‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 > 
 
   
 

Thanks, Dr. Fauci. . .

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  2247
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
08 August 2021 16:40
 
weird buffalo - 08 August 2021 03:59 PM

A fair bit of that report looks to be hindsight second-guessing.  For example, it highlights the fact that the WHO took 130 days to recommend masks for the general population.  Well, scientists don’t like making recommendations in situations where they don’t actually have good evidence on what to recommend, and there was a well established shortage of N95 masks for hospital personnel.  A recommendation to the public would have sparked even more hoarding of those masks (which happened).  Should they have made the recommendation?  Sure, it can definitely be argued they should have… in hindsight.  It was less clear at the time though.

All of the evidence of the lab leak in that paper is extremely weak.  It’s all “questions of safety”.  Sure, there can be questions of safety.  But that isn’t evidence the virus came from the lab.  Just because my smoke alarm goes off once a weak doesn’t mean my house is burning down.  It just means I need to clean my oven more often.

The bulk of verifiable evidence still points to a zoonotic origin.  “Scientists have concerns” is not a legitimate path of evidence.  If there was actual evidence, they wouldn’t have to say “concerns have been raised”... they’d just present the fucking evidence.

Except when you take in all the obfuscation on the part of those who should have been less so, right?

 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  1262
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
08 August 2021 17:20
 

Any chance you could state your point instead of asking a vague question?

 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1960
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
08 August 2021 19:07
 
nonverbal - 08 August 2021 04:40 PM
weird buffalo - 08 August 2021 03:59 PM

A fair bit of that report looks to be hindsight second-guessing.  For example, it highlights the fact that the WHO took 130 days to recommend masks for the general population.  Well, scientists don’t like making recommendations in situations where they don’t actually have good evidence on what to recommend, and there was a well established shortage of N95 masks for hospital personnel.  A recommendation to the public would have sparked even more hoarding of those masks (which happened).  Should they have made the recommendation?  Sure, it can definitely be argued they should have… in hindsight.  It was less clear at the time though.

All of the evidence of the lab leak in that paper is extremely weak.  It’s all “questions of safety”.  Sure, there can be questions of safety.  But that isn’t evidence the virus came from the lab.  Just because my smoke alarm goes off once a weak doesn’t mean my house is burning down.  It just means I need to clean my oven more often.

The bulk of verifiable evidence still points to a zoonotic origin.  “Scientists have concerns” is not a legitimate path of evidence.  If there was actual evidence, they wouldn’t have to say “concerns have been raised”... they’d just present the fucking evidence.

Except when you take in all the obfuscation on the part of those who should have been less so, right?

No.
Let me give a hypothetical.
You’re a police officer, and on the floor is a dead body.  It’s a rich guy.  His butler is in the next room.  The butler has a gun, and that gun has been recently fired.  The butler is acting very nervous.  When you ask for details from the butler, the lie and obfuscate constantly.  When the medical examiner takes a look at the body, they tell you the person died of a heart attack.

Is the butler’s nervous behavior evidence that they killed the person?
No.

 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  1262
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
08 August 2021 19:16
 

Yep.  I can’t imagine what the reaction would be if representatives from China, or even the EU, wanted to start snooping around one of our infectious disease research laboratories.

Ever read The Hot Zone (1994)?

 
Rick Robson
 
Avatar
 
 
Rick Robson
Total Posts:  119
Joined  22-09-2017
 
 
 
08 August 2021 21:22
 
weird buffalo - 08 August 2021 03:59 PM

A
The bulk of verifiable evidence still points to a zoonotic origin.  “Scientists have concerns” is not a legitimate path of evidence.  If there was actual evidence, they wouldn’t have to say “concerns have been raised”... they’d just present the fucking evidence.

Well, as it turns out, all hypotheses remain on the table today. The EU stated this year that the international community should independently assess COVID-19 origins, in response to the release of a report by an international team convened by the WHO which said that a laboratory leak of a virus involving an accidental infection of staff was an extremely unlikely pathway; but the WHO director-general said that he didn’t believe the evaluation was extensive enough.

It’s clear that, until there’s more sunlight, more speculation and hypothesis stances will come to the fore. And such is the case where NIH will still be fighting speculations, from Senator Rand Paul and others, that what occurred is a scenario Fauci himself had outlined in a 2012 commentary discussing research on pandemic germs:

Inside the risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan

“Consider this hypothetical scenario,” Fauci wrote. “An important gain-of-function experiment involving a virus with serious pandemic potential is performed in a well-regulated, world-class laboratory by experienced investigators, but the information from the experiment is then used by another scientist who does not have the same training and facilities and is not subject to the same regulations. In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?”

 

[ Edited: 08 August 2021 21:27 by Rick Robson]
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1960
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
08 August 2021 23:44
 
Rick Robson - 08 August 2021 09:22 PM
weird buffalo - 08 August 2021 03:59 PM

A
The bulk of verifiable evidence still points to a zoonotic origin.  “Scientists have concerns” is not a legitimate path of evidence.  If there was actual evidence, they wouldn’t have to say “concerns have been raised”... they’d just present the fucking evidence.

Well, as it turns out, all hypotheses remain on the table today. The EU stated this year that the international community should independently assess COVID-19 origins, in response to the release of a report by an international team convened by the WHO which said that a laboratory leak of a virus involving an accidental infection of staff was an extremely unlikely pathway; but the WHO director-general said that he didn’t believe the evaluation was extensive enough.

It’s clear that, until there’s more sunlight, more speculation and hypothesis stances will come to the fore. And such is the case where NIH will still be fighting speculations, from Senator Rand Paul and others, that what occurred is a scenario Fauci himself had outlined in a 2012 commentary discussing research on pandemic germs:

Inside the risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan

“Consider this hypothetical scenario,” Fauci wrote. “An important gain-of-function experiment involving a virus with serious pandemic potential is performed in a well-regulated, world-class laboratory by experienced investigators, but the information from the experiment is then used by another scientist who does not have the same training and facilities and is not subject to the same regulations. In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?”

 

I don’t care about speculation and hypotheses.  Show me evidence.

“Concerns have been raised” that you are a terrorist.  Do you find that convincing?  Should we conclude that you ARE a terrorist based on “concerns”?  Or should we wait until there’s actually evidence before sending you to prison?

At NO POINT HAVE I SAID THAT A LAB LEAK IS IMPOSSIBLE.  My point is that there is no convincing evidence that it actually happened.  “Concerns” are not evidence.

 
Rick Robson
 
Avatar
 
 
Rick Robson
Total Posts:  119
Joined  22-09-2017
 
 
 
09 August 2021 06:37
 
weird buffalo - 08 August 2021 11:44 PM
Rick Robson - 08 August 2021 09:22 PM
weird buffalo - 08 August 2021 03:59 PM

A
The bulk of verifiable evidence still points to a zoonotic origin.  “Scientists have concerns” is not a legitimate path of evidence.  If there was actual evidence, they wouldn’t have to say “concerns have been raised”... they’d just present the fucking evidence.

Well, as it turns out, all hypotheses remain on the table today. The EU stated this year that the international community should independently assess COVID-19 origins, in response to the release of a report by an international team convened by the WHO which said that a laboratory leak of a virus involving an accidental infection of staff was an extremely unlikely pathway; but the WHO director-general said that he didn’t believe the evaluation was extensive enough.

It’s clear that, until there’s more sunlight, more speculation and hypothesis stances will come to the fore. And such is the case where NIH will still be fighting speculations, from Senator Rand Paul and others, that what occurred is a scenario Fauci himself had outlined in a 2012 commentary discussing research on pandemic germs:

Inside the risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan

“Consider this hypothetical scenario,” Fauci wrote. “An important gain-of-function experiment involving a virus with serious pandemic potential is performed in a well-regulated, world-class laboratory by experienced investigators, but the information from the experiment is then used by another scientist who does not have the same training and facilities and is not subject to the same regulations. In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?”

At NO POINT HAVE I SAID THAT A LAB LEAK IS IMPOSSIBLE.  My point is that there is no convincing evidence that it actually happened.  “Concerns” are not evidence.

WB, just for the record, I’M JUST HIGHLIGHTING A STATEMENT MADE BY FAUCI that I see worth of note. I really don’t know why you’re assuming I’m objecting to your rhetoric on this thread. And I never claimed that “concerns” are evidence.
Just wondering, but until now I was still assuming it’s needless to say that the OP is not mine, mind you.

[Edited to put the word “fucking” in bold.]

[ Edited: 09 August 2021 06:57 by Rick Robson]
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1960
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
09 August 2021 07:43
 
Rick Robson - 08 August 2021 12:14 PM
weird buffalo - 31 July 2021 09:26 AM

I want the scientists to know as much as possible about the various diseases we might come in contact with.  The Wuhan lab wasn’t constructed until 2014, or about 12 years after the first SARS incident.  SARS is a problem we have to deal with, regardless of the lab’s existence.  Reducing our capacity to study those diseases is a bad idea.

Many scientists do not agree on the claims that the kind of gain of function which has been set forth on the research of the coronaviruses is the best and most effective scientific method for studying their diseases and the future spread of new ones.

By the way, I think it’s worth checking out the report just released by the The United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs about their further in deep investigation of the COVID-19’s origins, there are interesting evidences out there to take into account.
Interesting also to see the mainstream media overreaction to that report, which indeed states new evidences in favor of the Wuhan accidental lab leak theory, as well as factual evidences that covid-19 likely emerged in Wuhan months earlier than previously thought, such that the city was already on total lockdown in September 2019.

https://gop-foreignaffairs.house.gov/]

The United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs, also known as the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is a standing committee of the U.S. House of Representatives with jurisdiction over bills, programs, and investigations concerning the foreign affairs of the United States. Here is their report in .pdf:
https://gop-foreignaffairs.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/ORIGINS-OF-COVID-19-REPORT.pdf

Highlighting the phrase where you claim the report has “interesting evidence”.
What evidence about the origin of covid-19 does it have?  Everything I read in the report was “scientists have concerns”.  No actual evidence.

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  2247
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
09 August 2021 08:00
 
weird buffalo - 08 August 2021 07:07 PM
nonverbal - 08 August 2021 04:40 PM
weird buffalo - 08 August 2021 03:59 PM

A fair bit of that report looks to be hindsight second-guessing.  For example, it highlights the fact that the WHO took 130 days to recommend masks for the general population.  Well, scientists don’t like making recommendations in situations where they don’t actually have good evidence on what to recommend, and there was a well established shortage of N95 masks for hospital personnel.  A recommendation to the public would have sparked even more hoarding of those masks (which happened).  Should they have made the recommendation?  Sure, it can definitely be argued they should have… in hindsight.  It was less clear at the time though.

All of the evidence of the lab leak in that paper is extremely weak.  It’s all “questions of safety”.  Sure, there can be questions of safety.  But that isn’t evidence the virus came from the lab.  Just because my smoke alarm goes off once a weak doesn’t mean my house is burning down.  It just means I need to clean my oven more often.

The bulk of verifiable evidence still points to a zoonotic origin.  “Scientists have concerns” is not a legitimate path of evidence.  If there was actual evidence, they wouldn’t have to say “concerns have been raised”... they’d just present the fucking evidence.

Except when you take in all the obfuscation on the part of those who should have been less so, right?

No.
Let me give a hypothetical.
You’re a police officer, and on the floor is a dead body.  It’s a rich guy.  His butler is in the next room.  The butler has a gun, and that gun has been recently fired.  The butler is acting very nervous.  When you ask for details from the butler, the lie and obfuscate constantly.  When the medical examiner takes a look at the body, they tell you the person died of a heart attack.

Is the butler’s nervous behavior evidence that they killed the person?
No.

Your hypothetical is good in the sense that it presents a life-and-death controversy. It presents serious business. On the other hand, it’s flawed because risky work needs to be organized according to how many people stand to be imperiled when (not if) things go wrong. One death is like a drop of rain during a storm in comparison to millions of deaths. Okay, I exaggerate.

Also, I like how you artistically framed your above comment in no’s, though I don’t think you intended it that way. Looks cool.

 
 
Rick Robson
 
Avatar
 
 
Rick Robson
Total Posts:  119
Joined  22-09-2017
 
 
 
09 August 2021 08:50
 
weird buffalo - 09 August 2021 07:43 AM
Rick Robson - 08 August 2021 12:14 PM
weird buffalo - 31 July 2021 09:26 AM

I want the scientists to know as much as possible about the various diseases we might come in contact with.  The Wuhan lab wasn’t constructed until 2014, or about 12 years after the first SARS incident.  SARS is a problem we have to deal with, regardless of the lab’s existence.  Reducing our capacity to study those diseases is a bad idea.

Many scientists do not agree on the claims that the kind of gain of function which has been set forth on the research of the coronaviruses is the best and most effective scientific method for studying their diseases and the future spread of new ones.

By the way, I think it’s worth checking out the report just released by the The United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs about their further in deep investigation of the COVID-19’s origins, there are interesting evidences out there to take into account.
Interesting also to see the mainstream media overreaction to that report, which indeed states new evidences in favor of the Wuhan accidental lab leak theory, as well as factual evidences that covid-19 likely emerged in Wuhan months earlier than previously thought, such that the city was already on total lockdown in September 2019.

https://gop-foreignaffairs.house.gov/]

The United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs, also known as the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is a standing committee of the U.S. House of Representatives with jurisdiction over bills, programs, and investigations concerning the foreign affairs of the United States. Here is their report in .pdf:
https://gop-foreignaffairs.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/ORIGINS-OF-COVID-19-REPORT.pdf

Highlighting the phrase where you claim the report has “interesting evidence”.
What evidence about the origin of covid-19 does it have?  Everything I read in the report was “scientists have concerns”.  No actual evidence.

Again different strokes on the matter—what you pointed out as strong evidences thus far on this thread don’t strike me as such. Nonetheless, I realise they are suggestive enough to remain on the table, regardless of whatever bias I’d possibly come to have on the thread subject.

 
Rick Robson
 
Avatar
 
 
Rick Robson
Total Posts:  119
Joined  22-09-2017
 
 
 
06 September 2021 14:18
 
mapadofu - 08 August 2021 07:16 PM

Yep.  I can’t imagine what the reaction would be if representatives from China, or even the EU, wanted to start snooping around one of our infectious disease research laboratories.

Ever read The Hot Zone (1994)?

Taxpayer funded experiments in Chinese labs have been “far more extensive” than first thought (1 day ago)

What’s more, NIH has had a very similar logistics approach at a worldwide scale. As for the types of researches involved and the way they’ve been carried out ... scary, to say the least. Best I leave them to be told by the investigative journalists on that YT video, who already collected enough proofs and evidences about them.

 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  9952
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
07 September 2021 12:22
 

How many close calls are we allowed with these worldwide biohazard labs and nuclear shenanigans?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls

Humanity must be feeling lucky.

24 January 1961
See also: 1961 Goldsboro B-52 crash
On 24 January 1961, a B-52 Stratofortress carrying two 3–4-megaton Mark 39 nuclear bombs broke up in mid-air near Goldsboro, North Carolina, dropping its nuclear payload in the process. The pilot in command, Walter Scott Tulloch, ordered the crew to eject at 9,000 feet (2,700 m). Five crewmen successfully ejected or bailed out of the aircraft and landed safely, another ejected but did not survive the landing, and two died in the crash.

Information declassified in 2013 showed that “only a single switch prevented the 24 megaton bomb from detonating and spreading fire and destruction over a wide area.” An expert evaluation written on 22 October 1969 by Parker F Jones, the supervisor of the nuclear weapons safety department at Sandia national laboratories, reported that, “one simple, dynamo-technology, low voltage switch stood between the United States and a major catastrophe.”, and that it “seems credible” that a short circuit in the Arm line during a mid-air breakup of the aircraft “could” have resulted in a nuclear explosion.

 

 

 
 
Quadrewple
 
Avatar
 
 
Quadrewple
Total Posts:  564
Joined  28-04-2017
 
 
 
18 October 2021 12:14
 
MrRon - 22 July 2021 06:04 AM

If Covid is basically “the common cold” (or even a complete fabrication) as millions of conservatives keep insisting, then why the show of outrage over research that may have produced it? It seems that on one hand conservatives want to demonize Covid as a dreaded affliction on mankind when it suits them, but on the other hand they like to downplay it to the point of eschewing vaccinations and foregoing business and social restrictions.

Sure that happens

But by your narrative, it is a deadly disease so it should absolutely matter if taxpayer dollars were used to fund a bioweapon which destroyed our economy, our currency (in transit), and our way of life.

In fact, everyone who was responsible for that research or its being unleashed should be subject to the death penalty.

If that’s not your stance, then that suggests a weird Stockholm Syndrome like bonding with these weird weaselly Fauci types who like to play God and mess with things they have no business messing with.

The way I see it, whoever created this probably thought this shit would kill WAY more people than it did.  So akin to if a terrorist builds a bomb intended to kill 10,000 and only managed to kill 10, the death penalty/life imprisonment is still appropriate.

That back and forth between Rand Paul & Fauci certainly did not change any minds of people who believe Fauci is a glib, slippery, dishonest man.  Everything about his body language and facial expressions screams untrustworthy.

And before any of you mock me for this, you would not trust a guy who you thought “looks like a pedophile” to watch your kids .  We all judge appearances.

He’s too close to all this crap to not deserve suspicion

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1960
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
18 October 2021 12:19
 

Nothing you provided is evidence that the virus was engineered in any way.

You can’t engineer a virus by “looking suspicious.”

 
Quadrewple
 
Avatar
 
 
Quadrewple
Total Posts:  564
Joined  28-04-2017
 
 
 
18 October 2021 14:35
 
weird buffalo - 18 October 2021 12:19 PM

Nothing you provided is evidence that the virus was engineered in any way.

You can’t engineer a virus by “looking suspicious.”

Obviously.  I was speaking to public perception….we will most likely never find out the truth of how it started, and even if we did, there would sufficient plausible deniability for the parties involved

 
 
‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 >