालय में भेजी थी Covid वैक्सीन

Explosive! An agreement dated 19/12/19 between Fauci’s NIAID, Moderna&Ralph Baric(who collaborated with Wuhan Institute of Virology to develop more lethal Coronavirus to infect humans) transfers mRNA Coronavirus Vaccine Tech to Baric!Weeks before pandemic!https://t.co/zvfBfZH83W— Prashant Bhushan (@pbhushan1) June 20, 2021

Another excerpt.

The confidentially agreement (read below) states that providers ‘Moderna’ alongside the ‘National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ (NIAID) agreed to tranfer ‘mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates’ developed and jointly-owned by NIAID and Moderna to recipients ‘The Universisty of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’ on the 12th December 2019.

Secret Docs Reveal Moderna Sent Coronavirus Vaccine To North Carolina University Weeks Before Pandemic
Found on page 105 of the agreement

The material transfer agreement was signed the December 12th 2019 by Ralph Baric, PhD, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and then signed by Jacqueline Quay, Director of Licensing and Innovation Support at the University of North Carolina on December 16th 2019.

The agreement was also signed by two representatives of the NIAID, one of whom was Amy F. Petrik PhD, a technology transfer specialist who signed the agreement on December 12th 2019 at 8:05 am.

I’M GETTING TIRED OF BEING LIED TO

So why was an mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidate developed by Moderna being transferred to the University of North Carolina on December 12th 2019?

Perhaps Moderna and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases would like to explain themselves in a court of law?

Stuff like this is really disturbing. The talking points change so often that the obfuscation is obvious by the MSM, the WHO, the CDC and many governments. Trust is getting harder to come by in those folks based on their track record.

UNC is not the school that MJ led to a national championship in any way other than basketball. While they do plenty of good, their other social actions are nefarious at best. I lived there recently and they are as complicit as the Ivy league in social re-engineering of students. They have received a lot of Chinese funding for Covid research.

Rather than listen to what they want us to believe, observation of patterns are starting to point to not only what it is, where it was likely developed and who is complicit (likely some of the aforementioned). The why was this allowed to happen of course are in everyone’s mind so pick your own here. I have mine, but no one cares what I think at a global level.

Screw the conspiracy the theories because I don’t think we’ll really know, despite a high level defector from China telling us this:

Vice minister of State Security for China , Dong Jingwei provided the DIA with the following information about the Wuhan lab (so I am looking for patterns here):

Based on conversations with sources familiar with the information Dong has already provided and its quantity and reliability, that’s simply not the case. Not only does Dong have detailed information about China’s special weapons systems, the Chinese military’s operation of the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the origins of SARS-CoV-2, and the Chinese government’s assets and sources within the United States; Dong has extremely embarrassing and damaging information about our intelligence community and government officials in the “terabytes of data” he’s provided to the DIA.

  • Early pathogenic studies of the virus we now know as SARS-CoV-2
  • Models of predicted COVID-19 spread and damage to the US and the world
  • Financial records detailing which exact organizations and governments funded the research on SARS-CoV-2 and other biological warfare research
  • Names of US citizens who provide intel to China
  • Names of Chinese spies working in the US or attending US universities
  • Financial records showing US businessmen and public officials who’ve received money from the Chinese government
  • Details of meetings US government officials had (perhaps unwittingly) with Chinese spies and members of Russia’s SVR
  • How the Chinese government gained access to a CIA communications system, leading to the death of dozens of Chinese people who were working with the CIA

HERE’S WHAT I WANT TO KNOW

If no one else thinks this stinks, then I’m alone on an island. My guess is that a lot of others are wondering why their lives were ruined economically, socially and medically and have some questions also.

Moderna went from not much profit to billions with the jab that is not yet approved by the FDA as a vaccine.

What did they say during Watergate? Follow the money.

Yes it stinks, way past high hell.

Victoria’s Secret, A 2021 Tragedy

I’m like Jeff Foxworthy. I grew up getting the Sears catalog in the mail. Those were the only girls in underwear you would see, until Victoria’s Secret gave us the catalog of dreams.

They put beautiful women in underwear for men and women to admire. Good art in any form is beautiful (the Sears models reminded Jeff of the lunch lady at the school cafeteria). It’s why there are so many naked statues. It was the concept of art to an artist. That they lasted longer than a catalog has so far so that also says something.

Now this (here is the tragedy):

Here is the reaction so far:

Victoria’s Secret’s woke new look to please angry feminists is dubbed ‘Dumbest. Brand. Strategy. Ever.’

Victoria’s Secret has chosen going full woke over earning a profit, succumbing to the hypersensitivities on the left to embark on a major rebranding.

Even the standard size 32B mannequins on display in their stores didn’t make the cut, as the forms representing the female figure will now come in new shapes and sizes.

The paper said the company has been “scrutinized heavily in recent years for its owner’s relationship with the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and revelations about a misogynistic corporate culture that trafficked in sexism, sizeism and ageism.”

OK, back to my observation.

I’m not sure what is more stupid. Is it the marketing decision to lose this much money, goodwill and customers or to think that most people wanted to look or what make it hugely successful. Do they think that this is more beautiful than Giselle Bünchen in angel wings?

I’m sure there is a small portion of the population who identifies with this and good for them. The problem is it is ruining the beauty that was the draw for the other 98%.

I know this type of display is inclusive or is progressive or something politically correct in the eyes of the PC and SJW police, but I (and see below or read the article above for how many others) still think they are ruining a good thing.

All of this has come together to ruin another concept that has been around since whenever man showed up, women are beautiful. Both males and females think that the fairer sex is a work of beauty. For example, everyone thinks a naked woman is something beautiful to look at. I’m willing to bet that there are a lot more people (even females in beards) that find them better to look at than most men naked. There aren’t that many Chip n Dales guys just walking around. And let’s face it. Other than a few people who can ruin anything by being mean and nasty, almost all women are beautiful in their own way.

If there are 330 million people in the US (a low guess) and throw out the old and the young, you would still have a few hundred million just in the USA who liked the older style catalog and their models a lot more. VS is big all over the world so even the PC people like to look at the real catalog, not the travesty that is this year’s.

I don’t care how many likes they got in social media. Most people go along with the crowd in public and social media is a bunch of pretend anyway.

Get woke go broke they say. I doubt it for VS, but it hasn’t helped the bottom lines of Nickelodeon Channel, Gillette, Coke, the NBA, MLB, NFL and other companies.

It looks like I’m not alone. I’ll put up some links that have something to do with it in whatever way that is interesting.

The Earl of Taint – I wish them luck

Will Rogers On Ingorance

“You know everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.”

We all are smart at something (the converse is true about the other things). For that we grant ourselves superiority status that bleeds to other things that aren’t always our best subjects.

That led to the next saying. “Here, hold my beer”. We all know how that turns out.

It’s ok to say you don’t know about something. It ends some conversations based on competing knowledge, some of which could actually be true.

I look at the experts on what is happening in the world and wonder if some of these people have overstepped their boundaries…….Like this one:

Alina Chan, a biologist at the Silver lab at the Harvard School of Medicine

Chan is one of 18 scientists who finally admitted in the journal of Science last month that the Wuhan coronvirus likely originated in a Wuhan, China virology lab.

Chan says liberal scientists lied to the American public for months about their beliefs on the origination of the virus to not be associated with the President who was trying to save lives.

The Scientific Method, Why Science is Never Settled

Only Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity remains unchallenged. It’s the way it should be. If it weren’t, we’d have the science from 100’s of years ago.

Everything going on today should be challenged in thought as to whether it stacks up to actual science or political science.

I’m kind of looking at Fauci, the CDC, WHO and politicians here.

If they don’t agree, just follow the scientific method above and show why it is provable. The tactic now is censorship instead.

To Tim O’Reilly, On Global Warming And Rising Tides When He Told Me We Were Doomed And Will Drown.

After reading a post that claimed rising tides threatened the world a while back, I suggested to him that the tides fluctuate. Science plus history prove the Statue of Liberty isn’t drowning, or Florida sinking like his hero Al Gore promised. I was pointing out the obvious to no avail. I’ve rarely encountered such an elitist, who was so wrong on a subject (except Al Gore).

check it out Tim, The tides aren’t rising in 500 years. Global warming science isn’t hard if you lie. I figured it out and so did you. I’m just the one pointing out the truth you don’t want to believe.
One of Al Gore’s Houses
Which came true Tim O, or James G or Tom R? You guys were nuts and wrong every time.

His argument was that climate science is hard. (It is when you only try to scare others with fake predictions and not facts to back up your position and then the scare never happens). It’s hard to defend when none of those descriptions of doom ever come true, hot or cold. The tweet below shows the Grand Tetons the same as they were 100 years ago

What is funny to me is that instead of decent discussion which I offered, I instead got an ad hominem attack on my character. It was an ill advised use of a bully pulpit as without any personal knowlege of me, I was told I was a typical Fox News watcher (I refuse to watch any news channel, especially FOX l as they all are biased in some way, read my blog and you’ll see). This is typical leftist behavior when they don’t get their way. Start saying they are racists, supremacists, Hitler, deplorable’s and so forth.

There were the other usual liberal attacks on me personally about beliefs I was accused of but don’t have, typical of when you run out of facts. I was this or that, because I wouldn’t worship Gaia and no mention of my knowledge of science and history, and especially facts. So he lied about the tides and about me. Good job there boy.

I also know that Carbon Dioxide is a nutrient for plants. That is the settled science. These idiots call it poison and wanted to tax it. Did anyone go to biology class?

The offer to talk is now rescinded because I don’t have time for Internet trolls like Tim or people who won’t get educated about what they spew. They aren’t going to believe facts and have adjusted it to fit their pre-determined outcome.

Evidence That Climate Change Is A Hoax Perpetuated By The Rich, your hero’s.

proof the rich don’t believe it either

So the Greenland Ice is growing and Florida is still there. The water around the statue is at the same level it’s been for 100 years and Tim is a troll it appears and is wrong. I’ve added at hastag for TIm, a social media terrorist.

THE PAUSE IN TEMPERATURE

I offer a few facts, something Tim didn’t have when castigating others on social media.

The New Pause paused last month because I was ill. Many apologies for the interruption. Now, however, it resumes – and it has lengthened from 7 years 7 months to the end of April 2022. To the end of June 2022, the New Pause is now 7 years 10 months in length:

This Pause, like its predecessor, which was an impressive 18 years 8 months (UAH), or 18 years 9 months (HadCRUT4), is, as always, not cherry-picked. It is derived from the UAH monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies as the period from the earliest month starting with which the least-squares linear-regression trend to the most recent month for which data are available does not exceed zero. Whatever the data show, I show. Or, in the immortal words of Dr Roy Spencer, speaking of his dataset, “It is what it is”. In that splendid dictum speaks all true science.

The least-squares trend, which Professor Jones at the University of East Anglia used to recommend as the simplest and most robust method of deriving global-temperature trends, takes due account of all monthly values, not merely of the starting and ending values.

It sucks when you are wrong. But the point of climate change isn’t carbon reduction (Trump reduced it more than any president), it’s controlling others and grifting money.

I feel sorry for people like him. It must suck to go through life choosing to be purposely ignorant about science. It must suck to be wrong and to not change, but when you are in that deep, there is no getting out. You’ve bought the lie hook, line and sinker.

The European Union’s parliament has decided that nuclear power and gas power from plants now qualify as “green energy.” The proposal passes the EU parliament as Russia is threatening to cut off all natural gas transit to Europe in light of the ongoing war in Ukraine.

The news was reported by Disclose TV on Wednesday morning.

JUST IN – EU Parliament declares nuclear power and gas as “green” energy.

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) July 6, 2022

“EU Parliament declares nuclear power and gas as ‘green’ energy,” the news account tweeted.

It was also reported by the Associated Press in a piece that reads more like an outraged editorial.

“European Union lawmakers voted Wednesday to include natural gas and nuclear in the bloc’s list of sustainable activities, backing a proposal from the EU’s executive arm that has been drawing fierce criticism from environment groups and will likely trigger legal challenges,” the AP noted.

Scientific Jokes or Jokes by Those In Science

Scientists tell us their favourite jokes: ‘An electron and a positron walked into a bar…’

Science is a very serious business, so what tickles a rational mind? In a not very scientific experiment, we asked a sample of great minds for their favourite jokes

Bookies

Statisticians: not totally reliable.

Physics

■ Two theoretical physicists are lost at the top of a mountain. Theoretical physicist No 1 pulls out a map and peruses it for a while. Then he turns to theoretical physicist No 2 and says: “Hey, I’ve figured it out. I know where we are.”
“Where are we then?”
“Do you see that mountain over there?”
“Yes.”
“Well… THAT’S where we are.”

I heard this joke at a physics conference in Les Arcs (I was at the top of a mountain skiing at the time, so it was quite apt). It was explained to me that it was first told by a Nobel prize-winning experimental physicist by way of indicating how out-of-touch with the real world theoretical physicists can sometimes be.
Jeff Forshaw, professor of physics and astronomy, University of Manchester

■ An electron and a positron go into a bar.
Positron: “You’re round.”
Electron: “Are you sure?”
Positron: “I’m positive.”
I think I heard this on Radio 4 after the publication of a record (small) measurement of the electron electric dipole moment – often explained as the roundness of the electron – by Jony Hudson et al in Nature 2011.
Joanna Haigh, professor of atmospheric physics, Imperial College, London

■ A group of wealthy investors wanted to be able to predict the outcome of a horse race. So they hired a group of biologists, a group of statisticians, and a group of physicists. Each group was given a year to research the issue. After one year, the groups all reported to the investors. The biologists said that they could genetically engineer an unbeatable racehorse, but it would take 200 years and $100bn. The statisticians reported next. They said that they could predict the outcome of any race, at a cost of $100m per race, and they would only be right 10% of the time. Finally, the physicists reported that they could also predict the outcome of any race, and that their process was cheap and simple. The investors listened eagerly to this proposal. The head physicist reported, “We have made several simplifying assumptions: first, let each horse be a perfect rolling sphere… ”

This is really the joke form of “all models are wrong, some models are useful” and also sums up the sort of physics confidence that they can solve problems (ie, by making the model solvable).
Ewan Birney, associate director, European Bioinformatics Institute

■ What is a physicist’s favourite food? Fission chips.
Callum Roberts, professor in marine conservation, University of York

■ Why did Erwin Schrödinger, Paul Dirac and Wolfgang Pauli work in very small garages? Because they were quantum mechanics.
Lloyd Peck, professor, British Antarctic Survey

■ A friend who’s in liquor production,
Has a still of astounding construction,
The alcohol boils,
Through old magnet coils,
He says that it’s proof by induction.

I knew this limerick when I was at school. I’ve always loved comic poetry and I like the pun in it. And it is pretty geeky …
Helen Czerski, Institute of Sound and Vibration Research, Southampton

Biology

Blowfly

A blowfly: not to be laughed at (read below). Photograph: Alamy

■ What does DNA stand for? National Dyslexia Association.

I first read this joke when I was an undergraduate as a mature student in 1990. I’d just come to terms with my own severe reading difficulties and neurophysiology was full of acronyms, which I always got mixed up. For example, the first time I heard about Adenosine Triphosphate it was abbreviated by the lecturer to ATP, which I heard as 80p. I had no clue what she was talking about every time she mentioned 80p. And another thing, how does Adenosine Triphosphate reduce to ATP? Where’s the P?
Peter Lovatt, lecturer in psychology of dance, University of Hertfordshire

■ A new monk shows up at a monastery where the monks spend their time making copies of ancient books. The new monk goes to the basement of the monastery saying he wants to make copies of the originals rather than of others’ copies so as to avoid duplicating errors they might have made. Several hours later the monks, wondering where their new friend is, find him crying in the basement. They ask him what is wrong and he says “the word is CELEBRATE, not CELIBATE!”

I first heard this maybe more than 10 years ago in conjunction with the general theme of “copying errors” or mutations in biology.
Mark Pagel, professor of biological sciences, University of Reading

■ A blowfly goes into a bar and asks: “Is that stool taken?”  BLOWFLY JOKE HERE

No idea where I got this from!
Amoret Whitaker, entomologist, Natural History Museum

■ They have just found the gene for shyness. They would have found it earlier, but it was hiding behind two other genes.
Stuart Peirson, senior research scientist, Nuffield Laboratory of Ophthalmology

Math

Mathematics teaching, blackboard Mathematics: can it add up to a killer punchline?■ What does the ‘B’ in Benoit B Mandelbrot stand for? Benoit B Mandelbrot.

Mathematician Mandelbrot coined the word fractal – a form of geometric repetition.
Adam Rutherford, science writer and broadcaster

■ Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip? To get to the other… eh? Hang on…

The most recent time I saw this joke was in Simon Singh’s lovely book on maths in The Simpsons. I’ve heard it before though. I guess its origins are lost in the mists of time.
David Colquhoun, professor of pharmacology, University College London

■ A statistician is someone who tells you, when you’ve got your head in the fridge and your feet in the oven, that you’re – on average – very comfortable.

This is a joke I was told a long time ago, probably as a high school student in India, trying to come to terms with the baffling ways of statistics. What I like about it is how it alerts you to the limitations of reductionist thinking but also makes you aware that we are unlikely to fall into such traps, even if we are not experts in the field.
Sunetra Gupta, professor of theoretical epidemiology, Oxford

■ At a party for functions, ex is at the bar looking despondent. The barman says: “Why don’t you go and integrate?” To which ex replies: “It would not make any difference.”

Heard by my daughter in a student bar in Oxford.
Jean-Paul Vincent, head of developmental biology, National Institute for Medical Research

■ There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those who understand binary, and those who don’t.

I think this is just part of the cultural soup, so to speak. I don’t remember hearing it myself until the mid-90s, when computers started getting in the way of everyone’s lives!
Max Little, mathematician, Aston University

■ The floods had subsided, and Noah had safely landed his ark on Mount Sinai. “Go forth and multiply!” he told the animals, and so off they went two by two, and within a few weeks Noah heard the chatter of tiny monkeys, the snarl of tiny tigers and the stomp of baby elephants. Then he heard something he didn’t recognise… a loud, revving buzz coming from the woods. He went in to find out what strange animal’s offspring was making this noise, and discovered a pair of snakes wielding a chainsaw. “What on earth are you doing?” he cried. “You’re destroying the trees!” “Well Noah,” the snakes replied, “we tried to multiply as you bade us, but we’re adders… so we have to use logs.”
Alan Turnbull, National Physical Laboratory

■ A statistician gave birth to twins, but only had one of them baptised. She kept the other as a control.
David Spiegelhalter, professor of statistics, University of Cambridge

Chemistry

Student in a chemistry laboratory at Imperial College London

Chemistry seems to have produced some laughs at Imperial College London. Photograph: Linda Nylind for the Guardian

■ A chemistry teacher is recruited as a radio operator in the first world war. He soon becomes familiar with the military habit of abbreviating everything. As his unit comes under sustained attack, he is asked to urgently inform his HQ. “NaCl over NaOH! NaCl over NaOH!” he says. “NaCl over NaOH?” shouts his officer. “What do you mean?” “The base is under a salt!” came the reply.

I think I heard this when I was a student in the early 1980s.
Hugh Montgomery, professor of intensive care medicine, University College London

■ Sodium sodium sodium sodium sodium sodium sodium sodium Batman!

This is my current favorite. It comes from my daughter, who is a 17-year-old A-level science student.
Tony Ryan, professor of physical chemistry, University of Sheffield

■ A weed scientist goes into a shop. He asks: “Hey, you got any of that inhibitor of 3-phosphoshikimate-carboxyvinyl transferase? Shopkeeper: “You mean Roundup?” Scientist: “Yeah, that’s it. I can never remember that dang name.”

Made up by and first told by me.
John A Pickett, scientific leader of chemical ecology, Rothamsted Research

■ A mosquito was heard to complain
That chemists had poisoned her brain.
The cause of her sorrow
Was para-dichloro-
diphenyl-trichloroethane.

I first read this limerick in a science magazine when I was at school. I taught it to my baby sister, then to my children, and to my students. It’s the only poem in their degree course.

Martyn Poliakoff, research professor of chemistry, University of Nottingham

Psychology

psychology

Deluded? It depends on your point of view.

■ A psychoanalyst shows a patient an inkblot, and asks him what he sees. The patient says: “A man and woman making love.” The psychoanalyst shows him a second inkblot, and the patient says: “That’s also a man and woman making love.” The psychoanalyst says: “You are obsessed with sex.” The patient says: “What do you mean I am obsessed? You are the one with all the dirty pictures.”

I have no idea where I first heard this joke. I suspect when I was an undergraduate and was first taught about Freudian psychology.
Richard Wiseman, professor of public understanding of psychology, University of Hertfordshire

■ Psychiatrist to patient: “Don’t worry. You’re not deluded. You only think you are.”

I heard this joke from my husband, my source of all good jokes. It is a variation of the type of joke I particularly like: a paradoxical twist of meaning. Here the surprising paradox is that you can at once be deluded and not deluded. This links to an aspect of my work that goes under the label “mentalizing” and involves attributing thoughts to oneself and others. It’s a mechanism that works beautifully, but the joke reveals how it can go wrong.
Uta Frith, professor in cognitive neuroscience, University College London

■ After sex, one behaviorist turned to another behaviorist and said, “That was great for you, but how was it for me?”

It’s an oldie. I came across it in the late 1980s in a book by cognitive science legend Philip Johnson-Laird. Behaviorism was a movement in psychology that put the scientific observation of behaviour above theorizing about unobservables like thoughts, feelings and beliefs. Johnson-Laird was one of my teachers at Cambridge, and he was using the joke to comment on the “cognitive revolution” that had overthrown behaviorism and shown that we can indeed have a rigorous science of cognitive states. Charles Fernyhough, professor of psychology at the University of Durham

Multidisciplinary

■ An interviewer approaches a variety of scientists, and asks them: “Is it true that all odd numbers are prime?” The mathematician rejects the conjecture. “One is prime, three is prime, five is prime, seven is prime, but nine is not. The conjecture is false.” The physicist is less certain. “One is prime, three is prime, five is prime, seven is prime, but nine is not. Then again 11 is and so is 13. Up to the limits of measurement error, the conjecture appears to be true.” The psychologist says: “One is prime, three is prime, five is prime, seven is prime, nine is not. Eleven is and so is 13. The result is statistically significant.” The artist says: “One is prime, three is prime, five is prime, seven is prime, nine is prime. It’s true, all odd numbers are prime!”
Gary Marcus, professor of psychology, New York University

■ What do scientists say when they go to the bar? Climate change scientists say: “Where’s the ice?” Seismologists might ask for their drinks to be “shaken and not stirred”. Microbiologists request just a small one. Neuroscientists ask for their drinks “to be spiked”. Scientists studying the defective gubernaculum say: “Put mine in a highball”, and finally, social scientists say: “I’d like something soft.” When paying at the bar, geneticists say: “I think I have some change in my jeans.” And at the end of the evening a shy benzene biochemist might say to his companion: “Please give me a ring.”

Professor Ron Douglas of City University and I made these feeble jokes up after pondering the question: “What do scientists say at a cocktail party”. Of course this idea can be developed – and may even stimulate your readers to come up with additional contributions.
Russell Foster, professor of circadian neuroscience, University of Oxford