Dr. Anthony Fauci Appreciation Thread

[Mole 4333]

This feels like another iteration of the HCQ discussions of last summer.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Whatever happened to @triplehorn? I enjoyed his posts during the impeachment hearings.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13590]

 

[BabaYaga 15332]

16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't think anyone thinks it shouldn't be investigated, as part of the whole post-mortem on this deal.  Certainly not me. as I have said, I think repeatedly, on this thread.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is a standard of proof.  And you can't get beyond a reasonable doubt if there are multiple inferences, that could go either way, to reach a certain conclusion.  I don't think it has been proven to be more likely than not.   Thus, my contention that it is not proven.

Do we need to list the points for the natural spillover and then those of a lab leak?  One is staying the same, small number and the other is growing day after day.  Nor can it be proven until directly investigated, nut shuffled along side a laborious, all encompassing "investigation" that tries to boil the ocean.  Again, the point being we have so many data points indicating the need for an investigation of everyone tied to the lab.  

[BabaYaga 15332]

25 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I assume that you are aware that NY Post is a Murdoch-owned, not-particularly credible right-wing propaganda paper.

That doesn't help the credibility of this one little bitty bit.  Quite the opposite, in fact.

Then take umbrage with the specific points cited and not the intellectually lazy ad nauseum attack on the source as a deflection.  

[jimmyjazz 46303]

2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Then take umbrage with the specific points cited and not the intellectually lazy ad nauseum attack on the source as a deflection.  

Would that be more or less lazy than attacking the NY Times as a "liberal rag"? 

[BabaYaga 15332]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Would that be more or less lazy than attacking the NY Times as a "liberal rag"? 

Show your work as it relates to this thread....

[Longhorn_Fan68 33900]

9 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Then take umbrage with the specific points cited and not the intellectually lazy ad nauseum attack on the source as a deflection.  

fucking shit, man. you offer nothing to counterpoint. your sources are sketchy at best, and at worst just made up bullshit. no one here is going to argue with you honestly because you're not starting from a place of honesty. go back to your room and try again

[jimmyjazz 46303]

6 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Show your work as it relates to this thread....

Nah, I'm good.  You understood my point completely.

[BabaYaga 15332]

46 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Daszak was one of 10 people appointed to the WHO investigation. https://www.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus/origins-of-the-virus

It's rather a stretch to believe that Daszak, despite any conflicts of interest, influenced nine others to conspire with him to absolve wrongdoing.  Further, because under you-know-who, we abdicated leadership and influence in the WHO, I rather doubt that the appointment of Daszak was crooked, or that US parties influenced the conclusions of that report.  It is much more plausible that China did so, if anyone did.

To further clarify, you do know who essentially owns the WHO, right?  The same WHO that when directly asked questions about Taiwan, flatly refused to even acknowledge the question as it validates Taiwan.  You really think it a stretch, with that level of overt control, China would not work directly to subvert any/all notions that a leak in their lab was the origin of a global pandemic?  

So based upon the above we agree?  The point about Daszak is that he never should have been there.  A COI need not be nefarious.  It needs to be a forensic, objective analysis.  Neither happened, yet the paper produced drove the narrative that Fauci continually cited and used to dismiss any talk of leaks.  Again, it's not proof, but there are too many coincidences not to dig directly into Fauci and everyone else attached to the lab to ascertain what did he know and when did he know it. 

That a significantly larger portion even now admit that there was probably a leak is lightyears ahead of where we were this time last year.

[TwiceHorn 31629]

36 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

To further clarify, you do know who essentially owns the WHO, right?  The same WHO that when directly asked questions about Taiwan, flatly refused to even acknowledge the question as it validates Taiwan.  You really think it a stretch, with that level of overt control, China would not work directly to subvert any/all notions that a leak in their lab was the origin of a global pandemic?  

So based upon the above we agree?  The point about Daszak is that he never should have been there.  A COI need not be nefarious.  It needs to be a forensic, objective analysis.  Neither happened, yet the paper produced drove the narrative that Fauci continually cited and used to dismiss any talk of leaks.  Again, it's not proof, but there are too many coincidences not to dig directly into Fauci and everyone else attached to the lab to ascertain what did he know and when did he know it. 

That a significantly larger portion even now admit that there was probably a leak is lightyears ahead of where we were this time last year.

I can conclude that China "corrupted" or more accurately impeded and misguided the investigation pretty easily.  In fact, I believe it to be true.

That alone is sufficient to explain its outcome without involving corruption by Daszak or anyone else. let alone some conspiracy between Fauci, Daszak and the other investigators to falsify the outcome.

Now, a separate argument may be that the WHO Report was flawed and not deserving of credibility because of China's actions.  And therefore, neither Fauci nor anyone else should have relied on it.  But, it was all the world had at the time (other than presumably classified intelligence data), and, starting a sideshow "indictment" of China would not have been productive at that stage of the pandemic. 

Bottom line, I don't agree with your constant selection of the inference that is adverse to Fauci, every time there's an inference that can be made.  I think that's either because you want Fauci to be the bad guy, or you're too immersed in media that draws the inferences to make Fauci the bad guy because that media wants Fauci to be the bad guy.  I don't even have to consider what making Fauci the bad guy means (Trump is the good guy), to reach these conclusions.

Edited June 10, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[GW Hayduke 1953]

28 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Show your work as it relates to this thread....

You are the work as it relates to this thread.

The subject of this thread are your narratives crafted with inflammatory opinions based on meaningless facts and stitched together with innuendo. Your beliefs shared here are the product of propaganda.  We are looking at you, how you think and the information you cite.  

[BabaYaga 15332]

16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That alone is sufficient to explain its outcome without involving corruption by Daszak or anyone else. let alone some conspiracy between Fauci, Daszak and the other investigators to falsify the outcome.

So you are of the assertion that despite working in the GOF field for decades, working with the Wuhan lab for years studying GOF, funding millions of dollars into the lab, that they have absolutely no knowledge about any of the work being done in lab?  Is that what you are saying?

Nor am I saying anything wad falsified.  Again, it was a clear and evident COI to have those parties lead the investigation.  That much should be blatantly obvious to everyone.  

 

19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Bottom line, I don't agree with your constant selection of the inference that is adverse to Fauci, every time there's an inference that can be made.  I think that's either because you want Fauci to be the bad guy, or you're too immersed in media that draws the inferences to make Fauci the bad guy because that media wants Fauci to be the bad guy.  I don't even have to consider what making Fauci the bad guy means (Trump is the good guy), to reach these conclusions.

I'm not saying he's the bad guy.  I'm saying he's been at the center of this for years now, and I think we deserve to know if the mouthpiece for pandemic, on every available media outlet about the virus......might actually know much, much more that he has been keeping silent.  I also want to know why he was so aggressive in slapping down any questions of a lab leak.

[Captainant 27863]

6 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

I'm not saying he's the bad guy.  I'm saying he's been at the center of this for years now, and I think we deserve to know if the mouthpiece for pandemic, on every available media outlet about the virus......might actually know much, much more that he has been keeping silent.  I also want to know why he was so aggressive in slapping down any questions of a lab leak.

1) you sure as shit are painting Fauci as some rouge actor that is trying to cover for CHYNA

2) LUL I didn't know that Fauci was "the mouthpiece for pandemic, on every media outlet about the virus" - I could have sworn that was ya boi the donald who led many, and people are saying the most beautiful, media briefings and Q&A's on COVID response. If I recall, he even preferred for nobody to talk about the pandemic and even publicly talked about firing fauci for continuing to treat COVID seriously.

[UpperWestside 6191]

2 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

fucking shit, man. you offer nothing to counterpoint. your sources are sketchy at best, and at worst just made up bullshit. no one here is going to argue with you honestly because you're not starting from a place of honesty. go back to your room and try again

I’ve attempted to read the posts, but they almost invariably start out reading as almost completely fabricated and made up word salads. I genuinely do feel for BY. You can tell they honestly believe they are enlightened and it is the rest of us that just do not get it. Thank you again for this Death Cult. 

[Anastasis 23470]

3 hours ago, Mole said:

This feels like another iteration of the HCQ discussions of last summer.

Those were the days. 

[jimmyjazz 46303]

2 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

I'm not saying he's the bad guy.  

Uh, that's not really true.  You are completely on board the "Fauci virus" train.  

[TwiceHorn 31629]

4 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

So you are of the assertion that despite working in the GOF field for decades, working with the Wuhan lab for years studying GOF, funding millions of dollars into the lab, that they have absolutely no knowledge about any of the work being done in lab?  Is that what you are saying?

Nor am I saying anything wad falsified.  Again, it was a clear and evident COI to have those parties lead the investigation.  That much should be blatantly obvious to everyone.  

• That he "worked" in GoF, or more accurately funded and supported it through NIH/NIAID, I do not quibble with.  This seems to be a fact.
• I have seen nothing definitive that Wuhan engaged in gain of function research, using our money or anyone elses 
• The GoF research that I have seen came from UNC, before the ban.
• Did Wuhan do GoF research?  Probably, I don't know, and I don't believe you do either
• Did Wuhan use NIH money to do GoF research, I don't know and I don't believe you do either
• Did Wuhan use NIH money to do GoF research while the "ban" was in place, I don't know and I don't believe you do either

I have no reason to believe that Fauci would deliberately or knowingly violate the "ban" on GoF research by funding it at Wuhan or anyplace else. Stringing those fact items together to come up with your statement requires the indulgence of inferences against Fauci.

You assume that Fauci is up-to-the-minute up-to-date on every piece of research he funds every year.  I'm not so sure about that. You assume that he's particularly interested in the Wuhan research, because it's GoF.  Well, that last part hasn't been established, as pointed out above. And, as the research is a small project in the scheme of things, I find it somewhat unlikely that Fauci did in fact know what's going on there.  And, even if the GoF research is going on there on the QT, we have no reason to believe that the unlawful nature of it would be openly reported back to Fauci, if it was reported at all.  Most research reporting is going to go back to some underling, grant administrator long before it gets to Fauci, and I doubt the reports are exactly candid that they did GoF, if it was done at all.  Maybe Fauci had super-secret-squirrel briefings where the unlawful GoF research he was funding surreptitiously was reported to him in great detail.  I rather doubt it.

I don't know who appointed Peter Daszak to the WHO investigation committee, I don't think it was Fauci as he has no authority there.  Maybe Fauci recommended him, but I have seen no evidence of that.

According to you, Daszak and Fauci are "best buds."  That's a difficult fact to establish.  They're no doubt professional acquaintances in the relatively small circle of  this type of scientist.  Fauci gives money to EHA via NIH/NIAID.  That probably increases their affinity, but I doubt Fauci is the sole source of money to EHA or that all of the NIH money that goes to EHA comes from/through Fauci.  We have already established that the amount given by NIH to EHA and sent to Wuhan is a tiny fraction of the money NIH distributes annually and one of thousands of such grants.  

The worry with a conflict of interest is that the conflicted party will do something wrongful because of the conflict.  It would seem that Daszak might have motive to cover up unlawful research at Wuhan funded by him.  I concede that, but it assumes that Daszak too was intentionally violating the ban on GoF research, which is far from established..  Maybe he has a motive to protect Wuhan generally.  It isn't like Wuhan is paying him.  So that is a "theoretical" or what us lawyers call an "apparent" conflict of interest.  I'm not sure it's what we call an "actual" conflict of interest, where the conflict is so great that it is almost inevitable that wrongdoing will occur because the conflict is so strong.

But you have to make a number of leaps, that is, indulge inferences, to make this all into something nefarious.  Are there lots of "opportunities" for it to be nefarious, sure.  But to make it into an actual big nefarious scheme, lots of those "opportunities" have to go one way.  

The first question in this investigation that everyone agrees should take place, at least as relates to the origin of the virus, is did the virus escape from Wuhan.  The second question is was Wuhan "engineering" the virus that escaped.   Once those is established, if they're ever established, which seems fairly unlikely, then we can examine who knew what, who funded what, and who covered up what.

Until then, it's a bunch of speculation.

Another consideration that underlies all of this is that I think big chunks of the government, including State and others, were inclined not to provoke China or level accusations at it in a way that would provoke a diplomatic or trade incident in the midst of a pandemic.  The net result of that may be that everyone involved pretty much soft-pedaled any deliberate or negligent Chinese liability for the virus, not as part of some insidious conspiracy to cover it up, but rather as part of a considered judgment as to how the origin of the virus should be handled until we get the pandemic behind us.

 

 

Edited June 11, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31629]

Ah.  Finally found a factual source on the 3.7M given to EHA.  https://taggs.hhs.gov/Detail/AwardDetail?arg_AwardNum=R01AI110964&arg_ProgOfficeCode=104

It was 3.7M spread over five years, from 2014 to present.  So, about $650k, give or take, a year.

I can't find anything that indicates how much of that Wuhan received.  But there are other indicators that it received roughly $600k over that period.

So it would appear that the $3.7M to Wuhan is a bit of an exaggeration.  To EHA, yes, but EHA =/= Wuhan.

Also, this page shows how much and to whom grants were made by NIH/NIAID.  https://taggs.hhs.gov/Detail/CFDADetail?arg_CFDA_NUM=93855

Looks like NIH/NIAID pushes out about $2.5B annually to dozens of institutions in hundreds of grants.

Gives one a bit of perspective on some of the numbers being slung around.

Edited June 11, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Anastasis 23470]

We need a lot more transparency around EcoHealth. HHS contracts are just a small piece of their funding pie. We need much greater transparency around what we are funding globally in the field, of which EcoHealth is only a very small piece. 

 

The focus on Fauci is a tactical miscalculation imo, distracting from the bigger picture. 

[BabaYaga 15332]

13 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

• That he "worked" in GoF, or more accurately funded and supported it through NIH/NIAID, I do not quibble with.  This seems to be a fact.
• I have seen nothing definitive that Wuhan engaged in gain of function research, using our money or anyone elses 
• The GoF research that I have seen came from UNC, before the ban.
• Did Wuhan do GoF research?  Probably, I don't know, and I don't believe you do either
• Did Wuhan use NIH money to do GoF research, I don't know and I don't believe you do either
• Did Wuhan use NIH money to do GoF research while the "ban" was in place, I don't know and I don't believe you do either

We have papers and research confirmation that they ran the pathogen through thousands upon thousands of iterations of mice with human lung tissue.  Thought this was already covered.  The ACE2 receptors?  They were working on binding to the receptor.  Then we just so happened to have an outbreak with an advanced virus that happens to bind to that receptor?  Further, the link below articulates what I have been saying all along about those invested in this type of research.

ACE2 receptors

Quote

Virologists like Daszak had much at stake in the assigning of blame for the pandemic. For 20 years, mostly beneath the public’s attention, they had been playing a dangerous game. In their laboratories they routinely created viruses more dangerous than those that exist in nature. They argued that they could do so safely, and that by getting ahead of nature they could predict and prevent natural “spillovers,” the cross-over of viruses from an animal host to people. If SARS2 had indeed escaped from such a laboratory experiment, a savage blowback could be expected, and the storm of public indignation would affect virologists everywhere, not just in China. “It would shatter the scientific edifice top to bottom,” an MIT Technology Review editor, Antonio Regalado, said in March 2020.

You also have Dr. Birger Sørensen and British Professor Angus Dalgleish (known for creating the first working 'HIV vaccine'), who are publishing a paper expressly stating that COVID has no credible natural ancestor.  

Quote

"In their paper, Dalgleish and Srensen also pointed to 'deliberate destruction, concealment or contamination of data' in Chinese labs and noted that 'Chinese scientists who wished to share their knowledge have not been able to do so or have disappeared.'

I already posted the paper from Dr. Li-Meng Yan that you yourself took umbrage with (the site it was posted on, but the actual paper) that clearly illustrates her theories on the evidence of manipulation and advancement.  For her troubles?  Twitter immediately shut down Li-Meng Yan account and many attacked her while defending China.

Further, every point you make, with the growing amount of circumstantial evidence backs the notion of a robust, full forensic dive into EVERY person and agency involved with the lab.  We don't know.  We need to. 

[BabaYaga 15332]

9 hours ago, Anastasis said:

The focus on Fauci is a tactical miscalculation imo, distracting from the bigger picture. 

He was presented as the definitive expert and guiding voice through the pandemic.  I think we deserve to know if all along, he harbored concerns that a lab leak theory would implicate his team and field in general.  See the link I posted above and the disincentives to even acknowledge the possibility of a leak.  It doesn't just implicate China, it implicates us and the entire field of GOF.

See the link above:

Quote

Virologists like Daszak had much at stake in the assigning of blame for the pandemic. For 20 years, mostly beneath the public’s attention, they had been playing a dangerous game. In their laboratories they routinely created viruses more dangerous than those that exist in nature. They argued that they could do so safely, and that by getting ahead of nature they could predict and prevent natural “spillovers,” the cross-over of viruses from an animal host to people. If SARS2 had indeed escaped from such a laboratory experiment, a savage blowback could be expected, and the storm of public indignation would affect virologists everywhere, not just in China. “It would shatter the scientific edifice top to bottom,” an MIT Technology Review editor, Antonio Regalado, said in March 2020.

A second statement that had enormous influence in shaping public attitudes was a letter (in other words an opinion piece, not a scientific article) published on 17 March 2020 in the journal Nature Medicine. Its authors were a group of virologists led by Kristian G. Andersen of the Scripps Research Institute. “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus,” the five virologists declared in the second paragraph of their letter.

This is the letter referenced again and again and again for being THE definitive source of proof that a leak was dismissed.  

Quote

Unfortunately, this was another case of poor science, in the sense defined above. True, some older methods of cutting and pasting viral genomes retain tell-tale signs of manipulation. But newer methods, called “no-see-um” or “seamless” approaches, leave no defining marks. Nor do other methods for manipulating viruses such as serial passage, the repeated transfer of viruses from one culture of cells to another. If a virus has been manipulated, whether with a seamless method or by serial passage, there is no way of knowing that this is the case. Andersen and his colleagues were assuring their readers of something they could not know.

This was reported on with the mice with human lung tissues and the goal of binding to the receptors.  

[Anastasis 23470]

3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

I think we deserve to know if all along, he harbored concerns that a lab leak theory would implicate his team and field in general.  See the link I posted above and the disincentives to even acknowledge the possibility of a leak.  It doesn't just implicate China, it implicates us and the entire field of GOF.

Just because you are a world class virologist does not mean that you are immune to latent bias.

The reasoning used in the definitive early origin paper to dismiss serial passage seems pretty flimsy in hindsight (below).  This was work product heavily influenced by that meeting where the notes have been redacted from the FOIA release. Parts of this explanation have been proven unlikely, others wrong, and others explicitly retracted. I find this all fascinating...and it doesn't even require a lab leak to be something that we should all be concerned about.  

 

3. Selection during passage

Basic research involving passage of bat SARS-CoV-like coronaviruses in cell culture and/or animal models has been ongoing for many years in biosafety level 2 laboratories across the world27, and there are documented instances of laboratory escapes of SARS-CoV28. We must therefore examine the possibility of an inadvertent laboratory release of SARS-CoV-2.

In theory, it is possible that SARS-CoV-2 acquired RBD mutations (Fig. 1a) during adaptation to passage in cell culture, as has been observed in studies of SARS-CoV11. The finding of SARS-CoV-like coronaviruses from pangolins with nearly identical RBDs, however, provides a much stronger and more parsimonious explanation of how SARS-CoV-2 acquired these via recombination or mutation19.

The acquisition of both the polybasic cleavage site and predicted O-linked glycans also argues against culture-based scenarios. New polybasic cleavage sites have been observed only after prolonged passage of low-pathogenicity avian influenza virus in vitro or in vivo17. Furthermore, a hypothetical generation of SARS-CoV-2 by cell culture or animal passage would have required prior isolation of a progenitor virus with very high genetic similarity, which has not been described. Subsequent generation of a polybasic cleavage site would have then required repeated passage in cell culture or animals with ACE2 receptors similar to those of humans, but such work has also not previously been described. Finally, the generation of the predicted O-linked glycans is also unlikely to have occurred due to cell-culture passage, as such features suggest the involvement of an immune system18.

 

[BabaYaga 15332]

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Just because you are a world class virologist does not mean that you are immune to latent bias.

The reasoning used in the definitive early origin paper to dismiss serial passage seems pretty flimsy in hindsight (below).  This was work product heavily influenced by that meeting where the notes have been redacted from the FOIA release. Parts of this explanation have been proven unlikely, others wrong, and others explicitly retracted. I find this all fascinating...and it doesn't even require a lab leak to be something that we should all be concerned about.  

 

3. Selection during passage

Basic research involving passage of bat SARS-CoV-like coronaviruses in cell culture and/or animal models has been ongoing for many years in biosafety level 2 laboratories across the world27, and there are documented instances of laboratory escapes of SARS-CoV28. We must therefore examine the possibility of an inadvertent laboratory release of SARS-CoV-2.

In theory, it is possible that SARS-CoV-2 acquired RBD mutations (Fig. 1a) during adaptation to passage in cell culture, as has been observed in studies of SARS-CoV11. The finding of SARS-CoV-like coronaviruses from pangolins with nearly identical RBDs, however, provides a much stronger and more parsimonious explanation of how SARS-CoV-2 acquired these via recombination or mutation19.

The acquisition of both the polybasic cleavage site and predicted O-linked glycans also argues against culture-based scenarios. New polybasic cleavage sites have been observed only after prolonged passage of low-pathogenicity avian influenza virus in vitro or in vivo17. Furthermore, a hypothetical generation of SARS-CoV-2 by cell culture or animal passage would have required prior isolation of a progenitor virus with very high genetic similarity, which has not been described. Subsequent generation of a polybasic cleavage site would have then required repeated passage in cell culture or animals with ACE2 receptors similar to those of humans, but such work has also not previously been described. Finally, the generation of the predicted O-linked glycans is also unlikely to have occurred due to cell-culture passage, as such features suggest the involvement of an immune system18.

 

My entire point this whole time.  This was akin to having R. Kardashian investigate OJ.  Just a massive and obvious COI.  They set the narrative from day one and virtually every publication ran with it as their source material.

 

[dcar00 14382]

here's the deal

WIV doing work on bat virusi, messing with it to see if it can be made more infectious, China version of Homer Simpson fucks up and gets infected, infects the world, Fauci no want "messin' with it" to be the reason it is highly infectious to humans.  He is proponent of messin with virusi.

messin with virusi to make them more infectious to humans is pretty risky stuff but its done in other places around world.  who knew?

. 

[jimmyjazz 46303]

15 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The second question is was Wuhan "engineering" the virus that escaped.   

This seems to be a popular bogeyman in these kerfuffles.  The average man on the street hears "engineered" and thinks "brewed in a test tube, most likely with nefarious intent".  I would argue that GoF research could be described as "engineering" a virus, in the sense that its characteristics are being amplified.  The thing is, that's not typically nefarious, and the base virus isn't made up out of whole cloth.  There is great value in this type of research, but of course, as with many things, with great power comes great responsibility.  Do the work, but be diligent about safety and containment.  It's possible the lab failed on this point.  Probable?  I don't know.

[Chuckie Finster 22758]

On 6/2/2021 at 8:44 PM, MNLonghornFUKM said:

 

 

Par for course responses for the hive mind. Tell you you won’t care in 2 weeks, tinfoil hat, name call.

 

 

It's been two weeks: update? 

You haven't posted about this in 13 days. In fact, there's been no posts at all in this thread for 5 days.  For such a BOMBSHELL!!!!! story, this shit sure got unimportant quickly... just as all of us sane people predicted.  

Don't worry though, Tucker will be along shortly to tell you what to get mad about next.

[Js1 85638]

6 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

It's been two weeks: update? 

You haven't posted about this in 13 days. In fact, there's been no posts at all in this thread for 5 days.  For such a BOMBSHELL!!!!! story, this shit sure got unimportant quickly... just as all of us sane people predicted.  

Don't worry though, Tucker will be along shortly to tell you what to get mad about next.

The FBI in coordination with the shadow Hillary government that was keeping America not great actually planned the coup attempt. Against the Dems to prevent Biden from being certified the winner so Pelosi could declare Hillary the winner. Duh 

Edited June 16, 2021 by Js1

[GRHorn 105]

On 6/11/2021 at 10:35 AM, jimmyjazz said:

This seems to be a popular bogeyman in these kerfuffles.  The average man on the street hears "engineered" and thinks "brewed in a test tube, most likely with nefarious intent".  I would argue that GoF research could be described as "engineering" a virus, in the sense that its characteristics are being amplified.  The thing is, that's not typically nefarious, and the base virus isn't made up out of whole cloth.  There is great value in this type of research, but of course, as with many things, with great power comes great responsibility.  Do the work, but be diligent about safety and containment.  It's possible the lab failed on this point.  Probable?  I don't know.

What’s the value in it?

[GRHorn 105]

 

[jimmyjazz 46303]

2 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

 

What are the lies upon lies?  Do we now know that the mutation chain is NOT totally consistent with an animal-to-species jump?  Would it not be possible that the mutations made such a jump possible, if not the most probable explanation?  He didn't say (at least in that clip) that there was no possibility of other modes of transmission.  He just said that the mutation sequence didn't rule out animal to human transmission.

[jimmyjazz 46303]

10 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

What’s the value in it?

It takes about six seconds to google a massive amount of information regarding your question.  Go do your own fucking homework, it will take you days (OK, for you, weeks) to absorb a fraction of it.

[GRHorn 105]

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

What are the lies upon lies?  Do we now know that the mutation chain is NOT totally consistent with an animal-to-species jump?  Would it not be possible that the mutations made such a jump possible, if not the most probable explanation?  He didn't say (at least in that clip) that there was no possibility of other modes of transmission.  He just said that the mutation sequence didn't rule out animal to human transmission.

He said it was totally consistent with animal to human transmission. And in a dismissive tone to me, but that might be my bias coming out. 
 

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It takes about six seconds to google a massive amount of information regarding your question.  Go do your own fucking homework, it will take you days (OK, for you, weeks) to absorb a fraction of it.

You spoke as though you were informed on this and could quickly communicate the immense value of gain of function research. I was just hoping to tap into your vast reservoir of knowledge on the subject. 

[TwiceHorn 31629]

On 6/11/2021 at 9:20 AM, BabaYaga said:

We have papers and research confirmation that they ran the pathogen through thousands upon thousands of iterations of mice with human lung tissue.  Thought this was already covered.  The ACE2 receptors?  They were working on binding to the receptor.  Then we just so happened to have an outbreak with an advanced virus that happens to bind to that receptor?  Further, the link below articulates what I have been saying all along about those invested in this type of research.

ACE2 receptors

You also have Dr. Birger Sørensen and British Professor Angus Dalgleish (known for creating the first working 'HIV vaccine'), who are publishing a paper expressly stating that COVID has no credible natural ancestor.  

I already posted the paper from Dr. Li-Meng Yan that you yourself took umbrage with (the site it was posted on, but the actual paper) that clearly illustrates her theories on the evidence of manipulation and advancement.  For her troubles?  Twitter immediately shut down Li-Meng Yan account and many attacked her while defending China.

Further, every point you make, with the growing amount of circumstantial evidence backs the notion of a robust, full forensic dive into EVERY person and agency involved with the lab.  We don't know.  We need to. 

The first citation is one of an opinion piece, not a factual piece.   The second piece is dubious, for reasons already stated and poses a theory, not a fact.  Same would seem to be true of the last, but because it isn't published/peer reviewed we can't tell.  Pardon my skepticism about what dailymail.co.uk and a bunch of nutbar sites say about it. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9629563/Chinese-scientists-created-COVID-19-lab-tried-cover-tracks-new-study-claims.html 

 

I'm not arguing against an investigation.  Never have.  I just don't think the conclusion is as foregone as you seem to think it is.  I also agree with Anastasis that the origin of the virus investigation needs to try to establish which labs are doing what kind of research and whether we know well enough where NIH money goes and what intermediaries like EHA do with it.

Edited June 16, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Captainant 27863]

1 minute ago, GRHorn said:

You spoke as though you were informed on this and could quickly communicate the immense value of gain of function research. I was just hoping to tap into your vast reservoir of knowledge on the subject. 

Well not all of us have degrees in giving massages so I guess we should just defer to your medical expertise and insight

[jimmyjazz 46303]

2 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

You spoke as though you were informed on this and could quickly communicate the immense value of gain of function research. I was just hoping to tap into your vast reservoir of knowledge on the subject. 

I did the work weeks ago when right wing idiots like you started yapping about "Gain of Function" research (only to then move on to "Critical Race Theory").

I mean, just read the fucking wiki page.  Do I completely trust wikipedia?  No, I don't, but it pretty much lays out a wide swath of areas in which GoF research is used in medicine and science.  You go ahead and let me know where it's off base.

[TwiceHorn 31629]

On 6/11/2021 at 10:35 AM, jimmyjazz said:

This seems to be a popular bogeyman in these kerfuffles.  The average man on the street hears "engineered" and thinks "brewed in a test tube, most likely with nefarious intent".  I would argue that GoF research could be described as "engineering" a virus, in the sense that its characteristics are being amplified.  The thing is, that's not typically nefarious, and the base virus isn't made up out of whole cloth.  There is great value in this type of research, but of course, as with many things, with great power comes great responsibility.  Do the work, but be diligent about safety and containment.  It's possible the lab failed on this point.  Probable?  I don't know.

I tend to agree with you.  But, I'm not a life science guy.  Anastasis, who is, thinks the known propensity for labs to lose control of stuff is too great to make the benefit outweigh the risk.  I'll defer to him on that. There certainly is a known propensity for labs to have inadequate safety protocols, and that's US labs (see USAMRIID, again), and I think we all know about Chinese "quality control."/noracist.

Edited June 16, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[jimmyjazz 46303]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I tend to agree with you.  But, I'm not a life science guy.  Anastasis, who is, thinks the known propensity for labs to lose control of stuff is too great to make the benefit outweigh the risk.  I'll defer to him on that. There certainly is a known propensity for labs to have inadequate safety protocols, and that's US labs (see USAMRIID, again), and I think we all know about Chinese "quality control."/noracist.

Sure, it's absolutely not my place to judge the level of risk.  That doesn't mean risk is impossible to assess or bound.  I don't do it any more, as I'm no longer involved in high-energy engineered systems, but when I was, we paid an enormous amount of attention to risk. 

[sheeeit 129]

4 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I did the work weeks ago when right wing idiots like you started yapping about "Gain of Function" research (only to then move on to "Critical Race Theory").

I mean, just read the fucking wiki page.  Do I completely trust wikipedia?  No, I don't, but it pretty much lays out a wide swath of areas in which GoF research is used in medicine and science.  You go ahead and let me know where it's off base.

This is partly true and partly not true and it depends on the type of techniques employed by the scientists. 
 

Studying different viruses to see how they react does have limited benefit.  My opinion is that it is.a very small benefit but a benefit.   It is interesting that when you try to get a scientist in this field to actually quantify the benefit it is very, very vague.

However, taking a known coronavirus that is not contagious to humans and then mutating it in someway to the point that it is contagious to humans offers virtually no benefit whatsoever.  The only argument for this type of research that is ever made is that it may (not will) help mitigate a disaster in the future but to date, it hasn’t helped with the small number of viruses that have gotten out.  And the cost, as we have now potentially seen, is enormous.

The extremely small group that works with these coronaviruses is very, very protective of their work. they are 100% reliant on government grants as there is virtually no money at all from the private sector that goes into this type of research.  As a result, when an outbreak does occur, they close ranks pretty quickly and pretty tightly because they know if it becomes public as to what they are doing then they’re very work and livelihood will be instantly shut down.  Obama certainly recognized this.  

[TwiceHorn 31629]

The virology world apparently divides itself into two camps, those that favor gain-of-function type research and those that oppose it.

Here seems to be a clear-eyed, if from an author from the former camp, analysis of the situation. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-01205-5

That it is published in Nature gives it some credibility.

[TwiceHorn 31629]

23 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

This is partly true and partly not true and it depends on the type of techniques employed by the scientists. 
 

Studying different viruses to see how they react does have limited benefit.  My opinion is that it is.a very small benefit but a benefit.   It is interesting that when you try to get a scientist in this field to actually quantify the benefit it is very, very vague.

However, taking a known coronavirus that is not contagious to humans and then mutating it in someway to the point that it is contagious to humans offers virtually no benefit whatsoever.  The only argument for this type of research that is ever made is that it may (not will) help mitigate a disaster in the future but to date, it hasn’t helped with the small number of viruses that have gotten out.  And the cost, as we have now potentially seen, is enormous.

The extremely small group that works with these coronaviruses is very, very protective of their work. they are 100% reliant on government grants as there is virtually no money at all from the private sector that goes into this type of research.  As a result, when an outbreak does occur, they close ranks pretty quickly and pretty tightly because they know if it becomes public as to what they are doing then they’re very work and livelihood will be instantly shut down.  Obama certainly recognized this.  

One thing, particularly as pertains to virological research:  the tools to perform the genetic manipulation and to understand it and duplicate it, are not very old.  Maybe 25 years at the outside.

That type of GoF research really has not been going on for very long.  So, I am unsure that anyone is able to say what benefits it might yield.  Figuring out how and why viruses mutate from non-human-transmissible to human-transmissible seems absolutely fundamental in understanding how this occurs in nature and how it might be prevented in the future.

But I also agree that until we can get a better handle on lab security, the game may not be worth the candle.

Also, regarding scientists "closing ranks," that seems quite plausible and very possibly plays a role here.  But history is also replete with Luddite governments suppressing valuable scientific research and work, delaying advancement.  

[WhatTheBuck 28814]

We should make Hollywood only make movies that are critical of and unmarketable in China, stop making iPhones there, stop Ivanka from making cheap merchandise there, Walmart too, while we’re at it, kill Kim Jong Un and reunify all of Korea under the control of what is now South Korea, free Hong Kong, and bomb China into submission until they tell us exactly where the virus came from.

Then, and only then, can we forget how Donald Trump and Mike Pence lied to us and cost us hundreds of thousands of American lives that didn’t have to be lost if they weren’t completely incompetent and every bit as authoritarian and dishonest as the Chinese Communist Party. 

[BabaYaga 15332]

22 hours ago, sheeeit said:

This is partly true and partly not true and it depends on the type of techniques employed by the scientists. 
 

Studying different viruses to see how they react does have limited benefit.  My opinion is that it is.a very small benefit but a benefit.   It is interesting that when you try to get a scientist in this field to actually quantify the benefit it is very, very vague.

However, taking a known coronavirus that is not contagious to humans and then mutating it in someway to the point that it is contagious to humans offers virtually no benefit whatsoever.  The only argument for this type of research that is ever made is that it may (not will) help mitigate a disaster in the future but to date, it hasn’t helped with the small number of viruses that have gotten out.  And the cost, as we have now potentially seen, is enormous.

The extremely small group that works with these coronaviruses is very, very protective of their work. they are 100% reliant on government grants as there is virtually no money at all from the private sector that goes into this type of research.  As a result, when an outbreak does occur, they close ranks pretty quickly and pretty tightly because they know if it becomes public as to what they are doing then they’re very work and livelihood will be instantly shut down.  Obama certainly recognized this.  

The justification from Fauci and the other scientists is that of prevention and prediction.  To be able to identify and stop the next possible outbreak.  Refer back again to the 2012 quote and his admission that a potential outbreak is worth the risk.

Problem is, as Stewart so eloquently states in this funny video, "yeah, science is doing a great job helping, with something that they started"

Jon Stewart on the Wuhan Labs

 

[elfenix 34344]

On 6/11/2021 at 10:22 AM, dcar00 said:

here's the deal

WIV doing work on bat virusi, messing with it to see if it can be made more infectious, China version of Homer Simpson fucks up and gets infected, infects the world, Fauci no want "messin' with it" to be the reason it is highly infectious to humans.  He is proponent of messin with virusi.

messin with virusi to make them more infectious to humans is pretty risky stuff but its done in other places around world.  who knew?

. 

[Anastasis 23470]

On 6/16/2021 at 12:57 PM, TwiceHorn said:

I tend to agree with you.  But, I'm not a life science guy.  Anastasis, who is, thinks the known propensity for labs to lose control of stuff is too great to make the benefit outweigh the risk.  I'll defer to him on that. There certainly is a known propensity for labs to have inadequate safety protocols, and that's US labs (see USAMRIID, again), and I think we all know about Chinese "quality control."/noracist.

Last 4 or 5 SARS outbreaks all came from lab accidents IIRC. 

[Chuckie Finster 22758]

There has to be a fall guy here.  As stated above, Faucci is about to be BBQ'd..

Update? Shocking that this news cycle progressed just as any sane human could have predicted, yet the same idiots will still fall for the same shit next time.

[BabaYaga 15332]

16 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Update? Shocking that this news cycle progressed just as any sane human could have predicted, yet the same idiots will still fall for the same shit next time.

Predictable you say?  Yeah, I'd say that about sums it up.  Blatantly obvious signs now almost universally accepted were summarily dismissed during a certain administration.  Blocked from social media.  Users banned.  The entire notion was dismissed as conspiracy nonsense.  As stated above, 4 out of the last 5 outbreaks.  Lab leaks....

Oh, but now?  Administration changes and suddenly everyone's so open minded.  Yeah, no partisan histrionics or fuckery at all.  No.  That would never happen.  Fucking laughable. 

 

And Fauci?  We know he played a part in funding the research.  We know his buddy Daszak covered it up.  It's not that you or the MSM don't know.  You just don't care. 

[wildcat09 29443]

I read that Dr. Fauci eats babies and used a time machine to go back and murder Jesus.

[Beantown Express 2.0 6563]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I read that Dr. Fauci eats babies and used a time machine to go back and murder Jesus.

Well now that you posted this I just read it on the internet so it must be true.

[WhatTheBuck 28814]

Jesus had to die.