The End of the Line

  

Category:  News & Politics

By:  vic-eldred  •  2 weeks ago  •  127 comments

The End of the Line
Dr. Fauci: I Trust The Scientists In China, "They Have Been Of Good Faith"

It is now obvious why the discredited msm has backtracked on their claims of only a year ago that the idea of the Coronavirus escaping from the Wuhan Lab was a "conspiracy theory."   What happened you ask?  A FOIA request via Buzzfeed has revealed some interesting e-mails belonging to Dr Fauci. ( AKA the Mother Load) What we are learning is that Dr Fauci was deeply political and often dishonest. He will probably weather the storm as all leftist tools do, but his credibility & reputation are gone forever.

The e-mails reveal Dr Fauci knew of NIH funding for risky experiments in Wuhan. He also speaks to someone promoting a study that would counter the lab theory.

Then Dr Fauci made this statement:

"In a wide-ranging interview with National Geographic  published Monday, Fauci said: "If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats, and what's out there now is very, very strongly leaning toward this [virus] could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated-the way the mutations have naturally evolved. A number of very qualified evolutionary biologists have said that everything about the stepwise evolution over time strongly indicates that it evolved in nature and then jumped species."

https://abc7chicago.com/coronavirus-origin-conspiracy-theory-fauci-dr-anthony/6152892/

Why was Dr Fauci against the idea of the Wuhan Lab leak?

Because there was no telling how many millions would die from the virus coming from China. How would it look if we were all to find out that Dr Fauci approved US funding of those risky experiments?

Collectively, those e-mails (some were heavily redacted) show that Dr Fauci was extremely concerned that people may find out about such funding:

E22LHEtUUAMOcKj?format=png&name=900x900

"The U.S. government banned funding for the gain of function research in 2014 but the Wuhan Institute of Virology was still operating and conducting the controversial research using U.S. taxpayer dollars. This funding was funneled  unscrutinized  to the EcoHealth Alliance by the NIAID led by  Fauci  to propel Wuhan studies on bat coronaviruses and allowed NIAID to hide research that they said didn’t meet the standard for “gain of function” from the Potential Pandemic Pathogens Control and Oversight Framework review board.

Fauci previously  defended  gain of function research in 2012 and said it might be worth it even if it caused a pandemic.

“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?” Fauci wrote. “Scientists working in this field might say — as indeed I have said — that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks.”

Just last month, Sen. Rand Paul  blasted  Fauci for denying that funding for the Wuhan lab that experimented with bat-based coronaviruses came from his department at the National Institutes of Health.

“Gain of function research, as you know, is juicing up naturally occurring animal viruses to infect humans. To arrive at the truth, the U.S. government should admit that the Wuhan Virology Institute was experimenting to enhance the coronavirus’s ability to infect humans,” Paul said during the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions hearing.

Fauci, however, denied that the super virus creation research by Ralph Baric, a U.S. virologist, and Shi Zhengli at the Wuhan Virology Institute was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

“Senator Paul, with all due respect, you are entirely, entirely, and completely incorrect,” Fauci said. “The NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Dr. Baric does not do gain of function research and if it is, it is according to the guidelines and is being conducted in North Carolina, not in China.”

Fauci also denied that the money that was  funneled by  the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases to nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance “to study  bat-based coronaviruses  in China” including at the Wuhan lab was “gain-of-function.”

“If you look at the grant and you look at the progress reports, it is not gain-of-function, despite the fact that people tweet that, they write about it,” Fauci said."

https://thefederalist.com/2021/06/02/emails-show-fauci-downplayed-funding-gain-of-function-research-at-wuhan-lab/




E-mails show that Dr Fauci was warned as early as Jan 31, 2020:

"Kristian G. Andersen, a professor in Scripps' Department of Immunology and Microbiology, sent an email with the subject line "Science: Mining coronavirus genomes for clues to the outbreak's origins" to Fauci on the evening of Jan. 31, 2020.

"On a phylogenetic tree the virus looks totally normal and the close clustering with bats suggest that bats serve as the reservoir," Andersen wrote. "The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered."

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/fauci-coronavirus-emails-genomic/2021/06/02/id/1023610/


The e-mails prove that Dr Fauci lied under oath before Congress.

Does anyone care to defend him now?


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

The utter fraudulence of Tony Fauci is now widely acknowledged. Joe Biden will most likely keep him on - another weight around his next. Who knows if the leftist media will even cove it. Was Jen Psaki asked any questions about Fauci yesterday?

What will become of the fraud who loved the powder blue shirts?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago
The utter fraudulence of Tony Fauci is now widely acknowledged.

Actually, based on YOUR seed, it's merely FABRICATED by those who have a hard on for Fauci and China. 

Here are some pertinent FACTS about the hair on fire bullshit in your seed. 

Intelligent people like Dr. Fauci and Dr. Hugh Auchincloss do NOT send messages on their iPads if they are 'extremely concerned that people may find out'. 

Additionally, as anyone who actually REVIEWED Dr. Fauci's emails would know, the 'paper' Dr. Auchincloss spoke of was published in NOVEMBER 2015. Nature Medicine's Editor added this disclaimer to the top of that article: 

30 March 2020 Editors’ note, March 2020: We are aware that this article is being used as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus.

There are 27 references attached to the 'paper', ALL of which are studies done PRIOR to 2014. 

Those that actually reviewed the Dr. Fauci's emails would also recognize your statement about Fauci's emails is a bald faced lie. 

The EcoHealth Alliance grant was made in JUNE of 2014, BEFORE the U.S. government banned funding for the 'gain of function' research in OCTOBER of 2014

The Potential Pandemic Pathogens Control and Oversight Framework review board was NOT created until JANUARY of 2017 so there were NO P3CO 'gain of function' standards for the NIAID to 'hide' from. 

Those facts alone prove that ALL of your innuendo adds up to is a big fat NOTHING burger.

But thanks for playing...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @1.1    2 weeks ago

Thank you so much for the truth of the matter Duly, as usual!

Also Don, trumpturd, Jr. was also chiming in and he got handed his idiot ass, as usual.  

I'm sure all this hatred against Dr. Fauci is spurring on more and more death threats towards Dr. Fauci and his family.

SHAME!

Gee, did Vic take things out of context?

Say it isn't so.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago

That's Dr. Fauci.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.3  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago
The utter fraudulence of Tony Fauci is now widely acknowledged.

The utter fraud of the content of your seed has been proven. 

But WAIT, there's MORE...

E-mails show that Dr Fauci was warned as early as Jan 31, 2020:
"Kristian G. Andersen, a professor in Scripps' Department of Immunology and Microbiology, sent an email with the subject line "Science: Mining coronavirus genomes for clues to the outbreak's origins" to Fauci on the evening of Jan. 31, 2020.

THAT is a LIE. 

Kristian G. Anderson REPLIED to an email FROM Dr. Fauci.

The ACTUAL subject line of her email is " Re: FW : Science: Mining coronavirus genomes for clues to the outbreak's origins.

On Jan. 31st, Dr. Fauci forwarded the article entitled ' Mining coronavirus genomes for clues to the outbreak's origins' written by Jon Cohen for 'Science' that same day to Andersen. 

512

But WAIT, there's MORE...

Kristian G. Andersen indeed DID look much more closely and published those findings in Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020. The pertinent part of the summary states: Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.

Here's a link:

Having fun yet Vic? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @1.3    2 weeks ago

THE TRUTH!  HOW REFRESHING!  THANK YOU!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.3    2 weeks ago
The pertinent part of the summary states: Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus. Here's a link:

Which is exactly what Dr Fauci wanted him to do.


Having fun yet Vic? 

How about you?, twisting and turning to support fucking frauds.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.3.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.2    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.3.3    2 weeks ago

What are you doing here?  Are they going to change the rules again for you?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.4    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.3.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.4    2 weeks ago

It was a one time thing. I couldn't resist

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.3.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.5    2 weeks ago

I needed a smoke. But good bye

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.3.6    2 weeks ago

I'm glad I resisted. It would have been WWIII

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.9  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.3.7    2 weeks ago

So long

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.4  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago
The e-mails prove that Dr Fauci lied under oath before Congress.

YOU have no fucking clue what Dr. Fauci'w emails prove because YOU haven't bothered to actually READ them yourself. Instead, your seed intentionally includes questionable 'media' sources that feed you the narrative you want to hear and you regurgitate here. 

Does anyone care to defend him now?

Since your seed utterly FAILS to present even ONE substantive allegation against Dr. Fauci, NO ONE needs to defend him. As 'our' readers can see, I have proven that all one needs do is debunk the BULLSHIT in your seed with FACTS. The fact than NO ONE, including the seeder, has even attempted to debate those FACTS speaks for itself. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.4    2 weeks ago
YOU have no fucking clue what Dr. Fauci'w emails prove because YOU haven't bothered to actually READ them yourself.

No I haven't read all of them. The good doctor was laughing and giggling with his fellow liars the other day when he told us there were about 10,000 e-mails and couldn't recall what was in them.


Since your seed utterly FAILS to present even ONE substantive allegation against Dr. Fauci, NO ONE needs to defend him. 

Even with your Bull Shit you can't defend him.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.4.2  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.1    2 weeks ago
No I haven't read all of them. The good doctor was laughing and giggling with his fellow liars the other day when he told us there were about 10,000 e-mails and couldn't recall what was in them.

Link? 

Oh and the number of emails is IRRELEVANT. You and your sources made specific allegations, NONE of which are proven by anything in YOUR seed or it's hyperlinks. 

Even with your Bull Shit you can't defend him.

AGAIN, your seed utterly FAILS to present even ONE substantive allegation against Dr. Fauci, NO ONE needs to defend him. 

Oh and BTFW Vic, I haven't seen you even try to refute ONE WORD of my comments in this thread. If what I posted is bullshit, post an argument. You've had almost a whole day to come up with something, ANYTHING, yet you have failed to say word one of substance. 

So please DO add to the conversation. I'm running out of material in your seed to eviscerate. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.4.2    2 weeks ago

I'll let your beloved Dr Fauci speak for himself. I trust you won't find the questioner too "hostile."




Please not where Tony Fauci is now. He's finally admitted to the possibility!

Now it's all possible. Maybe some day he will join Robert Redfield and be able to say it is likely, but of course is Fauci was involved in research at the Wuhan Lab, he is going to be a little more reluctant to admit what the lying msm is beginning to concede.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.4.4  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.3    2 weeks ago
I'll let your beloved Dr Fauci 

Just another unfounded conclusion Vic. No surprise. 

speak for himself.

It's about fucking time. Dr. Fauci stated: "I didn't dismiss anything. I just said it is a high likelihood that this is a natural occurrence, from the environment of an animal reservoir, that we have not yet identified." 

I trust you won't find the questioner too "hostile."

'Given everything that he's decided', I don't find Rubio 'hostile', I find him clueless. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.4.5  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @1.4.4    2 weeks ago

As clueless as Rand Paul questioning Dr. Fauci on ANYTHING

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.4.6  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.3    2 weeks ago
Now it's all possible. Maybe some day he will join Robert Redfield and be able to say it is likely, but of course is Fauci was involved in research at the Wuhan Lab, he is going to be a little more reluctant to admit what the lying msm is beginning to concede.

By the 'lying msm' you must mean your sources, all of whom published bullshit which unfortunately you insisted on regurgitating here. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.7  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.4.4    2 weeks ago
Just another unfounded conclusion Vic. No surprise. 

No, to the contrary, despite how cautious Fauci has been with his words, he did dismiss the idea early on.


Dr. Fauci stated: " I didn't dismiss anything . I just said it is a high likelihood that this is a natural occurrence, from the environment of an animal reservoir, that we have not yet identified." 

That's what he says now, but many of us remember what he said before:

"The best evidence shows the virus behind the pandemic was not made in a lab in China," Dr. Anthony Fauci said in an exclusive interview with   National Geographic   published on Monday. "Everything about the stepwise evolution over time strongly indicates that [this virus] evolved in nature and then jumped species."

He added that he doesn't believe the alternate theory that someone discovered coronavirus in the wild, brought it to a lab and then it accidentally unleashed it on the public.

.

The e-mails have shown, despite all the parsing of words from Fauci and his supporters that he dismissed it privately as well:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/06/04/a_tough_week_for_tony_fauci_lessons_from_special_elections_and_is_joel_kotkin_right_that_there_will_be_a_middle_class_revolt_against_progressivism.html#!



'Given everything that he's decided', I don't find Rubio 'hostile', I find him clueless.

"clueless" how?  You don't mean like feeble-minded feminists who follow the leader?





 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.4.6    2 weeks ago
By the 'lying msm' you must mean your sources, all of whom published bullshit

Calling it "Bullshit" is of no value and belongs with the other no value comments that remain on this page.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.4.9  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.7    2 weeks ago
No, to the contrary, despite how cautious Fauci has been with his words, he did dismiss the idea early on.

PROVE IT Vic. You should have no problem QUOTING Fauci doing so. 

He added that he doesn't believe the alternate theory that someone discovered coronavirus in the wild, brought it to a lab and then it accidentally unleashed it on the public.

I note that your source fails to QUOTE what Fauci ACTUALLY said. 

Here's a question for you Vic. If coronavirus was discovered in the wild, HOW the fuck could it be 'accidentally unleashed on the public'? Please be specific. 

The e-mails have shown, despite all the parsing of words from Fauci and his supporters that he dismissed it privately as well:

Again, PROVE IT Vic.

As illustrated by MY 1.3 comment, the emails are available. YOU labeled them "AKA the Mother Load" yet the ONLY email you have actually QUOTED contains TWO WORDS written by Fauci. I await your QUOTED evidence from the emails that Fauci 'dismissed it privately'. 

"clueless" how? 

'Given everything that he's decided', it's obvious. 

You don't mean like feeble-minded feminists who follow the leader?

No. I mean feeble minded conservatives who swill the pabulum that their like minded sources feed them, who then try to get others to follow suit. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.4.10  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.8    2 weeks ago
Calling it "Bullshit" is of no value and belongs with the other no value comments that remain on this page.

I PROVED that your sources published bullshit and you haven't even tried to make an argument to refute my comments Vic.

I'm sure 'our readers' fully understand why YOU judge comments that PROVE that the content of your seed is false are of 'no value'. They are however of value to other members who actually value FACTS. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.4.11  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.3    2 weeks ago
Please not where Tony Fauci is now. He's finally admitted to the possibility!

What is with the R focus on trying to discredit Fauci?   Rubio here is doing his best to discredit Fauci and Fauci simply repeated what he has said all along.  And what Fauci has said is simple to understand.   Fauci has stated that the COVID-19 virus does not show markers which would evidence human tampering (think of detecting a 'photoshopped' picture).    He never stated that the virus necessarily was natural;  he never denied the possibility of it appearing artificially.   His statement was that the evidence that he has seen suggests natural rather than artificial.

Instead of accepting his opinion and the science-based reasoning he has offered, select Rs twist what he said into:  'Fauci declares that the virus could not possibly be artificially derived and did not come from Wuhan.'    That twist is a bald-faced lie.

And when dishonest tactics like this are noted, the attack dog mentality deems this to be 'defending Fauci'.   It is defending honesty and objectivity and rejecting partisan-based dishonesty.

See, Vic, I for one want to know the truth.   I do not have a presupposition based on partisanship.   I do not care about Fauci or any of the other talking heads in this scenario.   I care about evidence and the approximation to truth that it will yield.    Note that you seed attack articles on Fauci rather than articles seeking to identify the origin of the virus.   That suggests a concern about discrediting Fauci more than getting to the truth.

As I have noted to you, it is logical (to me) that this virus accidentally escaped from Wuhan.   My hypothesis is that this is a natural form of the virus (not artificial) that was within the Wuhan facility and escaped into the population by human error.   The sickened Wuhan workers and Wuhan's nature of research and epicenter location is key evidence in support of this hypothesis.    But, I would not be surprised if this virus leaped species via other methods such as the wet markets.    That is, it is possible that the Wuhan labs are not the source of the pandemic.

What we need to do is look at the actual evidence (not the spin) and get to the bottom of this based on facts.   Trying to get to the truth with an incessant game of dishonest gotcha is partisan bullshit.   If one wants the truth, one needs to objectively follow the evidence.

In short, constantly attacking Fauci by reinterpreting what he has said or written is gratuitous partisan game playing.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Masters Participates
1.4.12  igknorantzrulz  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.11    2 weeks ago

thank you for placing it in the nutshell, as usual fax not machined to their liking, need modified and manipulated to include bias, and i believe they've bought enough to open a chain of brothels, and as usual, you are correct about their intent, as it is to damage Fauci, never to actually get to the full truth, as that is just an impediment to their sediment, rooted in the germination that infected our entire world and nation, and many of US died due to Trumps' ignorant interpretation, yet, they remain fixated on the Scientist, NEVER the LIAR IN CHIEF SELLING the DISBELIEF 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.4.13  TᵢG  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.4.12    2 weeks ago

Partisan 'thinking' often yields bullshit.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Masters Participates
1.4.14  igknorantzrulz  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.13    2 weeks ago

there is bovine excrement a plenty to go around and then some

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.4.15  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.11    2 weeks ago
In short, constantly attacking Fauci by reinterpreting what he has said or written is gratuitous partisan game playing.

Latching on to the attack on Dr. Fauci via partisanship is also an intentional and blatant complicity in the lies spun about him.

If one wants the truth, one needs to objectively follow the evidence.

But we know some are not actually interested in truth or actual evidence. Only in partisanship and whatever tales it may spin.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.16  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.4.15    2 weeks ago
But we know some are not actually interested in truth or actual evidence.

Starting with the two lefties winking at each other. The science actually leads to the Wuhan lab theory:

"But the most compelling reason to favor the lab leak hypothesis is firmly based in science. In particular, consider the genetic fingerprint of CoV-2, the novel coronavirus responsible for the disease Covid-19. 

In gain-of-function research, a microbiologist can increase the lethality of a coronavirus enormously by splicing a special sequence into its genome at a prime location. Doing this leaves no trace of manipulation. But it alters the virus spike protein, rendering it easier for the virus to inject genetic material into the victim cell. Since 1992 there have been at least 11 separate experiments adding a special sequence to the same location. The end result has always been supercharged viruses.

A genome is a blueprint for the factory of a cell to make proteins. The language is made up of three-letter “words,” 64 in total, that represent the 20 different amino acids. For example, there are six different words for the amino acid arginine, the one that is often used in supercharging viruses. Every cell has a different preference for which word it likes to use most.

In the case of the gain-of-function supercharge, other sequences could have been spliced into this same site. Instead of a CGG-CGG (known as “double CGG”) that tells the protein factory to make two arginine amino acids in a row, you’ll obtain equal lethality by splicing any one of 35 of the other two-word combinations for double arginine. If the insertion takes place naturally, say through recombination, then one of those 35 other sequences is far more likely to appear; CGG is rarely used in the class of coronaviruses that can recombine with CoV-2.

In fact, in the entire class of coronaviruses that includes CoV-2, the CGG-CGG combination has never been found naturally. That means the common method of viruses picking up new skills, called recombination, cannot operate here. A virus simply cannot pick up a sequence from another virus if that sequence isn’t present in any other virus.

Although the double CGG is suppressed naturally, the opposite is true in laboratory work. The insertion sequence of choice is the double CGG. That’s because it is readily available and convenient, and scientists have a great deal of experience inserting it. An additional advantage of the double CGG sequence compared with the other 35 possible choices: It creates a useful beacon that permits the scientists to track the insertion in the laboratory.

Now the damning fact. It was this exact sequence that appears in CoV-2. Proponents of zoonotic origin must explain why the novel coronavirus, when it mutated or recombined, happened to pick its least favorite combination, the double CGG. Why did it replicate the choice the lab’s gain-of-function researchers would have made?

Yes, it could have happened randomly, through mutations. But do you believe that? At the minimum, this fact—that the coronavirus, with all its random possibilities, took the rare and unnatural combination used by human researchers—implies that the leading theory for the origin of the coronavirus must be laboratory escape.

When the lab’s Shi Zhengli and colleagues published a paper in February 2020 with the virus’s partial genome, they omitted any mention of the special sequence that supercharges the virus or the rare double CGG section. Yet the fingerprint is easily identified in the data that accompanied the paper. Was it omitted in the hope that nobody would notice this evidence of the gain-of-function origin?

But in a matter of weeks virologists Bruno Coutard and colleagues   published   their discovery of the sequence in CoV-2 and its novel supercharged site. Double CGG is there; you only have to look. They comment in their paper that the protein that held it “may provide a gain-of-function” capability to the virus, “for efficient spreading” to humans.

There is additional scientific evidence that points to CoV-2’s gain-of-function origin. The most compelling is the dramatic differences in the genetic diversity of CoV-2, compared with the coronaviruses responsible for SARS and MERS.

Both of those were confirmed to have a natural origin; the viruses evolved rapidly as they spread through the human population, until the most contagious forms dominated. Covid-19 didn’t work that way. It appeared in humans already adapted into an extremely contagious version. No serious viral “improvement” took place until a minor variation occurred many months later in England.

Such early optimization is unprecedented, and it suggests a long period of adaptation that predated its public spread. Science knows of only one way that could be achieved: simulated natural evolution, growing the virus on human cells until the optimum is achieved. That is precisely what is done in gain-of-function research. Mice that are genetically modified to have the same coronavirus receptor as humans, called “humanized mice,” are repeatedly exposed to the virus to encourage adaptation.

The presence of the double CGG sequence is strong evidence of gene splicing, and the absence of diversity in the public outbreak suggests gain-of-function acceleration. The scientific evidence points to the conclusion that the virus was developed in a laboratory.

Dr. Quay is founder of Atossa Therapeutics and author of “Stay Safe: A Physician’s Guide to Survive Coronavirus.” Mr. Muller is an emeritus professor of physics at the University of California Berkeley and a former senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.





But don't bother with a civil conversation Gordy, just keep trying to smear people.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.4.17  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.16    2 weeks ago
Starting with the two lefties winking at each other.

To whom are you referring? If you are implying that I'm a "lefty," then your presumption and characterization of me is both inaccurate and dishonest.

But don't bother with a civil conversation Gordy, just keep trying to smear people.

I'm sure the irony of that statement is lost on you.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.4.18  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @1.4.17    2 weeks ago
If you are implying that I'm a "lefty,"  ...

Yeah that looks like his new attack.   Disagree with his over-the-top attacks on Fauci (and now on Collins) and you are ipso facto a 'lefty'.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.4.19  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.18    2 weeks ago
Yeah that looks like his new attack.

Followed by personal and ad hom attacks, while expressing some kind of concern over the civility of a discussion. Too funny.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.20  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.4.17    2 weeks ago
To whom are you referring?

To you and your buddy. You know the one that votes up your smears.


 If you are implying that I'm a "lefty," then your presumption and characterization of me is both inaccurate and dishonest.

How about responding to the facts I just hit you with?

It is hard to refute facts, right?  It's so much easier to call someone "dishonest" or "biased" and dealing in spin.  Speak right up Gordy, you always tell us how YOU believe in science. Defend your claim or your buddy's claim that it's a "conspiracy theory." Even the New York Times has changed that title.

Let's here it.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.21  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.18    2 weeks ago
If you are implying that I'm a "lefty," then your presumption and characterization of me is both inaccurate and dishonest.

Don't like your own medicine?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.4.22  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.20    2 weeks ago
. You know the one that votes up your smears.

More personal attacks I see.

How about responding to the facts I just hit you with?

I don't have to. TiG has already responded to your posts far better than I could.

It is hard to refute facts, right? 

Let me know when you get some that do not include a partisan spin or personal bias.

you always tell us how YOU believe in science.

When did I ever say I "believe" in science Vic? I try not to go by belief. I accept science based on the evidence.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.4.23  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.21    2 weeks ago
Don't like your own medicine?

Is that your idea of a "civil conversation" Vic? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.24  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.4.22    2 weeks ago
I don't have to.

BECAUSE YOU CAN'T!


TiG has already responded to your posts far better than I could.

TiG has done nothing but call me names. 



So that's all either of you have?

Got it!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.25  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.4.23    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.4.26  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.24    2 weeks ago
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T!

Keep believing that if it makes you feel better Vic.

TiG has done nothing but call me names. 

Then you haven't been paying attention.

Got it!

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.27  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.4.26    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.4.28  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.25    2 weeks ago

Funny how you engage in the same kind of reply that you accuse TiG and myself of. Yeah, keep up that "civil conversation" Vic.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.29  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.4.28    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.30  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.4.28    2 weeks ago
Yeah, keep up that "civil conversation" Vic.

The one you refused to engage in. The minute you started those little sidebar comments with TiG, Sp should have given you a ticket, like he has to others.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.4.31  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.30    2 weeks ago
The one you refused to engage in.

My posts here are relatively few. And I have not violated the CoC.

The minute you started those little sidebar comments with TiG, Sp should have given you a ticket, like he has to others.

If that's what you really think, then flag them and make your case.

It has to be done. Both of you have gotten away with murder here. Good people have fled this place because of people like you and your buddy, the fake.

Meta combined with personal attacks. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.32  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.4.31    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.4.33  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.24    2 weeks ago
TiG has done nothing but call me names. 

More intellectual dishonesty.   No wonder you get my positions wrong, you apparently do not read my comments.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.4.34  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.20    2 weeks ago
Defend your claim or your buddy's claim that it's a "conspiracy theory."

That 'what' is a conspiracy theory?   Be specific. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.4.35  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.16    2 weeks ago
Now the damning fact. It was this exact sequence that appears in CoV-2. Proponents of zoonotic origin must explain why the novel coronavirus, when it mutated or recombined, happened to pick its least favorite combination, the double CGG. Why did it replicate the choice the lab’s gain-of-function researchers would have made?

This paper, best I can tell, has never been published to the scientific community for peer review.   Peer review is part of the scientific method;  it is used to mitigate opinions being passed off as science.   There are, best I can tell, NO peer reviews of Dr. Quay's work.   That means that nobody has reviewed his work, attempted to recreate and verify his findings and then published their own findings.  

Maybe Quay is right and there is a massive conspiracy by the worldwide scientific community to cover up.   Maybe Quay has a reason for not submitting his work for peer review by the world's scientists.

I would like to know, but right now all that we have is a report from Dr. Quay.   The lack of peer review bugs me.   It should bug you too.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.4.36  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.20    2 weeks ago
How about responding to the facts I just hit you with?

Still waiting for you to do so Vic. 

It is hard to refute facts, right? 

Seems like you have come to that conclusion since you haven't even tried to refute the facts I posted DAYS ago. 

BTW, Dr. Quay's study doesn't look to have been peer reviewed even though it was published in JANUARY. 

But hey, I'm not surprised that you believe his unreviewed research over the dozens of other peer reviewed studies that have been published in MUCH more highly regarded scientific publications. He says everything you want to hear...

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.4.37  Gordy327  replied to  Dulay @1.4.36    one week ago
Still waiting for you to do so Vic. 

Waiting, still waiting.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Expert
2  Just Jim NC TttH    2 weeks ago

256

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3  Tessylo    2 weeks ago

I defend Dr. Fauci.  I don't understand the need to tear him apart. . . . but continue . . . 

Dr. Fauci never lied under oath to congress.  

Also your sources are quite suspect - the federalist?  There's been talk on NT about banning it as a source because it has nothing but conspiracy theories for a long time now.

And newsmax?

LOL!

The 'fraud' waddled out of the White House on 1/20/21

"The utter fraudulence of Tony Fauci is now widely acknowledged"

By the federalist!  LOLOLOLOL!  A conspiracy theory site.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @3    2 weeks ago
There's been talk on NT about banning it as a source

I'm sure there is, Tess. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    2 weeks ago

The Federalist is not quite in banned territory, but its close

right011.png?resize=600%2C67&ssl=1

  • Overall, we rate The Federalist Questionable and far-Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that always favor the right and promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, and numerous failed fact checks.

The Federalist - Media Bias/Fact Check (mediabiasfactcheck.com)

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.1    2 weeks ago

That means nothing to me John. I consider the Media Bias/Fact Check that we use to be biased.

The point really should be that an established fact is fact no matter where it is reported. The e-mails are public and can be found just about anywhere. Buzzfeed used a FOIA request to obtain them - can you imagine if Judicial Watch used FOIA to get them? The same e-mails John!

What is a problem is newspapers that have gone back and edited their headlines from a year ago, so people won't realize how desperately they tried to quash the Wuhan Lab idea.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.2    2 weeks ago

The Federalist is a questionable source.  You would have been better off to find a similar story using a better source. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.3    2 weeks ago

I don't do that John. The Federalist is totally legit.

The fact is that the msm all fought the truth a year ago - and we know why, don't we John?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.4    2 weeks ago
The Federalist is totally legit.

That is questionable. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.5    2 weeks ago

No it's not. What exactly are you questioning?

The quotes are all from Dr Fauci and can be even found on the admittedly biased New York Times!  


Or maybe you just want censorship?

Or maybe this is preferable to debating the content of the article?

Is this what they teach at the university?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Expert
3.1.7  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.3    2 weeks ago
The Federalist is a questionable source.  You would have been better off to find a similar story using a better source. 

DEFLECTION-PROJECTION-DENIAL

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.7    2 weeks ago

It may be time for Tony Fauci to come clean and as the government official, who once persuaded a reluctant President to shut down a prosperous economy, he now needs to share everything he knows about the U.S. taxpayer money that went into Wuhan and the global horror that came out of it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.8    2 weeks ago

That's Dr. Fauci.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.10  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.9    2 weeks ago

Yes it is.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.11  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.10    2 weeks ago

You should address him as such in your comments.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.7    2 weeks ago
DEFLECTION-PROJECTION-DENIAL

That's all they have.

It's all they ever have.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @3    2 weeks ago
I defend Dr. Fauci.

How?

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
3.3  gooseisgone  replied to  Tessylo @3    2 weeks ago
Also your sources are quite suspect

There Fauci's emails!

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.3.1  Ender  replied to  gooseisgone @3.3    2 weeks ago

The emails, the emails...

Where have I heard that before....

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
3.3.2  Ronin2  replied to  Ender @3.3.1    2 weeks ago

The same place the left has ignored it from before. "Real emails- who the hell needs to read those? Attack the source, attack the source, attack the source. Russia, Russia, Russia. Collusion, collusion, collusion."  

Of course every unnamed, unverifiable, re-regurgitated anonymous source the media used during the Trump administration was taken as absolute gospel; no matter how many times it was proven to be a lie. No redactions needed; they wouldn't be read by the left anyways. We only wish the left could have come up with real emails; instead of constantly made up BS.

Ignore reality; that is what the left does best these days.

 
 
 
FortunateSon
Freshman Silent
3.3.3  FortunateSon  replied to  Ronin2 @3.3.2    2 weeks ago

The science is settled...

The left is full of shit.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.3.4  Ender  replied to  Ronin2 @3.3.2    2 weeks ago

What a load of shit.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.3.5  Ender  replied to  FortunateSon @3.3.3    2 weeks ago

The right is full of morons.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.6  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @3.3.5    2 weeks ago

Who are full of shit.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.3.7  Ender  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.6    2 weeks ago

Two guesses.  Haha

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4  Tessylo    2 weeks ago

I imagine the death threats against Dr. Fauci and his family will increase now.

SHAME

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @4    2 weeks ago

We are all getting them!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    2 weeks ago

Who is we?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.1    2 weeks ago

Everyone who plays "victim."

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.2    2 weeks ago

So you.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.2    2 weeks ago

So you are saying that Dr. Fauci and his family haven't gotten death threats?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
5  Buzz of the Orient    2 weeks ago

The End of the Line  (link)    

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5    2 weeks ago

Oh, they were funny! At least I thought so.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Senior Principal
6  Nerm_L    2 weeks ago

Anthony Fauci is correct that there isn't evidence that the coronavirus was created by direct genetic modification.  There isn't any evidence that DNA was snipped and spliced to create SARS-CoV-2.  But Fauci used that fact to obscure rather than elucidate.

Zoonotic spillover only requires contact between the animal host and humans.  That certainly doesn't eliminate the Wuhan Institute of Virology as the origin of first infections.  Animal/human contact in the wild, at wildlife farms, and at biolabs would involve the same animals and the same virus.  

We know the Wuhan Institute was creating a database of coronavirus genomes.  So there was definitely human contact with both animals and coronaviruses; first to collect samples and then to identify the virus.  The questions about the Wuhan Institute concerns safeguards and safety protocols.  If the Wuhan Institute was sloppy then the risk of a lab leak was much higher.  And gain-of-function research at a sloppy biolab would only elevate the risk of spreading a deadly human disease outside the lab.

Fauci is a bureaucrat first and scientist second.  Fauci has been attempting to obscure that the NIAID was funding research with a high degree of risk without proper review of safeguards.  Apparently the funding provided the Wuhan Institute was politically motivated to circumvent the moratorium on gain-of-function research in the United States.  That alone creates a perception that Fauci was making a political statement about the moratorium within the bureaucracy.  Fauci, the bureaucrat, has consistently been an advocate of gee-whiz science to demonstrate his relevancy within the bureaucracy.  Fauci has been playing bureaucratic politics all along.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Nerm_L @6    2 weeks ago
Fauci has been attempting to obscure that the NIAID was funding research with a high degree of risk without proper review of safeguards. 

The thought has entered my mind as well.  Can you imagine the outrage at any US official who signed off on that?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Senior Principal
6.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1    2 weeks ago
The thought has entered my mind as well.  Can you imagine the outrage at any US official who signed off on that?

The hell of it is that Congress knows (or should know) because Congress authorized the program and provided the money.  The question is whether or not the budget request by Fauci's NIAID obscured the intent and purpose of any funding requests.  Fauci has demonstrated bureaucratic skill for using facts to obscure intent.

Retaining a fairly high profile administrative position requires more skills and talents than scientific expertise.  Fauci remaining director of NIAID for so long is clear evidence that Fauci is adept at bureaucratic politics.  Fauci hasn't kept that position because of his knowledge of science; he's good at obtaining money from Congress, too.  The question is whether or not Congress understood what they were funding.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @6    2 weeks ago

I'll take Dr. Fauci's expert advice over yours Nerm.

Dr. Fauci is a scientist FIRST.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7  Ender    2 weeks ago

Blame...point fingers...

Blame...point fingers...

Blame...

Same old song and dance.

I guess for some it is easier to throw out blame and accusations than actually look forward and toward solutions.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8  author  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

This Just In:

"It will be decades before we know the true cost of the  coronavirus  pandemic. The virus killed millions across the globe, forced countless small businesses closed, and made billions of people prisoners in their homes. But the impact on our children and long-term health effects won’t be known for some time. 

No effort should be spared to understand   COVID-19 ’s origins. We cannot ignore common-sense possibilities just because they’re inconvenient for one political party or one nation. 

It was never "conspiratorial" to suggest that the first human infection of the   coronavirus   could have resulted from a laboratory accident.

It doesn’t take an overactive imagination to grasp human infallibility, or to wonder why a   coronavirus pandemic   might first break out in exactly the same city that hosted a laboratory specifically studying this class of viruses. 
Some scientists were cautious to remain open to a range of possibilities, but others, like Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.  dismissed  the idea that the virus could have come from a lab. It was a massive failure in judgment for a prominent public health official -- though in retrospect unsurprising, given his  history  of holding back the truth based on personal judgments about when he thinks the American people are "ready" to hear the facts. 

In most science-based jobs, that would be a fireable offense, but Fauci ran free without any accountability. Meanwhile, some of his peers who sought to raise questions about the possibility of a lab leak were silenced. 

When asked recently why he had dismissed the lab leak hypothesis given what we knew about the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), Fauci   replied , "I didn’t dismiss anything." 

That’s an outright lie. In a May 2020   interview , with National Geographic he scoffed at the suggestion that "scientists found the virus outside the lab, brought it back, and then it escaped," adding that "[the virus] was in the wild to begin with. That's why I don't get what they're talking about [and] why I don't spend a lot of time going in on this circular argument." 
But no one knows whether this coronavirus, which scientists call SARS-CoV-2, was even "in the wild to begin with." Fauci  cites  "historical experience," but no one has found bats hosting this virus or its direct progenitor.
The lab leak argument is not "circular," and it presents a plausible answer to a puzzling question: If this virus came from bats, how did bats living in Yunnan more than 1,100 miles away manage to infect humans in Wuhan? 

The initial explanation, the wet market, has not panned out. Bats were not sold there, and no animal intermediary was found. Even Beijing has said the market was not the spillover site. Fauci’s two main precedents, SARS-CoV-1 and MERS, did not suffer from this problem, nor was a nearby lab working on coronaviruses at the time of those outbreaks. 

WIV researchers   traveled to Yunnan   many times to study bat coronaviruses.  It is only reasonable to ask whether they transported bats, or samples from bats, back to Wuhan and accidentally infected themselves. 

Photos online   showed   the   handling of bats   without proper protection. In 2018, U.S. diplomats   visited   the WIV’s new BSL-4 lab and warned of problems. The WIV mostly conducted coronavirus research in less secure BSL-2 and BSL-3 labs. SARS-CoV-1   escaped several times   from labs in China, Singapore, and Taiwan. 

WIV researchers identified the closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2, a bat virus called RaTG13, which   they sampled   from a mineshaft in Yunnan. They were reportedly   studying   it for years before the pandemic, but did not publish any findings. 

What if they also conducted unpublished research on SARS-CoV-2? How do we know that the difference between the genomic structures of these two viruses, roughly four percent, was not generated by gain-of-function research at the WIV? 

Such a possibility offers potential reasons for why unelected bureaucrats in our scientific establishment immediately worked to discredit the lab leak explanation. 

Dr. Fauci has now infamously   denied   that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded gain-of-function research at the WIV, but that was a lie by omission. In 2015, researchers at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill and the WIV teamed up to conduct a gain-of-function study funded largely by U.S. taxpayers. Only the Americans were funded by NIH, but the WIV received a sub-grant from USAID. 

Flush with American funding, what exactly did they do? The Chinese researchers inserted a key genetic component of a bat coronavirus called a spike protein into the backbone of an artificial mouse version of SARS-CoV-1. The result was a pathogen found nowhere in nature, one that could "cause robust infection" in human cells. The WIV provided the spike protein sequences for this chimeric creation. The spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 is also what makes that virus so infectious to humans.     

Fauci is exploiting his position in government -- and his ill-deserved positive reputation in the liberal media -- to willfully misrepresent what is meant by a lab leak, conflating it with a biological weapons program (which is just one possible motive for gain-of-function research in Wuhan). That, or he's showing his age.

Our work to shed light on COVID-19’s origins has just begun, but one thing is clear: Dr. Anthony Fauci has repeatedly demonstrated a history of moving goal-posts when it comes to public health, withholding facts that don’t conform with his own narrative, and issuing inappropriate personal judgments that distort the truth. 

During the campaign, Biden said, "I'll choose science over fiction." 

Now is his chance to make good on that promise and fire Dr. Fauci."




.....................Senator Marco Rubio

Rf4e6113b90be6e23642be5d2cc618f4f?rik=jL1BJZ5kAk0ZCA&pid=ImgRaw

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.1  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @8    2 weeks ago

More bullshit from a bias source. Your source truncated Fauci's statement in order to make a FALSE allegation. Disgusting. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @8    2 weeks ago

Would you seek to discredit Dr. Francis Collins too?   Do you know the scientific credentials and personal history of this man?:

“Far and away, the most likely origin is a natural  zoonotic pathway  from bats to some unidentified intermediate host to humans,” he told me. “But the possibility that such a naturally evolved virus might have also been under study at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and reached residents of Wuhan—and ultimately the rest of the world—as the result of a lab accident has never been adequately excluded .”

That possibility, Collins believes, calls for a closer look. “A thorough, expert-driven, and objective investigation, with full access to all information about events in Wuhan in the fall of 2019, is needed,” he said. “That should have happened right away, but did not.”

Collins was careful to qualify that the coronavirus is “absolutely not” man-made. “The genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 has a number of unanticipated features that are not consistent with what international experts would have expected from an emerging and dangerous coronavirus,” he told me. “Thus, the hypothesis that this was a human-engineered bioweapon is hard to support. It’s unfortunate that the lab-leak hypothesis has been muddled up with the intentional-bioweapon hypothesis in 16 months of tortured and politically driven rhetoric . That has given way too much credibility to the latter and not enough to the former.”

In short, Dr. Collins holds that the virus is absolutely not man-made and most likely jumped species naturally, but it is certainly possible that it was under study at Wuhan and accidentally wound up in the population.   Nobody knows at this point.

Regarding NIH funding gain-of-function research on on coronavirus:
Senator Rand Paul has accused the NIH and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of funding “gain of function” research into bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). (Gain-of-function research is intended to make pathogens more deadly or more transmissible for the purpose of producing knowledge that would benefit humans.) But Collins finds such claims misleading. “There’s a terminology problem here that is causing a lot of confusion,” Collins said. “Lots of scientists study harmless organisms like plants and bacteria to try to identify how life works, or how genetic changes might be useful for tackling a medical or societal problem. For example, if you want a harmless bacterium to acquire the ability to clean up an oil spill, you might use a bioengineering approach to provide those bacteria with gain of function to metabolize hydrocarbons into less harmful substances.” Such research, he explained, is different from enhancing viruses that affect people. “The gain of function that is of much greater concern, and for which the United States has in place stringent oversight guidelines, relates to experiments that might make a human pathogen more transmissible or more virulent,” Collins said. “NIH has never supported such experiments on human coronaviruses. The now-terminated subcontract to the WIV was to support the isolation and characterization of viruses from bats living in caves in China. Since we knew those were the original source of SARS and MERS, it would have been irresponsible not to try to learn more about them. But the terms of the grant were limited to bat viruses, and absolutely did not allow gain-of-function research in the sense of studying human pathogens.”

Dr. Collins has an impeccable reputation for competence and honesty.   Is he lying now?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
8.2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @8.2    2 weeks ago
from bats to some unidentified intermediate host to humans

Cool. Why don't we know what animal was? It was easy to track how SARS mutated and jumped to humans. It's been a year and a half and nothing. .  

How much energy do you think China has expended trying to find that link?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2.2  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.2.1    2 weeks ago
Why don't we know what animal was?

Because we have not yet found sufficient evidence to be that specific.

It was easy to track how SARS mutated and jumped to humans. It's been a year and a half and nothing. .  

Well maybe China is not being cooperative.

How much energy do you think China has expended trying to find that link?

I expect that China is doing what it can to make this whole scenario go away.   Obviously they do not want to be blamed for a worldwide pandemic so ambiguity works in their favor.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
8.2.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.2    2 weeks ago
Because we have not yet found sufficient evidence to be that specific.

Again, why not?  historically, it's not that difficult to trace this. Yet, here, nothing. 

Well maybe China is not being cooperative.

Of course not. But they are desperately trying to prove a species jump.  If the link existed, they would have found it and publicized it by now.

In fact, there are now reports that US intelligence believes China is trying to produce variants that suggest it came from bats. Who could reject the idea that China would do that? 

tbviously they do not want to be blamed for a worldwide pandemic so ambiguity works in their favor.

What works more is actual evidence of a species jump, which they should have been able to provide by now, if it happened. Ambiguity only works in their favor if they are engaged in a cover up and that's the best result they can hope for. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.2.4  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.2.1    2 weeks ago
Cool. Why don't we know what animal was?

Maybe somebody ATE it...

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.2.5  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.2.3    2 weeks ago
Who could reject the idea that China would do that? 

The advantage that conspiracy theorists have is that anything is POSSIBLE.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2.6  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.2.3    2 weeks ago
Again, why not?  historically, it's not that difficult to trace this. Yet, here, nothing. 

Are you unable to comprehend what I just wrote?    We do not have the facts to be specific about the actually species.    And those facts are likely difficult to get because China is likely not being cooperative.

Read my comment.   My answer was clearly written.

But they are desperately trying to prove a species jump.  If the link existed, they would have found it and publicized it by now.

Okay, so you think China wants specifics.    So what is your hypothesis as to why they have not found the species jump?   Let me guess, your hypothesis is that they are covering up for Wuhan.   That might be true.   So where do you go from here?   Yes, Sean, China no doubt does not want to be blamed for enabling a worldwide pandemic.   They will likely act in a manner that, to them, best keeps them off the radar as much as is possible.

Ambiguity only works in their favor if they are engaged in a cover up and that's the best result they can hope for. 

Ambiguity is a great way for this to fade away.   It is a cloud of smoke that enables China to escape blame because nobody knows for sure what happened.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
8.2.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.6    2 weeks ago
u unable to comprehend what I just wrote

Of course. Can you try and comprehend what I actually wrote?

e do not have the facts to be specific about the actually species

Hold on to your hat, because this may blow your mind.  Maybe that species doesn't exist.  Can you grasp that possibility?

And those facts are likely difficult to get because China is likely not being cooperative.

That is the one fact that China has incentive to discover. Can you not grasp that? Do you imagine China isn't doing everything in it's power to find evidence of a natural jump, even if it has to invent it?

So what is your hypothesis as to why they have not found the species jump?

Do I need to spell it out? There was no naturally occurring species jump. 

Ambiguity is a great way for this to fade away.

no, exculpatory evidence is a great way for it it to fade away.  "ambiguity", if that's how you want to describe the circumstantial evidence pointing to a lab leak, is only better than direct proof of a lab leak. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
8.2.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @8.2.4    2 weeks ago
Maybe somebody ATE it..

LOL.  Now that's a conspiracy theory.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2.9  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.2.7    2 weeks ago

I write that the Virus might have come from Wuhan and you ask if I can comprehend that it might not have jumped species.

WTF is the problem here Sean?    I write clear answers and you somehow manage to not comprehend what I just wrote.

Almost as if you are here to try to twist what I write.

Do I need to spell it out?

No, in fact I explicitly stated what I thought you were implying.   Again, you fail to acknowledge clear English.

no, exculpatory evidence is a great way for it it to fade away.

A specific story can be picked apart and discredited.    A vague cloud of doubt yields all sorts of conflicting hypotheses.   Confusion is a great method of deflecting blame.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
8.2.10  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.9    2 weeks ago
WTF is the problem here Sean?

you tell me. You seem incapable of grasping that the lack of any evidence, after almost a year and a half,  of either the original bat population or of any intermediate species to which the virus might have jumped is evidence that such a jump never occurred. 

When you write things like "we do not have the facts to be specific about the actually specie" you are implying that such a species must exist.

 Again, you fail to acknowledge clear English.

Is this clear English? "" We do not have the facts to be specific about the actually species.    And those facts are likely difficult to get because China is likely not being cooperative."   I'm doing the best I can. 

A specific story can be picked apart and discredited.

So that's your argument. China believes it's better to not provide evidence of it's innocence, and instead allow  compelling circumstantial evidence of it's guilt to fester.    So if  you are accused of murder, you'd suppress evidence that establishes your innocence, and prefer to keep the question of your guilt ambiguous and hope the issues just fades away.

I fundamentally disagree with that. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2.11  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.2.10    2 weeks ago
You seem incapable of grasping that the lack of any evidence, after almost a year and a half,  of either the original bat population or of any intermediate species to which the virus might have jumped is evidence that such a jump never occurred. 

You again ignore what I write and declare the ridiculous.    The lack of CONCLUSIVE evidence means that the hypotheses of a species jump is not confirmed.     I have explicitly stated that the Wuhan lab hypothesis is on the table and that the natural species jump is on the table.   It is evidence, not the lack thereof, that will change this state.

Is this clear English?

You do not understand those words??   The problem lies with you.  

China believes it's better to not provide evidence of it's innocence, and instead allow  compelling circumstantial evidence of it's guilt to fester.

I have stated a plausible reason (in response to your question) why China would seek to keep the world confused about this virus.   In short, a cloud of confusion produces contradictory hypotheses and people (the public) eventually stop paying attention. 

if  you are accused of murder, you'd suppress evidence that establishes your innocence, and prefer to keep the question of your guilt ambiguous and hope the issues just fades away.

If China could conclusively convince the planet (which would correlate with your analogy) that this virus emerged from a zoonotic path they would be best served to do that.   But, as I explained to you, if the specifics they have are not rock solid (likely) then the story will be picked apart.   I would not be surprised if China is purposely withholding specifics and keeping the world confused because they have calculated that confusion is better for them than releasing the specifics they have.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
8.2.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.11    2 weeks ago
declare the ridiculous.

You make these pronouncements, but never produce any evidence to support them..  If you feel you must engage in them, feel free to do so, but maybe try proving an argument instead?

e lack of CONCLUSIVE evidence means that the hypotheses of a species jump is not confirmed.  

No shit. Who was claiming it was confirmed? Why are you emphasizing it like you proved some point in contention?

I claimed there is NO  evidence of after almost  a year and a half of either the original bat population or of any intermediate species to which the virus might have jumped.  You still have not rebutted this. 

 It is evidence, not the lack thereof, that will change this state.

First, where is the evidence of a natural jump? 

But I don't think you understand how evidence works. Lack of evidence, can in fact be evidence. Ever read Sherlock Holms? The lack of any evidence of a natural jump, such as was easily procured for SARS1, is evidence that it's did not occur naturally.   I don't know why that is so hard to understand. 

I have stated a plausible reason (in response to your question) why China would seek to keep the world confused about this virus

And I disagree. I believe China would in fact produce evidence of it's innocence, if it existed. I don't believe China would cover up evidence of a natural origin (even if such evidence stops short of being conclusive) in favor of letting the damming circumstantial evidence of a lab leak go unrebutted. After all, circumstantial evidence can get someone the death penalty.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.2.13  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.2.8    2 weeks ago
LOL.  Now that's a conspiracy theory.

Actually Sean, it's called a postulation. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
8.2.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @8.2.13    2 weeks ago
ctually Sean, it's called a postulation.

LOL. Call it whatever you want. It's the most scientifically illiterate thing mentioned here yet. Calling it a conspiracy theory was probably too kind on my part.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2.15  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.2.12    2 weeks ago
You make these pronouncements, but never produce any evidence to support them.. 

What pronouncements are you referring to?

Who was claiming it was confirmed?

I did not say you claimed that.   I was supporting my point.   Pay attention.   You wrote (and I quoted you):

Sean @8.2.10 ☞ the lack of any evidence, after almost a year and a half,  of either the original bat population or of any intermediate species to which the virus might have jumped is evidence that such a jump never occurred

I wrote:

TiG @8.2.11 - The lack of CONCLUSIVE evidence means that the hypotheses of a species jump is not confirmed.

My point has been that the lack of CONCLUSIVE evidence would be a reason for China to hold back on evidence they do have.   Again, it makes sense (at least to me) that China would not release partial results if they feel same could be discredited (and thus go against their objectives).

My comments are not difficult to follow.  

I claimed there is NO  evidence of after almost  a year and a half of either the original bat population or of any intermediate species to which the virus might have jumped.  You still have not rebutted this. 

You are waiting for me to rebut that which I agree??   Instead of trying to find something to argue, try paying attention to what I write.  Where do you see me claiming that there WAS evidence found?  

First, where is the evidence of a natural jump? 

There are no markers on the virus that suggest artificial gain-of-function.   Thus the evidence currently points to natural evolution.    Other than that, I am not aware of any specific evidence of a natural jump.   Similarly, we do not have evidence that the origin was Wuhan lab.   We are currently in a state where both possibilities are on the table.  You get that, right?

Lack of evidence, can in fact be evidence.

In the extreme, certainly.   Lack of evidence of God, for example, after thousands of years and billions of people trying to find same is evidence that God might not exist.   Lack of evidence of a species jump after 1.5 years does not compare.   This could be one animal infecting a single human being.   If so, we may never find the animal.   It might be dead.  The lack of evidence of a species jump does not rule out the hypothesis any more than the lack of evidence supporting accidental release from the lab rules out an accident.   Both hypotheses remain on the table.

Ever read Sherlock Holms [sic]?

Fictional stories from a fictional character are irrelevant.

I believe China would in fact produce evidence of it's innocence, if it existed.

You think they would produce weak evidence that can be picked apart?    My point is that they would produce CONCLUSIVE evidence that would clear their name but would not produce evidence if it did not meet that criterion.   This should be obvious.   The Chinese government is going to present itself in the best light.   If they do not have CONCLUSIVE evidence that clears them then the current situation of obfuscation is a logical course of action.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2.16  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.2.12    2 weeks ago
First, where is the evidence of a natural jump? 

Did you read my comment from Dr. Francis Collins that started this sub-thread @ 8.2 ?:

“Far and away, the most likely origin is a natural  zoonotic pathway  from bats to some unidentified intermediate host to humans,” he told me. “But the possibility that such a naturally evolved virus might have also been under study at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and reached residents of Wuhan—and ultimately the rest of the world—as the result of a lab accident has never been adequately excluded .”

That possibility, Collins believes, calls for a closer look. “A thorough, expert-driven, and objective investigation, with full access to all information about events in Wuhan in the fall of 2019, is needed,” he said. “That should have happened right away, but did not.”

Collins was careful to qualify that the coronavirus is “absolutely not” man-made. “The genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 has a number of unanticipated features that are not consistent with what international experts would have expected from an emerging and dangerous coronavirus,” he told me. “Thus, the hypothesis that this was a human-engineered bioweapon is hard to support. It’s unfortunate that the lab-leak hypothesis has been muddled up with the intentional-bioweapon hypothesis in 16 months of tortured and politically driven rhetoric . That has given way too much credibility to the latter and not enough to the former.”

Note in particular:

“The genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 has a number of unanticipated features that are not consistent with what international experts would have expected from an emerging and dangerous coronavirus,”

Dr. Collins has a distinguished resume and is not known for incompetence or dishonesty.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
8.2.17  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.15    2 weeks ago
y point has been that the lack of CONCLUSIVE evidence would be a reason for China to hold back on evidence they do have

And my point is that makes no sense. 

Instead of trying to find something to argue, try paying attention to what I writ

LOl. Physician, heal thyself.

There are no markers on the virus that suggest artificial gain-of-function.   Thus the evidence currently points to natural evolution

You've been manipulated

I'll quote Nicholas Wade:

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

The discussion part of their letter begins, “It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus.” But wait, didn’t the lead say the virus had clearly not been manipulated? The authors’ degree of certainty seemed to slip several notches when it came to laying out their reasoning."

It's the oldest trick in the book. The expert makes a claim that is technically true, "no markers that suggest artificial gain of function" but ignores the reality that gain of function experiments do not nesccarily leave markers. 

This could be one animal infecting a single human being.  

Sure. It could be aliens or purple unicorns.  The desperation has set in. But please, provide a link to a reputable scientist making that claim. I'd love to see it. 

Both hypotheses remain on the table.

But one is vastly more likely than the other. The circumstantial  evidence for a leak is compelling. The evidence for a species jump has been reduced to "maybe it's a single animal" who never infected other animals silliness. 

Fictional stories from a fictional character are irrelevant.

LOL. Logic is irrelevant.  Look what you are reduced to claiming. 

You think they would produce weak evidence that can be picked apart?  

SO now evidence is only  weak or conclusive? Is that how works. China, in your mind, won't provide any evidence unless it's impossible to contest?  so I would assime they'd provide the easy to find concluve evidence 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2.18  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.2.17    2 weeks ago
And my point is that makes no sense. 

Not my concern if you do not see this.

You've been manipulated

See my repeat of the quote from Dr. Collins @8.2.16: 

“The genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 has a number of unanticipated features that are not consistent with what international experts would have expected from an emerging and dangerous coronavirus,”

Spend a minute or two thinking.

The expert makes a claim that is technically true, "no markers that suggest artificial gain of function" but ignores the reality that gain of function experiments do not nesccarily leave markers. 

Go ahead, presume that Dr. Collins is a liar.   To do that you must have no knowledge of this man and his lengthy and distinguished career.

Sure. It could be aliens or purple unicorns

The possibility of a single animal infecting a single human being does not compare to aliens or purple unicorns.    You are not even trying to be serious.

But one is vastly more likely than the other.

You have failed to support such a claim.  

SO now evidence is only  weak or conclusive?

I have to explain everything to you?    My point (and it was obvious) is that it makes sense for the Chinese government to withhold evidence that would not conclusively clear them.    If they find evidence (if they have any) to be less-than-conclusive, I at least can see why they would not release it.

You cannot comprehend that.   Not my problem.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.2.19  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.2.14    2 weeks ago
LOL. Call it whatever you want.

Big words scary? 

It's the most scientifically illiterate thing mentioned here yet.

It wasn't meant to be scientifically literate Sean. 

Calling it a conspiracy theory was probably too kind on my part.

Call it whatever you want.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.2.20  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @8.2    2 weeks ago
Would you seek to discredit Dr. Francis Collins too?   Do you know the scientific credentials and personal history of this man?:

We have scientist with "credentials" on both sides of this, so don't try and impress us with "credentials!"

You have resurrected another strawman. This isn't about what one set of scientist believe vs another set of scientists. This is about a very valid theory of how the virus originated and why such very plausible idea that it may have begun in the Wuhan Lab was so discredited a year ago. The msm and Dr Fauci went beyond the pale to discredit it. The msn called it a "conspiracy theory" and Fauci quickly dismissed it even after Kristian G. Andersen warned him that it appeared man made. Doctors who worked at the lab and tried to speak out have long ago disappeared:

"Wuhan doctor Ai Fen, who expressed early concerns about the coronavirus to the media, has disappeared and is believed detained by Chinese authorities.

Fen, the head of emergency at Wuhan Central Hospital, was given a warning after she disseminated information about the coronavirus to several other doctors. She recounted the reprimand in an essay titled, “The one who supplied the whistle,” which was published in   China’s People   ( Renwu ) magazine. The article has since been removed."

The Journal came out with a story in late May, indicating that the first three people most likely infected (Nov 2019) worked at the lab.



And now thanks to a FOIA request we have these e-mails. So the possibilities of the origin of the virus have swung from the Chinese narrative of a "wet market" being most likely, right back to the now more likely idea that it escaped from that lab in Wuhan. It never got investigated when it should have. "We" (those with "credentials") took the word of China (which has destroyed all the evidence) and the WHO (which is nothing more than a proxy for China.)  

What got us here involve two issues - one political - and the other personal for Dr Fauci.  The media recoiled against the lab idea because it was Secretary of State Pompeo and President Trump who first gave rise to the idea and as we all know the first job of the media is to prove them wrong.

Then you had Fauci's personal motivations. He has always been a strong proponent of the kind or research going on at the Wuhan lab:

Fauci argued that the lab’s research of coronaviruses was essential in order to assess the threat of certain viruses to humans, “which might then damage the United States.” “You don’t want to go to Hoboken, N.J., or to Fairfax, Va., to be studying the bat-human interface that may lead to an outbreak, so you go to China,” Fauci said.




Now all we have to do is imagine that the story of US funding for research (with Fauci signing off on it) at the Wuhan lab becoming public knowledge when a tenacious virus emanating from Wuhan China was killing millions of people. How would the world think of your beloved Dr Fauci then?  His motivation is therefore clear, and unfortunately for him, we are learning more with each passing day.


One thing is for certain - Biden will never declassify the files regarding the funding the Wuhan lab got from Fauci's NIH.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2.21  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.2.20    2 weeks ago
We have scientist with "credentials" on both sides of this, so don't try and impress us with "credentials!"

Dr. Collins is not simply 'another scientist', he is the director of the NIH.     I trust you can do the math now.

You have resurrected another strawman.  This isn't about what one set of scientist believe vs another set of scientists.

Good grief, learn what a strawman argument is.   Don't just toss out allegations without a clue as to what the term means.

I have presented the position of the director of the NIH.   Not only is Dr. Collins in a position to know what the NIH did and does, he has a long history of competence and character.   Presenting a relevant fact is not a 'strawman argument'.  

This is about a very valid theory of how the virus originated and why such very plausible idea that it may have begun in the Wuhan Lab was so discredited a year ago.

Again, Vic, you dishonestly ignore what I write and just invent positions for me.   I have told you directly and explicitly (as recently as @1.4.11) that the Wuhan lab origin seems to me to be a logical hypothesis.   Direct, clear English.   So why do you pretend that I reject that hypothesis?   Or do you only see what you want to see (which would explain your incessant attacks on Fauci)?

The msm and Dr Fauci went beyond the pale to discredit it.

I have already addressed this too.  Fauci stated that the evidence shows the virus was natural rather than artificial.   He therefore believes the virus jumped species naturally.   He rendered his opinion based on the facts.   He is going to have opinions and is supposed to present them.   You get that, right?

Doctors who worked at the lab and tried to speak out have long ago disappeared:

Are you going to blame Fauci for this too?   Some new conspiracy theory about Fauci?

The Journal came out with a story in late May, indicating that the first three people most likely infected (Nov 2019) worked at the lab.

Which is the key fact that has lead me to conclude that the Wuhan lab hypothesis is logical.   And I have repeatedly stated this to you.   You present this to me as if you are providing information that I do not possess.  ( Intellectual dishonesty in lieu of an effective argument.)

And now thanks to a FOIA request we have these e-mails.

In which you infer 'facts'.   I refer you back to Dulay's rebuttals of your partisan bias driven 'reasoning'.

How would the world think of your beloved Dr Fauci then? 

I have also told you that Fauci means nothing to me.   What matters is the truth.   Your 'beloved' language is yet more bullshit from you.   I have not seeded a single article on Fauci;  I have simply responded to your over-the-top and usually irrational attacks.   You, on the other hand, have been on the attack of Fauci since early last year.    A grand game of absurd levels of inference and confirmation bias.

One thing is for certain - Biden will never declassify the files regarding the funding the Wuhan lab got from Fauci's NIH.

You are way too deep into conspiracy theory;  get a grip.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.2.22  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.21    2 weeks ago
Again, Vic, you dishonestly ignore what I write and just invent positions for me.

[Deleted]


You are way too deep into conspiracy theory; 

That is the battle cry of the left.  A perfect ending for you.



 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2.23  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.2.22    2 weeks ago
I can describe what you are doing but I can't get away with calling people dishonest. 

More bullshit Vic.   I am not doing anything other than rebutting your claims and dealing with your tactics.

For example, look at this from post @1.4.11

TiG @1.4.11As I have noted to you, it is logical (to me) that this virus accidentally escaped from Wuhan.   My hypothesis is that this is a natural form of the virus (not artificial) that was within the Wuhan facility and escaped into the population by human error.   The sickened Wuhan workers and Wuhan's nature of research and epicenter location is key evidence in support of this hypothesis.    But, I would not be surprised if this virus leaped species via other methods such as the wet markets.    That is, it is possible that the Wuhan labs are not the source of the pandemic.

This was a direct reply to you.   Read what I highlighted in blue.

How does this translate when it gets into your mind?   It should translate as:  "TiG holds the Wuhan lab escape hypothesis to be logical based on the evidence."   Who the hell knows what actually ends up once passed through a demonstrable highly partisan filter?  

I know people make mistakes.   But there is a point (especially after repetition) when benefit of the doubt no longer applies and one concludes intellectual dishonesty rather than innocent mistake.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.2.24  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.23    2 weeks ago

Your partner just gave you another vote up.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.3  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @8    2 weeks ago

Oh and BTFW, Rubio's Op/Ed merely further illustrates his cluelessness. 

Now is his chance to make good on that promise and fire Dr. Fauci.

Dr. Fauci is a career civil servant and can only be fired for lack of performance or misconduct.

That's undoubtedly the reason that Trump didn't fire Dr. Fauci, since such allegations would be utterly unsupportable to an Administrative Judge or the Merits Systems Protection Board. It's well known that Trump isn't big on cogently explaining his decision making process.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Expert
9  Greg Jones    2 weeks ago
afb060421dAPR20210604044541.jpg
 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @9    2 weeks ago

Have you ever made such a comment regarding Trump?   After all, if Fauci's words translate into "fraud, lies, deceit, flip-flops" to the point of one campaigning against him, the words of Trump should be absolutely infuriating. 

It is fascinating to watch Rs attempt to demonize Fauci with a backdrop of Trump.    Remember that Trump ended his presidency with a two-month long con-job where he falsely claimed the election was stolen from him and whipped his supporters into a frenzy with very bad consequences.   That behavior by a PotUS was historical and utterly irresponsible.   It was a dangerous campaign of lying and deceit which leveraged the most powerful political office on the planet.

But that is no problem, right?    It is far more important to spin the words of Fauci.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Greg Jones @9    2 weeks ago
Dr. Collins

Haven't you heard?  Now we have the great Dr Collins who helped fund the Wuhan lab. None of the other scientists count. Only the ones who pushed the risky research count!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.2    2 weeks ago

More spin and unsubstantiated allegations.   Pathetic.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Expert
10  Greg Jones    2 weeks ago

Once again you default to 'whatabout' Trump, who is not the topic

Can't understand why the left keeps defending this now discredited "expert"

Fauci's_Chariot_Small20210605072845.jpg
 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @10    2 weeks ago

You are apparently replying to me from @9.1.

You posted a cartoon @9 where you deem Fauci a liar, etc.

I find it ironic (actually grossly hypocritical) for someone who supports Trump to deem anyone a liar.   Who on the planet could possibly compare to the pathological liar Trump?   See, Greg, it would be different if you had a comment history where you attacked Trump for his lying.   But you do not.   That is hypocritical.

Can't understand why the left keeps defending this now discredited "expert"

I think anyone interested in honesty and truth would counter the irrational, partisan attacks on Fauci.   The question is why you, et. al. are so driven to spin everything into an attack on Fauci.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
10.1.1  Kavika   replied to  TᵢG @10.1    2 weeks ago

Perhaps many of the critics of Fauci are followers of Scott Atlas the know nothing when it comes to COVID.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Kavika @10.1.1    2 weeks ago

Hard to say what motivates people to set an individual as a target and then engage in blatantly obvious confirmation bias to discredit their target.   It is dishonest and often irrational, but partisan 'thinking' tends to manifest that way.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
11  Buzz of the Orient    2 weeks ago

I wonder what life would be like if we didn't have people impose their speculations as if they were actualities, rather than admit that they were nothing more than personal theories.  I now understand the adage about wasting everyone's time by not only imagining how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but trying to convince others of what they dream up to be the answer.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
11.1  Gordy327  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @11    2 weeks ago
I wonder what life would be like if we didn't have people impose their speculations as if they were actualities, rather than admit that they were nothing more than personal theories. 

My guess is a lot less dramatic and disingenuous. 

but trying to convince others of what they dream up to be the answer.  

And some certainly do seem to have very active imaginations.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Just Jim NC TttH
Dismayed Patriot
Snuffy
Sunshine
GregTx
Dulay
CB


50 visitors