Do you believe that the benefits of gain of function research outweigh the risks?

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

1 hour ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

If it is actually a chatbot, then it did a piss poor job of convincing us that it loves us more than even our spouses or significant others. I mean the little 'love y'all' is weak compared to the way Sydney the AI talked to that married reporter in that news story.

...therefore institutional-level controls should be fail-safe stacked to forward a more robust regulatory culture. I'll stop the world and melt with you. 

[texasdago 7575]

Can gain of function research help my bros with bigger gains in the gym?

No, gain-of-function research is a type of scientific research that involves altering the genetics or characteristics of organisms or viruses to enhance their function or properties. It is typically done to study the potential risks and benefits of these alterations and to develop new therapies or vaccines.

It has nothing to do with improving athletic performance or muscle gain. Building muscle requires a combination of regular exercise, proper nutrition, and rest. It's important to focus on healthy habits to achieve fitness goals, rather than seeking shortcuts or potentially harmful methods.

but what if the doctors like to work out? 

While it's possible for doctors or researchers who enjoy working out to also be involved in gain-of-function research, it's important to understand that the two are not related. Gain-of-function research is focused on understanding how viruses and other organisms function and how they can be manipulated to better understand disease and develop treatments.

If a doctor or researcher is interested in helping people improve their athletic performance or build muscle, there are other areas of study and research that may be more relevant, such as sports medicine or exercise physiology. However, it's important to remember that doctors and researchers have a responsibility to conduct research that is safe, ethical, and focused on improving public health. They should not use their positions to promote untested or potentially harmful methods for personal gain.

[SaucyJack 3490]

 

[77horn 216]

[bolverk 29694]

6 hours ago, ztejas said:

After witnessing the way that society and those in positions of power handled a largely non-lethal pandemic (coupled with how insanely transmissable covid is) no I do not believe that the benefits outweigh the risks. The world was a better place before covid leaked or was released. 

I personally knew about 15 people who died of Covid, including my own fucking father. To this point, I've always viewed your posts as coming from an immature, self-centered child. Now, I see that you are truly just a piece of shit. 

[SomeDude 5]

On 2/28/2023 at 7:53 AM, Pato del Muerto said:

I guess the OPs unstated answer is that GOF is good, since his parallel is guns and he’s keeping those.  Armor of god should protect him from disease anyway, one would think. 

Pretty good guess, for the most part. As knowledge increases, so do opportunities for both good and bad to advance. Superior military strength, medical advancements, technological advancements…very often come with just as big of potential risk as potential reward. 
In regards to your armor of God quip, yes my faith is the most important guide and armor. I don’t fear death and have a wonderfully adventurous life. 

The reason for my original post was that I genuinely wanted to hear other perspectives, and not just regurgitation of MSM talking points.
 

There has been some genuine response but for the most part it’s been superficial. My political views don’t match well with either major political party, and I think most feel the same. Sure, there are plenty who only get their “news” from Fox or CNN and for some reason they are the loudest…but most of us live in reality and see through the agendas. 
 

I appreciate different perspectives. My perspective comes from a place of living in a small, rural, town where we look after each other. The churches do an amazing job at helping any in need. I’m sure there are some racist folk in our town but racist attitudes would be shunned by the community were they to surface. My work has sent me all over the country, usually to larger cities, and I’ve never felt community like I do in a small town. I’m experienced enough in life to know that there is plenty I don’t know…so I seek to learn from others perspectives. More importantly, I know that what is right for me and my family might not necessarily be right for you and yours…and vice versa. 

[Mullet Free 40]

He's back.

[tigol 2398]

Pretty good guess, for the most part. As knowledge increases, so do opportunities for both good and bad to advance. Superior military strength, medical advancements, technological advancements…very often come with just as big of potential risk as potential reward. 
In regards to your armor of God quip, yes my faith is the most important guide and armor. I don’t fear death and have a wonderfully adventurous life. 

The reason for my original post was that I genuinely wanted to hear other perspectives, and not just regurgitation of MSM talking points.
 
There has been some genuine response but for the most part it’s been superficial. My political views don’t match well with either major political party, and I think most feel the same. Sure, there are plenty who only get their “news” from Fox or CNN and for some reason they are the loudest…but most of us live in reality and see through the agendas. 
 
I appreciate different perspectives. My perspective comes from a place of living in a small, rural, town where we look after each other. The churches do an amazing job at helping any in need. I’m sure there are some racist folk in our town but racist attitudes would be shunned by the community were they to surface. My work has sent me all over the country, usually to larger cities, and I’ve never felt community like I do in a small town. I’m experienced enough in life to know that there is plenty I don’t know…so I seek to learn from others perspectives. More importantly, I know that what is right for me and my family might not necessarily be right for you and yours…and vice versa. 

Your perspective comes from Fox News and right wing talk radio.

[SomeDude 5]

36 minutes ago, tigol said:

Your perspective comes from Fox News and right wing talk radio.

I’d like to hear your perspective of my perspective. Seriously, I don’t mean that snidely.

[Genco 3041]

50 minutes ago, SomeDude said:

I’d like to hear your perspective of my perspective. Seriously, I don’t mean that snidely.

I've got multiple paths to victory on my bingo card. If you could work in "socialism" or some anti-vax bullshit for your fourth post I would appreciate it.

[Hefeweizen 5328]

Whenever I see MSM in the post my eyes glaze over.  Can we just set up a few instances of AI chat bots to have this thread go nucular?

[Chopper 17238]

1 hour ago, SomeDude said:

I’d like to hear your perspective of my perspective. Seriously, I don’t mean that snidely.

Are you familiar with the story about the guy who went to the police to tell them he Definitely Did Not intentionally download child porn? Or was that some other dude? 

[SomeDude 5]

On 2/28/2023 at 10:14 AM, Dahobbs said:

There is zero evidence that sars-cov-2 was man made. 

The CIA says it likely came from a Chinese lab (not that the CIA is very trustworthy) and there’s plenty of reason to believe the virus had been manipulated and not naturally mutated.

 

[Dahobbs 17625]

3 minutes ago, SomeDude said:

The CIA says it likely came from a Chinese lab (not that the CIA is very trustworthy) and there’s plenty of reason to believe the virus had been manipulated and not naturally mutated.

 

No, the CIA doesn't. 5 intelligence services, presumably including the CIA although that isn't stated, say it likely comes from natural exposure, although their confidence in that conclusion is low (https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Declassified-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf). Even if it came from a lab release, there is zero evidence it was manipulated. That's just horseshit. 

[Anastasis 23478]

The CIA hasn’t said shit. They have sat the whole thing out. Which says a bit itself, imo. The fbi and doe lean lab leak, four others lean natural origin, other undecided. Our intelligence agencies are sadly unable to provide actual intelligence. Which should not be particularly surprising. 

[Anastasis 23478]

6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Even if it came from a lab release, there is zero evidence it was manipulated. That's just horseshit. 

I feel like we have had this same discussion point across multiple threads, but I do not think that this is a very precise way to frame the issue. Lab collection is manipulation. Lab culturing is manipulation. By simple passage you can cause the introduction of novel functions and things that in certain settings could look like engineering. But this is not building blocks pulled together, it is virologists doing lab procedures that leverage the natural evolutionary process. Which is a form of engineering I guess. Lots of semantics involved. Some people will hide behind that. Some will point it out and oversell it.  It is a great debate topic because it will go on forever without definitive resolution. 

Edited March 10, 2023 by Anastasis

[Dahobbs 17625]

13 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I feel like we have had this same discussion point across multiple threads, but I do not think that this is a very precise way to frame the issue. Lab collection is manipulation. Lab culturing is manipulation. By simple passage you can cause the introduction of novel functions and things that in certain settings could look like engineering. But this is not building blocks pulled together, it is virologists doing lab procedures that leverage the natural evolutionary process. Which is a form of engineering I guess. Lots of semantics involved. Some people will hide behind that. Some will point it out and oversell it.  It is a great debate topic because it will go on forever without definitive resolution. 

That's a fair point, although I thought it pretty clear that he implied something more substantial in terms of manipulation. 

[Homercles 10206]

On 3/3/2023 at 1:35 PM, SomeDude said:

Pretty good guess, for the most part. As knowledge increases, so do opportunities for both good and bad to advance. Superior military strength, medical advancements, technological advancements…very often come with just as big of potential risk as potential reward. 
In regards to your armor of God quip, yes my faith is the most important guide and armor. I don’t fear death and have a wonderfully adventurous life. 

The reason for my original post was that I genuinely wanted to hear other perspectives, and not just regurgitation of MSM talking points.
 

There has been some genuine response but for the most part it’s been superficial. My political views don’t match well with either major political party, and I think most feel the same. Sure, there are plenty who only get their “news” from Fox or CNN and for some reason they are the loudest…but most of us live in reality and see through the agendas. 
 

I appreciate different perspectives. My perspective comes from a place of living in a small, rural, town where we look after each other. The churches do an amazing job at helping any in need. I’m sure there are some racist folk in our town but racist attitudes would be shunned by the community were they to surface. My work has sent me all over the country, usually to larger cities, and I’ve never felt community like I do in a small town. I’m experienced enough in life to know that there is plenty I don’t know…so I seek to learn from others perspectives. More importantly, I know that what is right for me and my family might not necessarily be right for you and yours…and vice versa. 

[SomeDude 5]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

No, the CIA doesn't. 5 intelligence services, presumably including the CIA although that isn't stated, say it likely comes from natural exposure, although their confidence in that conclusion is low (https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Declassified-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf). Even if it came from a lab release, there is zero evidence it was manipulated. That's just horseshit. 

You’re right. I meant the FBI, not CIA. The FBI Director said it is “most likely a lab incident from Wuhan.”

[SomeDude 5]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

That's a fair point, although I thought it pretty clear that he implied something more substantial in terms of manipulation. 

What do you think I implied (pretty clearly) and why? 

[Sawbonz 27580]

7 hours ago, SomeDude said:

The CIA says it likely came from a Chinese lab (not that the CIA is very trustworthy) and there’s plenty of reason to believe the virus had been manipulated and not naturally mutated.

 

I think consensus is it came from the Wuhan lab but I have not seen anything from a peer reviewed source concluding the genetic sequencing suggests anything but random mutations do you have a link with evidence to the contrary?

[956 Worldwide 34725]

“Complicated specialized research techniques into viruses could improve worldwide health, while some highly trained researchers also see risks. But what do anonymous assholes on a college football website say?” - The New York Times Pitchbot 

[956 Worldwide 34725]

A lack of consensus from the IC on the origins of COVID-19 is far more telling of what mandates we give the IC components, how they are funded, and how they are structured. And all of that is ultimately decided by elected officials.  The U.S. has not built the capacity for its IC to do the type of rigorous scientific review of the data. The health institutions that would be capable of doing it are not authorized to view the sort of covertly collected intelligence to verify if that matches the scientific data. It’s kind of like going to a Ford dealer and getting mad that they can’t read the codes on your John Deere. 

And one other thing is for sure, the people griping about it on this thread would be in hysterics if suddenly the CIA was funded to hire and staff a massive classified virology/microbiology program or if CDC or NIH suddenly got authorization to conduct covert HUMINT/SIGINT/ELINT collection. 

[Anastasis 23478]

DoE runs livermore national labs. They might know just a little bit about how to read the tractor codes. And perhaps as importantly, if not moresoy, also run a few different facilities where tractors are stored and maintained. They might know something about the particular challenges and hazards involved in such operations. And we know what way they lean in their assessment. 

When you look at the funding streams, everyone seems to focus on the NIH funding through ecohealth, but a far greater amount of funding to EcoHealth (and their subs) was run through the DoD. That we outsource and offshore such research should not be a surprise to anyone.  That we don't conduct the appropriate funding oversight required when such work is being conducted on our dime is also probably not too surprising. Given all that, I guess that we also should not be surprised that we do not have human or signal intelligence collection trained on chinese facilities where US dollars are funding work and where the Chinese government is simultaneously funding military research. Analogies involving tractor codes are funny, but it's just deflection for failures at basically every level in terms of oversight, whether through overt or covert means.     

[956 Worldwide 34725]

DOE is, unsurprisingly, one of the components of the IC that offered an assessment. It may be hard to believe, but it’s not as simple as walking over to the NRO and saying, “Here’s my Livermore badge, I need to take a look at some of that Wuhan imagery you have, my next stop is the spook store to see what sort of dirt they got on Chinese doctors.” 

There’s an interesting conversation to be had about whether the U.S. IC is properly structured, coordinated, and staffed to respond to and monitor emerging transnational threats like pandemics. And what role policymakers who fund and direct the IC and their components have to play, because they are not self-driving cars.
 

But it’s not one we’re going to have because you’re not interested in having it, you’re interested in being a contrarian. 

[Dahobbs 17625]

10 hours ago, SomeDude said:

You’re right. I meant the FBI, not CIA. The FBI Director said it is “most likely a lab incident from Wuhan.”

This isn't new information. And the FBI is an outlier (apparently basing its conclusion on the inherently risky nature of working with coronaviruses). Here is the declassified assessment from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. 

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Declassified-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf

After examining all available intelligence reporting and other information, though, the IC remains divided on the most likely origin of COVID-19. All agencies assess that two hypotheses are plausible: natural exposure to an infected animal and a laboratory-associated incident.

• Four IC elements and the National Intelligence Council assess with low confidence that the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus—a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2. These analysts give weight to China’s officials’ lack of foreknowledge, the numerous vectors for natural exposure, and other factors. [We don't know which elements are included here, but likely does include the CIA and NSA]
•  One IC element assesses with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These analysts give weight to the inherently risky nature of work on coronaviruses. [This is the FBI, although it isn't named in the report]
• Analysts at three IC elements remain unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information, with some analysts favoring natural origin, others a laboratory origin, and some seeing the hypotheses as equally likely. [This includes the DOE that recently said it was leaning, with low confidence, to a lab release]
• Variations in analytic views largely stem from differences in how agencies weigh intelligence reporting and scientific publications and intelligence and scientific gaps. 

 

10 hours ago, SomeDude said:

What do you think I implied (pretty clearly) and why? 

You're suggesting intentional genetic engineering of the virus, which is why you included the phrase "not naturally mutated."  The intelligence and scientific community are, in general, pretty adamant that there is very little evidence to support this assertion. From the declassified assessment above:

• SARS-CoV-2 Probably Not a Biological Weapon The IC assesses China did not develop SARS-CoV-2 as a biological weapon. We remain skeptical of allegations that SARS-CoV-2 was a biological weapon because they are supported by scientifically invalid claims, their proponents do not have direct access to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), or their proponents are suspected of spreading disinformation.

• Most Analysts Assess SARS-CoV-2 Not Genetically Engineered Most IC analysts assess with low confidence that SARSCoV-2 was not genetically engineered. Their assessment is based on technical analysis of SARS-CoV-2 and the IC’s growing understanding of traits and the potential for recombination in other coronaviruses. Two agencies believe there is not sufficient evidence to make an assessment either way.

1. As of August 2021, we still have not observed genetic signatures in SARS-CoV-2 that would be diagnostic of genetic engineering, according to the IC’s understanding of the virus. Similarly, we have not identified any existing coronavirus strains that could have plausibly served as a backbone if SARS-CoV-2 had been genetically engineered.
2. Our growing understanding of the similarities of SARS-CoV-2 to other coronaviruses in nature and the ability of betacoronaviruses—the genus to which SARS-CoV-2 belongs—to naturally recombine suggests SARS-CoV-2 was not genetically engineered. For instance, academic literature has noted that in some instances betacoronaviruses have recombined with other viruses in nature and that furin cleavage sites (FCS)—a region in the spike protein that enhances infection—have been identified in naturally occurring coronaviruses in the same genetic location as the FCS in SARS-CoV-2. This suggests that SARS-CoV-2 or a progenitor virus could have acquired its FCS through natural recombination with another virus.

• IC analysts do not have higher confidence that SARSCoV-2 was not genetically engineered because some genetic engineering techniques can make modifications difficult to identify and we have gaps in our knowledge of naturally occurring coronaviruses.

1. Some genetic engineering techniques may make genetically modified viruses indistinguishable from natural viruses, according to academic journal articles. For instance, a 2017 dissertation by a WIV student showed that reverse genetic cloning techniques—which are standard techniques used in advanced molecular laboratories—left no trace of genetic modification of SARS-like coronaviruses.
2. It will be difficult to increase our confidence that the distinguishing features in SARS-CoV-2 emerged naturally without a better understanding of the diversity of coronaviruses in nature and how often recombination occurs during co-infection of multiple coronaviruses within a particular host. For example, academic literature has indicated that a FCS had previously been inserted into SARS-CoV-1, the causative agent of SARS, complicating differentiation of how such a feature may have appeared
3. The WIV previously created chimeras, or combinations, of SARS-like coronaviruses, but this information does not provide insight into whether SARS-CoV-2 was genetically engineered by the WIV.

• No IC analysts assess that SARS-CoV-2 was the result of laboratory adaptation, although some analysts do not have enough information to make this determination. Repeated passage of a closely related virus through animals or cell culture—which we consider laboratory adaptation and not genetic engineering—could result in some features of SARS-CoV-2, according to publicly available information. However, it probably would take years of laboratory adaptation using the appropriate cell types and a virus that is more closely related to SARSCoV-2 than ones currently known to generate the number of mutations separating SARS-CoV-2 from any known coronavirus strains, judging from scientific journal articles. Such processes would require differentiation and maintenance of primary cells and the development of appropriate animal models.

4 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

I think consensus is it came from the Wuhan lab but I have not seen anything from a peer reviewed source concluding the genetic sequencing suggests anything but random mutations do you have a link with evidence to the contrary?

That is not the consensus. It isn't the consensus of our intelligence community, the vast majority of which assesses the most likely explanation is natural exposure to an infected animal (but with low confidence because we don't have a ton of information). See report above. Nor is that the consensus of the broader scientific community, which also leans toward natural exposure.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/energy-dept-reignites-bitter-covid-origin-debate-with-shaky-lab-leak-stance/ 

Quote

Many virologists and epidemiologists say a natural spillover transmission appears to be the most likely origin, noting epidemiological and genetic data pointing to this scenario—which has been the case for many other human outbreaks of viruses of animal origin, including those caused by other coronaviruses. In particular, two studies published last summer in the journal Science indicated two viral lineages of SARS-CoV-2 spilled over into humans in two independent events, likely within days to weeks of each other, and most of the earliest cases centered at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, particularly in a section of the market with a concentration of wild animals and virus-positive environmental samples. Collectively, the data and analyses suggest—though can't definitively conclude—that the market contained a so-far unidentified animal or group of animals harboring SARS-CoV-2, which became a prolonged source of infection for marketgoers. And the virus took off from there.

None of this is to say that laboratory release isn't plausible. It absolutely is. But, the limited evidence available makes it difficult to make that determination. 

 

[Anastasis 23478]

30 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

There’s an interesting conversation to be had about whether the U.S. IC is properly structured, coordinated, and staffed to respond to and monitor emerging transnational threats like pandemics. And what role policymakers who fund and direct the IC and their components have to play, because they are not self-driving cars.
 

But it’s not one we’re going to have because you’re not interested in having it

If you say so it must be right. 

[Anastasis 23478]

54 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

No IC analysts assess that SARS-CoV-2 was the result of laboratory adaptation, although some analysts do not have enough information to make this determination. Repeated passage of a closely related virus through animals or cell culture—which we consider laboratory adaptation and not genetic engineering—could result in some features of SARS-CoV-2, according to publicly available information. However, it probably would take years of laboratory adaptation

In this paper from 2013, which happens to be authored by researchers From Lawrence Livermore National Labs, as few as one round of passage was sufficient to amplify a furin cleavage site that was present at low background level in naturally obtained coronaviruses. We are talking <100 hours, not years. 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0052752

Sounds a bit familiar, huh?

The nsp1, nsp3, nsp14, and spike protein gene consensus sequences of passaged and unpassaged viruses were compared to identify any changes characteristic of serial passage. Phylogenetic analysis of the consensus sequence showed that two of the naturally-infected nasal samples (#’s 27 and 59) changed much more gradually compared to that of the third such sample (#1) which rapidly changed to resemble that of the laboratory adapted NEB strain after just one passage in cell culture, regardless of cell type (Figure 1). The samples formed two major clusters, one which included all the unpassaged samples (“UP” group) and one that included all the NEB reference strain samples and all the passaged samples derived from sample 1 (Passaged group, “P”). Regions of the genome varied in the number of observed mutations in the consensus sequence with the spike and nsp1 genes showing the most mutations due to passage. Interestingly, the consensus sequence of the viruses passaged in Bomac cells changed more rapidly as compared to that of the genomes of viruses passaged in other cell lines (Figure 1).

Most surprisingly, after passage in cell culture, the consensus sequences of many viral samples acquired a 12-nucleotide (nt) insert encoding 4 amino acids (Ser, Arg, Arg, Arg) located at nt 2737 of the spike gene, whereas none of the unpassaged samples contained this insert at the consensus level. This is illustrated in the phylogram of the spike protein (Figure 1D) where samples with the insert generally group together in the upper clade of the tree, although other point mutations differed between the groups as well. The four-amino acid insert was located immediately adjacent to the proteolytic cleavage site of the spike protein, and in the S2 subunit of the spike protein which is responsible for fusion entry of the virus into the host cell [22]. The addition of multiple basic residues to this region creates a furin cleavage site that may serve as an alternative to trypsin-dependent cleavage of the spike protein [23]. 

 

 

 

Again, lots of semantics involved in formulations like "the result of laboratory adaptation" in this context. Terms like laboratory adaptation are not mutually exclusive to natural origin of certain features. By passage you can quickly amplify natural features that would otherwise occur at very low levels in nature.  Dig some bat shit out of a cave in yunnan, run it through a few cultures, and you can potential amplify a cleavage site that greatly increases its pandemic potential.  

[Wally Fairway 5567]

On 2/28/2023 at 12:33 AM, SomeDude said:

To me, there are some parallels between the pros/cons of GOF research and the owning of guns.

Both can be very useful, protective and life-saving when in the right hands. Both have serious repercussions when accidents occur or when in the wrong hands…irresponsible or ill intended.

My guess is, gain of function research brought us Covid-19 and killed millions and counting. I suspect GOF has saved millions and counting. Maybe it leaked from the lab accidentally…maybe it was intentional…maybe it didn’t leak from a lab.

Like pedophiles often sneak their way into positions of opportunity…so will other evil sneak-seek opportunities to kill with weapons, whether bio, tactical, improvised….

My personal thoughts:

I’m just gonna keep trying to be the best husband and father I can be. I’m gonna keep my guns and continue to be responsible, raising my boys to be responsible hunters, providers and protectors. I’m gonna continue to love, hopefully more and more like Jesus, and try to raise my kids to keep learning how to love others and to love themselves.

There is evil in this world seeking weaponry and opportunity. Put on the full armor of God and learn how to use the sword. The real fight is spiritual. The stuff on the news is intense, highly effective, distraction. 
 

Looking forward to your perspectives.
 

Love y’all. 
 

great first post 
Can't believe no one has "officially" welcomed you 

Pictures of your wife are usually posted around here, preferably nudes

[Anastasis 23478]

LOL, I forgot that this was a troll thread and thought we were on the origins thread.  God damnit @Dahobbs

[Dahobbs 17625]

18 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

LOL, I forgot that this was a troll thread and thought we were on the origins thread.  God damnit @Dahobbs

Haha, I was quoted and just responded, I thought it was the other thread as well. 

[wildcat09 29355]

14 hours ago, Anastasis said:

The CIA hasn’t said shit. They have sat the whole thing out. Which says a bit itself, imo. The fbi and doe lean lab leak, four others lean natural origin, other undecided. Our intelligence agencies are sadly unable to provide actual intelligence. Which should not be particularly surprising. 

I'm guessing this has something to do with it.

[MissingInAction 25111]

On 2/27/2023 at 11:33 PM, SomeDude said:

To me, there are some parallels between the pros/cons of GOF research and the owning of guns.

Both can be very useful, protective and life-saving when in the right hands. Both have serious repercussions when accidents occur or when in the wrong hands…irresponsible or ill intended.

My guess is, gain of function research brought us Covid-19 and killed millions and counting. I suspect GOF has saved millions and counting. Maybe it leaked from the lab accidentally…maybe it was intentional…maybe it didn’t leak from a lab.

Like pedophiles often sneak their way into positions of opportunity…so will other evil sneak-seek opportunities to kill with weapons, whether bio, tactical, improvised….

My personal thoughts:

I’m just gonna keep trying to be the best husband and father I can be. I’m gonna keep my guns and continue to be responsible, raising my boys to be responsible hunters, providers and protectors. I’m gonna continue to love, hopefully more and more like Jesus, and try to raise my kids to keep learning how to love others and to love themselves.

There is evil in this world seeking weaponry and opportunity. Put on the full armor of God and learn how to use the sword. The real fight is spiritual. The stuff on the news is intense, highly effective, distraction. 
 

Looking forward to your perspectives.
 

Love y’all. 
 

[956 Worldwide 34725]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

If you say so it must be right. 

You’re manifestly not, based on your own responses in this thread. The DNI’s own report on this admits that “intelligence and scientific gaps” account for a lot of the variance here. Which translated means “we weren’t set up for this and we also weren’t really looking.”

Which shouldn’t really be surprising, because if the theory is true this is the very first time a global pandemic was started due to a leak in a lab in an authoritarian nation and government bureaucracies are famously responsive to what they are told to worry about, not what no one is thinking about. Those agencies could have given a shit-ton of intelligence about Chinese progress in composites used in jet engines, or long-term military plans in the South China Sea. Because that’s what they were told to look for, and rewarded for finding.

But it’s a lot more comfortable to sink to conspiracy theorising light about the DOD or harrumph about alleged incompetence than it is to think about the types of policy reforms and funding decisions that are needed if you want an IC capable and tasked with doing this type of work. And when the next unexpected crisis hits, we will go through this again. 

We’ve done this before, after 9/11 when we built an IC capable of tracking what what every mullah in Pakistan said at Friday prayer because we had not been thinking about that either. And the final analysis showed a very boring type of failure, nothing sexy or malevolent, just a lot of people doing their jobs and doing them pretty well given the set of instructions they had. 

[956 Worldwide 34725]

And a rejoinder to the obvious retort of “they should have been forward thinking and looking/preparing for the unexpected.”

Based on your posting history and general bent, you should be violently and strenuously opposed to CIA or NSA bureaucrats coloring outside of the lines and taking on projects no one tasked them with. So you’ve kind of painted yourself into a corner of conflicting expectations and demands. 

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

On 3/3/2023 at 1:45 PM, Mullet Free said:

He's back.

[Homercles 10206]

[Anastasis 23478]

 

3 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Based on your posting history and general bent, you should be violently and strenuously opposed to CIA or NSA bureaucrats coloring outside of the lines and taking on projects no one tasked them with. So you’ve kind of painted yourself into a corner of conflicting expectations and demands. 

Nice strawman.  I like how you reframe "unconstitutional surveillance activities targeting Americans" as "coloring outside the lines". CIA and NSA priorities, I guess. 

 

 

3 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Which shouldn’t really be surprising, because if the theory is true this is the very first time a global pandemic was started due to a leak in a lab in an authoritarian nation and government bureaucracies are famously responsive to what they are told to worry about, not what no one is thinking about.

 

Lab outbreaks of viruses with pandemic potential occur with frequency, at least commonly enough to easily demonstrate the shallow depth of the rhetoric you are running out. Shit we have communications from State Department officials out of China from 2017-2018 describing the problems at WIV, the danger to humans represented by the pathogens that were being researched, their similarity to SARS pathogens in terms of mechanism, and the lab's failings in terms of safety protocols. There were people thinking about it. There were people raising red flags, including from within the IC. They were ignored. That doesn't fall solely to the CIA and the NSA, and sure there is hindsight bias...but to claim that there have not been people beating the drum around these types of risks for a long time and in the case of this particular lab is just deflection. 

Edited March 10, 2023 by Anastasis

[Sawbonz 27580]

On 3/10/2023 at 8:20 AM, Dahobbs said:

None of this is to say that laboratory release isn't plausible. It absolutely is. But, the limited evidence available makes it difficult to make that determination. 

I didn’t know about the differing opinions among agencies. I have a colleague who is Chinese and has relatives who are physicians in China. He told me back in in February 2020 before the shutdown that he was told  of several workers at the Wuhan lab getting very sick in the fall of 2019 prior to reports of the new virus and all talk of it was quickly suppressed. I guess maybe those workers liked to eat at the wet markets

[Augustus 3061]

This might be recency bias, but I'm gonna say no.