Dr. Anthony Fauci Appreciation Thread

[Anastasis 23475]

Early pandemic. 

[Captainant 27680]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

The no evidence exists argument is not particularly compelling in the context of what we know about the Chinese suppression of information. Sucks that this is where we are. Chinese transparency would have avoided all of this but we know that is not part of the dynamic here. If you are not suspicious of the circumstances around WIV data suppression in particular and the broader Chinese government suppression of information , in particular during the army pandemic, I am not sure what to say. I just know that I wouldn’t use that as the basis of my posture on lab origin. 

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I don't think anybody is ruling out the possibility, but it's not very productive to postulate and lean on "people are saying" trump-style rhetoric. 

[Captainant 27680]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

The no evidence exists argument is not particularly compelling in the context of what we know about the Chinese suppression of information. Sucks that this is where we are. Chinese transparency would have avoided all of this but we know that is not part of the dynamic here. If you are not suspicious of the circumstances around WIV data suppression in particular and the broader Chinese government suppression of information , in particular during the army pandemic, I am not sure what to say. I just know that I wouldn’t use that as the basis of my posture on lab origin. 

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I don't think anybody is ruling out the possibility, but it's not very productive to postulate and lean on "people are saying" trump-style rhetoric. 

[Anastasis 23475]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I don't think anybody is ruling out the possibility, but it's not very productive to postulate and lean on "people are saying" trump-style rhetoric. 

Understood and agreed. I don't think that I have leaned on any of that type rhetoric. My position has been fairly consistent on this topic.

1. I don't think that SARS-Cov2 was lab engineered. The genetic sequence is compatible with natural origin. To the extent that lab manipulation may be involved, it's likely related to borderline practices such as serial passage, and other things that would be commonly conducted in such labs studying these viruses. 

2. All the data points suggest that an accidental lab leak is possible if not probable.  It fits most of the data, Yunnan to Wuhan.

3. The US taxpayer has been funding the collection and consolidation of these viruses at WIV with inadequate oversight and transparency into what was being collected and what was being done with it afterwards.  The funding ran through sub-grants, and there was inadequate oversight.  Somebody needs to be held to account for that, without regard to where COVID originated. I am actually more interested in what EcoHealth was doing for DOD than NIH. Cause that is free style rap. 

4. China is asshole. 

[atomheartbevo 89727]

21 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Quite the opposite. I'd rather listen to Willie with his vocal cords giving out over Fauci vs. Rand screeching. 

Yeah, he has done some recent work with Titty Bingo, and he's showing his age.

[Celery Man 20966]

I thought titty bingo was just a sticker 

[Biff Tannen 45691]

28 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

I thought titty bingo was just a sticker 

You probably think Jethro Tull is just a guy in the band too. 

[TwiceHorn 31495]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

4. China is asshole. 

[Celery Man 20966]

44 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

You probably think Jethro Tull is just a guy in the band too. 

Dude plays jazz flute

[Anastasis 23475]

Just now, Celery Man said:

Dude plays jazz flute

Your mom plays deep bass flute. 

[Celery Man 20966]

Yeah well your mom plays the dangling organ

[Anastasis 23475]

You dad lived his whole life without a dangling organ. 

[lmao 178]

3 hours ago, Captainant said:

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I don't think anybody is ruling out the possibility, but it's not very productive to postulate and lean on "people are saying" trump-style rhetoric. 

Let's say all of this began in Moscow instead of Wuhan. Would the narrative be any different? You don't think Russia/Putin would be blamed right out of the gate & there would be any reluctance to investigate a coronavirus lab in Moscow?  

Edited July 22, 2021 by lmao

[atomheartbevo 89727]

2 hours ago, Celery Man said:

I thought titty bingo was just a sticker 

Still the same logo, and they will send you a bumper sticker if you missed out on the billion they had circulating in Austin 15 or 20 years ago.

They are still putting out music.

 

[Dahobbs 17625]

10 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Understood and agreed. I don't think that I have leaned on any of that type rhetoric. My position has been fairly consistent on this topic.

1. I don't think that SARS-Cov2 was lab engineered. The genetic sequence is compatible with natural origin. To the extent that lab manipulation may be involved, it's likely related to borderline practices such as serial passage, and other things that would be commonly conducted in such labs studying these viruses. 

2. All the data points suggest that an accidental lab leak is possible if not probable.  It fits most of the data, Yunnan to Wuhan.

3. The US taxpayer has been funding the collection and consolidation of these viruses at WIV with inadequate oversight and transparency into what was being collected and what was being done with it afterwards.  The funding ran through sub-grants, and there was inadequate oversight.  Somebody needs to be held to account for that, without regard to where COVID originated. I am actually more interested in what EcoHealth was doing for DOD than NIH. Cause that is free style rap. 

4. China is asshole. 

I have no issue with any of this. Absolutely investigate the source of the virus. Absolutely investigate the lab. Absolutely look at issues of inadequate oversight of taxpayer funded research. But, there is a huge jump from #3 to BabaYaga's conclusion that the NIH funded research actually created the virus. There is no evidence of that. In fact, there is evidence that it didn't happen at all because we know what viruses were used in the that research. 

11 hours ago, Captainant said:

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I don't think anybody is ruling out the possibility, but it's not very productive to postulate and lean on "people are saying" trump-style rhetoric. 

There is both absence of evidence that NIH funded research created virus and affirmative evidence that NIH funded research did not create the virus. What we don't know is whether some other project at that lab led to the creation and/or release of the virus. I think the available evidence indicates that is unlikely that the virus was created in the lab at all. But release from the lab remains a possibility. Again, having nothing at all to do with the NIH funded research. 

7 hours ago, lmao said:

Let's say all of this began in Moscow instead of Wuhan. Would the narrative be any different? You don't think Russia/Putin would be blamed right out of the gate & there would be any reluctance to investigate a coronavirus lab in Moscow?  

Are you saying China wasn't blamed from the very beginning? Whether it is lab release or wet markets, China has been at the center of this and has been blamed for the pandemic. And I haven't seen any reluctance to investigate. I've seen an inability to investigate. And I've seen warnings against mere speculation.  

[PsychMike 1552]

 

New Data Leads To Rethinking (Once More) Where The Pandemic Actually Began

Link to article

MICHAELEEN DOUCLEFF

Back in May, a group of scientists — many at the top of the virology field — shifted the debate about the origins of COVID-19. They published a letter in the journal Sciencesaying the lab-leak theory needs to be taken more seriously by the scientific community.

Given the current evidence available, the scientists wrote, the outbreak is just as likely to have originated from a laboratory — specifically the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which studies coronaviruses — as from an infected animal. "We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data," they concluded.

Now one of the scientists who signed that letter says new data has come to light. And that information, summarized in an online review, has changed his thinking.

"I do think transmission from another species, without a lab escape, is the most likely scenario by a long shot," says evolutionary biologist Michael Worobey at the University of Arizona.

In fact, Worobey thinks, the most likely scenario, given the current information, is that the coronavirus pandemic began at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, even though the World Health Organization says it's unlikely to have started there. "The data are very consistent with it starting at the market — very consistent," Worobey says.

A Sherlock Holmes in the world of pandemics

Over the past decade, Worobey has become a bit like the Sherlock Holmes of pandemic origins. His work has helped explain how the 1918 flu emerged and how HIV came to the U.S. earlier than people thought. "It got to New York City pretty darn early, probably around 1970, 1971, somewhere in there," Worobey told NPR in 2016.

During the coronavirus pandemic, Worobey has been studying how SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19, spreads around densely populated cities such as Wuhan, China, where the outbreak is thought to have begun. Using this information, he built computer simulations to model how SARS-CoV-2 may have transmitted through Wuhan early in the outbreak, before doctors detected the first cases, likely in December 2019. The models could estimate key aspects of the early outbreak, such as when the first case occurred, how long the virus spread in the city before doctors noticed it and how many cases were in the city at that point.

A few months ago, Worobey says, his models couldn't differentiate between the lab-leak theory and the alternative theory — that the virus jumped directly from an animal into people. Both theories were consistent with the data. "So I was on that Science letter," he says, "asserting that more investigation is needed of both possibilities."

Then two new pieces of information came to light. First, Worobey started to look more closely at the geography of early known COVID-19 cases — cases that occurred in December 2019. His colleague Robert Garry, a microbiologist at Tulane University, took data from the World Health Organization's report from March and plotted the data on a map of where people with confirmed cases lived in Wuhan.

Why the locations of the market and the lab matter

Then Garry did something that the WHO didn't: He added to the map the locations of the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where scientists study bat coronaviruses. "It's a very simple thing to do," Worobey says. "But it really paints a pretty clear picture, right?"

The dots show the cases starting right near the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market and then radiating out from there. "The Huanan market seems like the bull's-eye of this outbreak. It's pretty extraordinary."

What about cases near the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which is more than 10 miles from the market? "There are no cases around the WIV," Worobey says. "If the outbreak did start in the lab, the bottom line is, it would be odd for it not to be spreading from there rather than from elsewhere."

The other piece of data, which helped shift Worobey's thinking, concerns the products sold at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. Was there anything at the market that has been previously known to spread SARS coronaviruses?

Since the pandemic began, the Chinese government has claimed the vendors at the market didn't sell any illegal wildlife. "They said the market was operating completely legally," says biosecurity expert Gigi Gronvall at Johns Hopkins University. "And just on the face of it, you just know, that's not correct.

"And lo and behold, it's not," she adds.

Last month, researchers published a study showing that the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market was one of four markets in Wuhan selling illegal wildlife, including palm civets and raccoon dogs, which are both known to spread SARS-CoV-2. Scientists believe civets triggered the first SARS coronavirus pandemic, in 2003.

The researchers, from China West Normal University in Nanchong, surveyed 17 markets across Wuhan between May 2017 and November 2019. They found more than 47,000 live animals across 38 species for sale, including 31 species protected under Chinese law.

This new information about the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, along with the maps and modeling data, doesn't prove an animal origin for the pandemic by any means, Gronvall says. Nor does it all disprove the lab-leak theory, she says: "There are lots of pieces to still fill in, but this report [from Worobey and his colleagues] ties a lot of the pieces together that say, 'There is a really credible story for an animal origin of SARS-CoV2.' "

What we do know — and still don't know — about cases

Now, of course, all the data presented to support Worobey's hypothesis comes with caveats — big caveats. The Chinese government tightly controlled and managed the information coming from China, especially information concerning the early days of the pandemic. The reported COVID-19 cases in December 2019 are only a small fraction of the actual number circulating in Wuhan at the time. The government refuses to release the raw data for patients in 2019 or allow researchers to search for even earlier cases through analyses of blood bank samples or epidemiological interviews.

In addition, the Huanan market sits in the middle of a densely populated part of the city, where many elderly people live, points out Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Mass., who has promoted the lab-leak theory online.

"There are many more people living north of the river, and there are a lot of elderly folk living there in a lot of care homes there," said Chan, as she showed me a population density map of Wuhan, published in February 2020. "So it doesn't surprise me that the early outbreak doesn't map to the [WIV] lab. People don't live at the labs."

But, Worobey says, a closer look at the population density in Wuhan indicates the early cases aren't in the densest part of the city. "It is certainly worth considering the degree to which population densities might play a role in explaining early cases," Worobey wrote to NPR in an email. "But there does seem to be a pattern in the early data ... of considerable numbers of cases both to the north and south of the Huanan Market, whereas the large patch of really high numbers of elderly people in Wuhan is in the very southern extent of the central cluster shown."

Furthermore, he notes, the earliest known cases skewed young. The highest number of cases occurred in people ages 29 to 49 and then in people ages 50 to 65. The vast majority were under 65, a study found.

And so, given the data available right now, he believes the most likely scenario is that the pandemic started at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, not the lab. "It does seem a pretty weird coincidence that [a big outbreak occurs] at one of four places in Wuhan that sells things like civets and raccoon dogs, which are the likely suspects as intermediaries to SARS-CoV-2."

But if new data comes to light tomorrow, his thinking may shift again, Worobey says. That, in many ways, is the way science works.

Edited July 22, 2021 by PsychMike

[Anastasis 23475]

3 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I think the available evidence indicates that is unlikely that the virus was created in the lab at all. But release from the lab remains a possibility. Again, having nothing at all to do with the NIH funded research. 

The most likely site of natural origin was a bat cave in Yunnan. Closest natural viruses to SARS-COV-2 came out of that cave.  The NIH through EcoHealth helped fund the collection of virus samples from that cave, the transportation back to Wuhan, and further study that took place at Wuhan. We don't have a comprehensive accounting of what was collected due to lack of oversight.  We know that the Chinese collected and studied a lot more shit out of those caves than they have reported publicly via publications. Suddenly, a highly contagious virus that likely originated in a cave in Yunnan pops up thousands of miles away a stones throw from WIV. If it's a lab leak of a virus collected during one of those trips to Yunnan, the NIH (and likely other US funding) played a role. 

Until there is a strong chain of events established that describe how that virus got out of the cave and into Wuhan, lab leak is going to be on the table.  The Chinese could of course end the whole debate by being fully transparent about what was collected and studied at WIV.  They are hiding something, my hunch they don't give a shit about what the west would find related to SARS-COV-2, but they had unrelated military bioweapon research ongoing at that lab and they don't want the west snooping through it.  Just like we wouldn't want them sifting through Ft. Detrick.  

Edited July 22, 2021 by Anastasis

[TwiceHorn 31495]

19 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The NIH through EcoHealth helped fund the collection of virus samples from that cave, the transportation back to Wuhan, and further study that took place at Wuhan.

Yeah, what I read was the Wuhan grant was mostly or ostensibly related to collecting samples of bat viruses.  But, as I think you pointed out, money is fungible and nothing prevents(ed) the use of that money for something nefarious or dangerous.

I also find it kind of odd that a third-party agency such as EcoHealth administers grants for the NIH.  On the one hand, I can see a certain practicality to it. on the other hand, they seemed to receive a small fraction of the grants, indicating that NIH does most of its own grant administration.   That is a question mark that probably deserves some kind of answer.

[Dahobbs 17625]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

The most likely site of natural origin was a bat cave in Yunnan. Closest natural viruses to SARS-COV-2 came out of that cave.  The NIH through EcoHealth helped fund the collection of virus samples from that cave, the transportation back to Wuhan, and further study that took place at Wuhan. We don't have a comprehensive accounting of what was collected due to lack of oversight.  We know that the Chinese collected and studied a lot more shit out of those caves than they have reported publicly via publications. Suddenly, a highly contagious virus that likely originated in a cave in Yunnan pops up thousands of miles away a stones throw from WIV. If it's a lab leak of a virus collected during one of those trips to Yunnan, the NIH (and likely other US funding) played a role. 

Until there is a strong chain of events established that describe how that virus got out of the cave and into Wuhan, lab leak is going to be on the table.  The Chinese could of course end the whole debate by being fully transparent about what was collected and studied at WIV.  They are hiding something, my hunch they don't give a shit about what the west would find related to SARS-COV-2, but they had unrelated military bioweapon research ongoing at that lab and they don't want the west snooping through it.  Just like we wouldn't want them sifting through Ft. Detrick.  

That makes sense and sounds like a reasonable interpretation of available facts. I was mainly pushing back on the idea that the NIH funded created/enhanced the virus rather than the funding may have partly contributed to the collection of the virus in a potential lab release scenario. I think the former is unsupported by the facts and requires ignoring known facts and a high degree of speculation. The latter is definitely possible based on the available evidence.  Now, that doesn't mean not investigating the former possibility. And it doesn't mean ignoring evidence revealed during the course of an investigation. You follow where the evidence leads. Right now, it doesn't lead to NIH funding created an enhanced virus. Maybe something comes up that changes that, but until that happens it is unwise to encourage rank speculation and jumps to conclusions as Babayaga and others have done. 

Edited July 22, 2021 by Dahobbs

[jimmyjazz 45976]

6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

That makes sense and sounds like a reasonable interpretation of available facts. I was mainly pushing back on the idea that the NIH funded created/enhanced the virus rather than the funding may have partly contributed to the collection of the virus in a potential lab release scenario. I think the former is unsupported by the facts and requires ignoring known facts and a high degree of speculation. The latter is definitely possible based on the available evidence.  

But they iterated! #BYaga

[WhatTheBuck 28788]

3 hours ago, PsychMike said:

 

New Data Leads To Rethinking (Once More) Where The Pandemic Actually Began

Link to article

MICHAELEEN DOUCLEFF

Back in May, a group of scientists — many at the top of the virology field — shifted the debate about the origins of COVID-19. They published a letter in the journal Sciencesaying the lab-leak theory needs to be taken more seriously by the scientific community.

Given the current evidence available, the scientists wrote, the outbreak is just as likely to have originated from a laboratory — specifically the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which studies coronaviruses — as from an infected animal. "We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data," they concluded.

Now one of the scientists who signed that letter says new data has come to light. And that information, summarized in an online review, has changed his thinking.

"I do think transmission from another species, without a lab escape, is the most likely scenario by a long shot," says evolutionary biologist Michael Worobey at the University of Arizona.

In fact, Worobey thinks, the most likely scenario, given the current information, is that the coronavirus pandemic began at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, even though the World Health Organization says it's unlikely to have started there. "The data are very consistent with it starting at the market — very consistent," Worobey says.

A Sherlock Holmes in the world of pandemics

Over the past decade, Worobey has become a bit like the Sherlock Holmes of pandemic origins. His work has helped explain how the 1918 flu emerged and how HIV came to the U.S. earlier than people thought. "It got to New York City pretty darn early, probably around 1970, 1971, somewhere in there," Worobey told NPR in 2016.

During the coronavirus pandemic, Worobey has been studying how SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19, spreads around densely populated cities such as Wuhan, China, where the outbreak is thought to have begun. Using this information, he built computer simulations to model how SARS-CoV-2 may have transmitted through Wuhan early in the outbreak, before doctors detected the first cases, likely in December 2019. The models could estimate key aspects of the early outbreak, such as when the first case occurred, how long the virus spread in the city before doctors noticed it and how many cases were in the city at that point.

A few months ago, Worobey says, his models couldn't differentiate between the lab-leak theory and the alternative theory — that the virus jumped directly from an animal into people. Both theories were consistent with the data. "So I was on that Science letter," he says, "asserting that more investigation is needed of both possibilities."

Then two new pieces of information came to light. First, Worobey started to look more closely at the geography of early known COVID-19 cases — cases that occurred in December 2019. His colleague Robert Garry, a microbiologist at Tulane University, took data from the World Health Organization's report from March and plotted the data on a map of where people with confirmed cases lived in Wuhan.

Why the locations of the market and the lab matter

Then Garry did something that the WHO didn't: He added to the map the locations of the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where scientists study bat coronaviruses. "It's a very simple thing to do," Worobey says. "But it really paints a pretty clear picture, right?"

The dots show the cases starting right near the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market and then radiating out from there. "The Huanan market seems like the bull's-eye of this outbreak. It's pretty extraordinary."

What about cases near the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which is more than 10 miles from the market? "There are no cases around the WIV," Worobey says. "If the outbreak did start in the lab, the bottom line is, it would be odd for it not to be spreading from there rather than from elsewhere."

The other piece of data, which helped shift Worobey's thinking, concerns the products sold at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. Was there anything at the market that has been previously known to spread SARS coronaviruses?

Since the pandemic began, the Chinese government has claimed the vendors at the market didn't sell any illegal wildlife. "They said the market was operating completely legally," says biosecurity expert Gigi Gronvall at Johns Hopkins University. "And just on the face of it, you just know, that's not correct.

"And lo and behold, it's not," she adds.

Last month, researchers published a study showing that the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market was one of four markets in Wuhan selling illegal wildlife, including palm civets and raccoon dogs, which are both known to spread SARS-CoV-2. Scientists believe civets triggered the first SARS coronavirus pandemic, in 2003.

The researchers, from China West Normal University in Nanchong, surveyed 17 markets across Wuhan between May 2017 and November 2019. They found more than 47,000 live animals across 38 species for sale, including 31 species protected under Chinese law.

This new information about the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, along with the maps and modeling data, doesn't prove an animal origin for the pandemic by any means, Gronvall says. Nor does it all disprove the lab-leak theory, she says: "There are lots of pieces to still fill in, but this report [from Worobey and his colleagues] ties a lot of the pieces together that say, 'There is a really credible story for an animal origin of SARS-CoV2.' "

What we do know — and still don't know — about cases

Now, of course, all the data presented to support Worobey's hypothesis comes with caveats — big caveats. The Chinese government tightly controlled and managed the information coming from China, especially information concerning the early days of the pandemic. The reported COVID-19 cases in December 2019 are only a small fraction of the actual number circulating in Wuhan at the time. The government refuses to release the raw data for patients in 2019 or allow researchers to search for even earlier cases through analyses of blood bank samples or epidemiological interviews.

In addition, the Huanan market sits in the middle of a densely populated part of the city, where many elderly people live, points out Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Mass., who has promoted the lab-leak theory online.

"There are many more people living north of the river, and there are a lot of elderly folk living there in a lot of care homes there," said Chan, as she showed me a population density map of Wuhan, published in February 2020. "So it doesn't surprise me that the early outbreak doesn't map to the [WIV] lab. People don't live at the labs."

But, Worobey says, a closer look at the population density in Wuhan indicates the early cases aren't in the densest part of the city. "It is certainly worth considering the degree to which population densities might play a role in explaining early cases," Worobey wrote to NPR in an email. "But there does seem to be a pattern in the early data ... of considerable numbers of cases both to the north and south of the Huanan Market, whereas the large patch of really high numbers of elderly people in Wuhan is in the very southern extent of the central cluster shown."

Furthermore, he notes, the earliest known cases skewed young. The highest number of cases occurred in people ages 29 to 49 and then in people ages 50 to 65. The vast majority were under 65, a study found.

And so, given the data available right now, he believes the most likely scenario is that the pandemic started at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, not the lab. "It does seem a pretty weird coincidence that [a big outbreak occurs] at one of four places in Wuhan that sells things like civets and raccoon dogs, which are the likely suspects as intermediaries to SARS-CoV-2."

But if new data comes to light tomorrow, his thinking may shift again, Worobey says. That, in many ways, is the way science works.

Suppose it came from a lab. Suppose it came from a bat to some other animal to a human. What difference does it make? It would be interesting to know the answer but it wouldn’t change jack squat. Regardless of where it came from, Trump, Kushner, and Pence are incompetent morons who botched our response and cost hundreds of thousands of American lives. China will never not be an authoritarian country. That’s why we have intelligence services and Trump ignored the intelligence. We can’t change China. But we could fix the damage done to our own country inflicted by Trump and his band of criminals if we would just accept what the problem really is. 

[Anastasis 23475]

7 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Suppose it came from a lab. Suppose it came from a bat to some other animal to a human. What difference does it make?

[Anastasis 23475]

What a stupid fucking comment. 

What difference does it make?  Maybe we stop fucking dangerous research without the appropriate and necessary oversight. 

[Dahobbs 17625]

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

What a stupid fucking comment. 

What difference does it make?  Maybe we stop fucking dangerous research without the appropriate and necessary oversight. 

I don't think the original of the virus should necessarily dictate that result. Even if it originated naturally, we should still avoid or closely monitor potentially dangerous research. 

[Anastasis 23475]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Even if it originated naturally, we should still avoid or closely monitor potentially dangerous research. 

This common sense. ESP to the extent that taxpayers are funding the labs that do it. 

[Gatorubet 30246]

[Anastasis 23475]

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/07/22/what-the-fight-between-anthony-fauci-and-rand-paul-is-really-about/

...

But it doesn’t matter which “gain of function” definition you prefer. What everyone can now see clearly is that NIH was collaborating on risky research with a Chinese lab that has zero transparency and zero accountability during a crisis — and no one in a position of power addressed that risk. Fauci is arguing the system worked. It didn’t. Even if the lab leak theory isn’t true, what’s clear is that we need more oversight of this risky research, both in the United States and in China.

Fauci also told Paul there’s no possibility the research in the paper Paul cited directly led to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but Paul correctly called this out as a straw man. That specific project was only one element of the U.S. government multiagency effort that for years pumped U.S. money and know-how into these Wuhan labs, via the EcoHealth Alliance, including NIH, USAID and the Pentagon. According to an intelligence fact sheet released by the Trump administration and partially confirmed by the Biden administration, the WIV took our help and used it to build another, secret part of the lab, where they worked with the Chinese military.

Congress and the media would be derelict not to examine the decisions by Fauci and others that led to this collaboration. But rather than respond with openness and transparency, Fauci has consistently thrown cold water on the lab leak theory. Right now, NIH and other government agencies are ignoring congressional requests for more information about their relationships with these Chinese labs.

This matters right now because the World Health Organization is starting a second attempt to investigate the origins of the outbreak, this time including a call to investigate the labs. Meanwhile, the Chinese government is insisting that it will never allow a real investigation into the Wuhan lab. It will be up to the U.S. government to lead the campaign to pressure Beijing to play ball.

Looking ahead, we must question whether U.S. government investment in this risky research, especially in collaboration with China, is worth these risks. Certainly, the current plan to spend $1.2 billion to drastically expand the initiative known as the Global Virome Project, an effort to dig up dangerous viruses and experiment on them in labs, including labs in China, must be totally reexamined.

This is ultimately not about Fauci or Paul or even gain of function research. This is about getting to the truth of how this pandemic started so we can adjust our policies to prevent the next one. That means avoiding politics, not quibbling over semantics and pushing forward without bias or pre-conclusions. This is an urgent issue for our national security and public health.

[Sawbonz 27578]

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

On 7/22/2021 at 10:52 PM, Gatorubet said:

Thanks, Reagan! 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

This is ultimately not about Fauci or Paul or even gain of function research. This is about getting to the truth of how this pandemic started so we can adjust our policies to prevent the next one. That means avoiding politics, not quibbling over semantics and pushing forward without bias or pre-conclusions. 

Jesus.

Fucking.

Christ.

[WhatTheBuck 28788]

21 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Jesus.

Fucking.

Christ.

And don’t you dare criticize Donald Trump!

Edited July 24, 2021 by WhatTheBuck

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

The very fucking idea that we "need to get to the bottom this" so that both parties can assess the data and propose policies accordingly is ludicrous. 

Pollyanna-ish doesn't come close to  that sentiment.

Words fail.

We can't even join the virtual rest of the world in the limp-wristed Paris Agreement response to the existential crisis of climate change driven by one goddamn party in one country. 

The party that has proven repeatedly that it will eventually oppose it's own policies whether it be the GOP counterproposal to the Clinton Universal Healthcare Initiative/Romneycare/Obamacare or Cap And Trade so long as the pitchfork people are fighting the torch people.

The fact it's driven by this poodle headed bitch who gave fuck all about his colleagues while awaiting the results of covid test would be the "chef's kiss" if it were the correct term instead of "clue kicking you in the face". 

The question is moot. 

[Sawbonz 27578]

7 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

The very fucking idea that we "need to get to the bottom this" so that both parties can assess the data and propose policies accordingly is ludicrous. 

Pollyanna-ish doesn't come close to  that sentiment.

Words fail.

We can't even join the virtual rest of the world in the limp-wristed Paris Agreement response to the existential crisis of climate change driven by one goddamn party in one country. 

The party that has proven repeatedly that it will eventually oppose it's own policies whether it be the GOP counterproposal to the Clinton Universal Healthcare Initiative/Romneycare/Obamacare or Cap And Trade so long as the pitchfork people are fighting the torch people.

The fact it's driven by this poodle headed bitch who gave fuck all about his colleagues while awaiting the results of covid test would be the "chef's kiss" if it were the correct term instead of "clue kicking you in the face". 

The question is moot. 

Usually you have pretty good takes but this is just stupid. Allowing research involving highly dangerous materials whether biohazards, environmental toxins, radiation, etc to be carried out in substandard facilities with lax protocols cannot be tolerated, and certainly can’t be subsidized with public or private US dollars. If that indeed is happening, regardless of whether it contributed to the current pandemic, we need to know about it and to the extent possible put a stop to it. Sometimes Congress, though obviously very imperfect, is the only way to uncover this shit, because the agencies involved (just like every other agency that fucks up) can’t be trusted to police themselves
 

if you can’t see that you are the one with the partisan blinders on

[TwiceHorn 31495]

20 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Usually you have pretty good takes but this is just stupid. Allowing research involving highly dangerous materials whether biohazards, environmental toxins, radiation, etc to be carried out in substandard facilities with lax protocols cannot be tolerated, and certainly can’t be subsidized with public or private US dollars. If that indeed is happening, regardless of whether it contributed to the current pandemic, we need to know about it and to the extent possible put a stop to it. Sometimes Congress, though obviously very imperfect, is the only way to uncover this shit, because the agencies involved (just like every other agency that fucks up) can’t be trusted to police themselves
 

if you can’t see that you are the one with the partisan blinders on

Agreed.

That's a level-headed look at where we are with this type of research and how we fund it and who we fund.

Apart from the political bullshit, this needs a good hard look.  It may be true that the good hard look can't be accomplished easily in this political environment, but that's a different question.

Edited July 24, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Gatorubet 30246]

Allowing research involving highly dangerous materials whether biohazards, environmental toxins, radiation, etc to be carried out in substandard facilities with lax protocols cannot be tolerated, and certainly can’t be subsidized with public or private US dollars. If that indeed is happening, regardless of whether it contributed to the current pandemic, we need to know about it and to the extent possible put a stop to it.

I agree with this. But also see how this will be used as fodder to blame one or both teams for Covid - before a full report is out and a thorough investigation complete. A Congressional investigation will result in Jim Jordan saying on Fox that Obama invented Covid to lessen opposition to the coming teaching of Critical Race Theory.

How we un-fuck Congress is unknowable.

[jimmyjazz 45976]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Apart from the political bullshit, this needs a good hard look.  

But Rand Paul's angle is entirely political.  He is unconcerned with improving safety and oversight in higher-risk research.  He is wholly intent on placing the blame for the very existence of this pandemic on Democrats and Dr. Fauci.

[atomheartbevo 89727]

23 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

But Rand Paul's angle is entirely political.  He is unconcerned with improving safety and oversight in higher-risk research.  He is wholly intent on placing the blame for the very existence of this pandemic on Democrats and Dr. Fauci.

Don't forget he's up for reelection and this is a good way to load up the campaign coffers.

[Sawbonz 27578]

11 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

But Rand Paul's angle is entirely political.  He is unconcerned with improving safety and oversight in higher-risk research.  He is wholly intent on placing the blame for the very existence of this pandemic on Democrats and Dr. Fauci.

Are you saying you’re against improving safety and oversight at high risk facilities because Paul is advocating for it for political reasons?

[jimmyjazz 45976]

Just now, Sawbonz said:

Are you saying you’re against improving safety and oversight at high risk facilities because Paul is advocating for it for political reasons?

Does it look like I'm saying that?

[Sawbonz 27578]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Does it look like I'm saying that?

Yes but I’ve been drinking 

[jimmyjazz 45976]

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Yes but I’ve been drinking 

LOL.  I was just opining on Rand Paul's motivations.  I am in agreement that we should apply sufficient scrutiny to all higher-risk research.

[Anastasis 23475]

 

[Satoshi 129]

On 7/24/2021 at 8:58 AM, TwiceHorn said:

Agreed.

That's a level-headed look at where we are with this type of research and how we fund it and who we fund.

Apart from the political bullshit, this needs a good hard look.  It may be true that the good hard look can't be accomplished easily in this political environment, but that's a different question.

 

On 7/25/2021 at 6:03 PM, Anastasis said:

 

Thought I’d wait and see if this was posted. Hadn’t seen it. 
 

 

 

[Anastasis 23475]

One of the more interesting things from this release is the fact that some of the research was farmed out to a lower level lab at the Wuhan university, which throws some of the epi geolocation exercises previously used to bolster the market centric theory out the door.

 

The most curious aspect of this release for those capable of paying attention is why the fuck is it taking FOIA releases to make this info public.   

[Satoshi 129]

Official admission of GoF testing although they don’t call it that. Fauci lied to Congress. He’ll be the next high profile figure to get away with it. 

[Anastasis 23475]

crickets over here, huh. 

 

The most generous read on this is that EcoHealth, a recipient of substantial NIH, DOD, etc. funding was hiding shit and that the oversight mechanisms all shit the bed.  That is the most generous read.  It's also more than a bit naive.   

[Anastasis 23475]

On 7/20/2021 at 10:42 AM, Chuckie Finster said:

 

Aged well. 

[Satoshi 129]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Aged well. 

Lol. Oh yeah the CR jizz jar was passed around when that exchange occurred. Not only did he lie to Congress, he did so in a grandstanding fashion. 

[TwiceHorn 31495]

3 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

Lol. Oh yeah the CR jizz jar was passed around when that exchange occurred. Not only did he lie to Congress, he did so in a grandstanding fashion. 

Rand Paul does not know what the fuck he's talking about, pretty much all of the time, so that remains accurate.

[Anastasis 23475]

This is my shocked face.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/10/21/nih-ecohealth-alliance-coronavirus/

NIH has demanded that the research organization EcoHealth Alliance turn over any unpublished data from an experiment conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that showed that laboratory mice became unexpectedly sicker with one of the naturally circulating strains of bat coronavirus. According to NIH, this was a significant experimental finding, and EcoHealth did not promptly report it as required by the grant.

But NIH director Francis S. Collins is simultaneously pushing back against critics of his agency and people who he believes are spreading misinformation about the experiment in Wuhan to score political points. He said the experiment — which used mice modified with human ACE2 receptors that allow viruses to infect cells — could not possibly have had been linked to the emergence of the pandemic coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. The bat coronaviruses under scrutiny in that experiment are not closely related, genetically, to the novel coronavirus that has spread across the planet.