Declassified Report on Covid Origins

[KansasTiger 3,248]

14 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

I'm assuming, since you won't provide a source, that you're referring to the chimera research they did? Certainly some scientists disagree as to whether that's gain of function, but just because some see it that way does not mean Fauci lied, as clearly the NIH doesn't see it that way.

I suppose since you disagree, Fauci must obviously be a scumbag who must be destroyed. Clearly he's been working just to make himself rich and powerful with his 50+ years in public service and becoming one of the most respected people in the world in the medical field. It's too bad Rand Paul, or at the least SOMEONE during Fauci's service through seven Presidential administrations, couldn't have discovered sooner how evil he was and saved us.

 

And just a quick addendum. You really do sound just like the WAPO article, it's amazing. Hard Left leaning WAPO showed it to 11 scientists (which is an odd number to land on, makes you think maybe they needed an extra vote to pad some numbers, who knows...), which it's not hard to use some deductive reasoning and consider they didn't pick all completely unbiased ones since many scientists these days dont seem to play nice with conservative ideas anyway, and still a majority of them (64%) thought the research was gain of function. Yet you sound like HBO trying to explain to everyone that season 8 of GOT wasn't disliked by most, just divisive.

[Leftfield 2,617]

21 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

Yes, it really is a shame. Would have saved some lives for what he and others did during the AIDS emergence, too.

Explain?

[Leftfield 2,617]

12 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

And just a quick addendum. You really do sound just like the WAPO article, it's amazing. Hard Left leaning WAPO showed it to 11 scientists (which is an odd number to land on, makes you think maybe they needed an extra vote to pad some numbers, who knows...), which it's not hard to use some deductive reasoning and consider they didn't pick all completely unbiased ones since many scientists these days dont seem to play nice with conservative ideas anyway, and still a majority of them (64%) thought the research was gain of function. Yet you sound like HBO trying to explain to everyone that season 8 of GOT wasn't disliked by most, just divisive.

And this entire paragraph sounds just like someone who would support an RFK/Rand Paul ticket. Congrats?

You can make the argument that the NIH needs to add chimera research to the gain-of-function category, but since it currently isn't, Fauci was not lying about the research they were doing.

[KansasTiger 3,248]

Just now, Leftfield said:

And this entire paragraph sounds just like someone who would support an RFK/Rand Paul ticket. Congrats?

You can make the argument that the NIH needs to add chimera research to the gain-of-function category, but since it currently isn't, Fauci was not lying about the research they were doing.

LOL. We get to define things our self now and it counts in the general public? Like Trump didn't define those documents he kept as classified, so they aren't. I dont think anyone outside of being a Fauci MSM schill cares what the NIH defined it as. The criminals don't get to make their own definitions.

Try again.

[Leftfield 2,617]

3 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

LOL. We get to define things our self now and it counts in the general public?

Well, isn't that what you're doing? You're calling it GOF, even though there's clearly debate among scientists about it. State why you think it's GOF.

 

12 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

 I dont think anyone outside of being a Fauci MSM schill cares what the NIH defined it as. The criminals don't get to make their own definitions.

Try again.

So, as I said, since you disagree with their guidelines as to how GOF is defined, you call them criminal. You cite the fact that 7 of 11 scientists (are they all virologists/infectious disease experts?) think it meets their definition, but ignore the fact that the NIH having a different definition necessarily means that a majority of their scientists disagree with them.

What is your end game here? If you find out Fauci lied, what then? Do you feel there's a connection to the Covid outbreak, or do you just think he's a bad person?

 

[KansasTiger 3,248]

4 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Well, isn't that what you're doing? You're calling it GOF, even though there's clearly debate among scientists about it. State why you think it's GOF.

 

So, as I said, since you disagree with their guidelines as to how GOF is defined, you call them criminal. You cite the fact that 7 of 11 scientists (are they all virologists/infectious disease experts?) think it meets their definition, but ignore the fact that the NIH having a different definition necessarily means that a majority of their scientists disagree with them.

What is your end game here? If you find out Fauci lied, what then? Do you feel there's a connection to the Covid outbreak, or do you just think he's a bad person?

 

Yes they were all virologists. WAPO felt it necessary to get outside opinions so they must have thought going by the NIH definition alone was not compelling, and they were right. The NIH and Fauci were the ones held in question, of course they didnt define it as GOF. Their definition at that point is meaningless. And I'm agreeing with the clear majority of the virologist outside the NIH and how they defined it. Like the dems say, believe the science.

As I stated earlier to Iam, I can't make the jump in logic to GOF being connected to the Covid outbreak yet. I haven't seen compelling evidence of that. But clearly when someone is established as being a liar, it doesn't set a good precedent for their other decisions.

[KansasTiger 3,248]

35 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Well, isn't that what you're doing? You're calling it GOF, even though there's clearly debate among scientists about it. State why you think it's GOF.

 

So, as I said, since you disagree with their guidelines as to how GOF is defined, you call them criminal. You cite the fact that 7 of 11 scientists (are they all virologists/infectious disease experts?) think it meets their definition, but ignore the fact that the NIH having a different definition necessarily means that a majority of their scientists disagree with them.

What is your end game here? If you find out Fauci lied, what then? Do you feel there's a connection to the Covid outbreak, or do you just think he's a bad person?

 

Also, we ceased GOF for a reason. It's dangerous. To continue to fund it outside the US to skirt a rule Obama put in place, is very shady, if not potentially illegal. I'm no expert on the details of the law when it comes to that kind of activity.

[Leftfield 2,617]

12 hours ago, KansasTiger said:

Yes they were all virologists. WAPO felt it necessary to get outside opinions so they must have thought going by the NIH definition alone was not compelling, and they were right.

So you actually think the media wasn't complicit with "the libs" this time? Just a coincidence that you agree with what they wrote?

12 hours ago, KansasTiger said:

The NIH and Fauci were the ones held in question, of course they didnt define it as GOF. Their definition at that point is meaningless.

Just because you don't want their definition to count doesn't make it so. It is at the very heart of your accusation. You don't get to simply dismiss it.

12 hours ago, KansasTiger said:

And I'm agreeing with the clear majority of the virologist outside the NIH and how they defined it. Like the dems say, believe the science.

You're agreeing with a clear majority of the 11 virologists cited. That's certainly a sign that perhaps the NIH might want to rethink what they consider GOF, but hardly a slam-dunk "Holy s**t, what are those guys doing?" 

12 hours ago, KansasTiger said:

But clearly when someone is established as being a liar, it doesn't set a good precedent for their other decisions.

But neither you, nor anyone else, has established that. 

Edited June 28, 2023 by Leftfield

[Leftfield 2,617]

3 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

Also, we ceased GOF for a reason. It's dangerous. To continue to fund it outside the US to skirt a rule Obama put in place, is very shady, if not potentially illegal. I'm no expert on the details of the law when it comes to that kind of activity.

Yes, there was a moratorium to examine what it entailed and to establish guidelines, which they did. This research was not included in the moratorium because the NIH did not consider it to be GOF. There was nothing illegal about it.

Here's an article that addresses chimeric research. Note that this was actually done with Covid strains, unlike what was done in the Wuhan lab: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/gain-function-not-so-fast.

Might also note that, according to that article, they were performing another review of the policies on GOF, so perhaps other changes are coming.

[KansasTiger 3,248]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

So you actually think the media wasn't complicit with "the libs" this time? Just a coincidence that you agree with what they wrote?

Just because you don't want their definition to count doesn't make it so. It is at the very heart of your accusation. You don't get to simply dismiss it.

You're agreeing with a clear majority of the 11 virologists cited. That's certainly a sign that perhaps the NIH might want to rethink what they consider GOF, but hardly a slam-dunk "Holy s**t, what are those guys doing?" 

But you, nor anyone else, has established that. 

Not sure what all influences the media at times. But I picked a source that you could agree was in line with what you might consider reliable. And I dont agree with everything they wrote.

I'm not dismissing their definition, WAPO did when they got an outside opinion that mostly disagreed.

It's a sign that how the NIH was choosing to classify it was questionable, at best. 

We've established that the NIH was probably misclassifying their research. Their motives are always going to be a mystery in this day and age where investigative journalism is lacking. But for those of us that don't inherently trust govt institutions, it's a red flag.

Edited June 28, 2023 by KansasTiger

[KansasTiger 3,248]

37 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Yes, there was a moratorium to examine what it entailed and to establish guidelines, which they did. This research was not included in the moratorium because the NIH did not consider it to be GOF. There was nothing illegal about it.

Here's an article that addresses chimeric research. Note that this was actually done with Covid strains, unlike what was done in the Wuhan lab: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/gain-function-not-so-fast.

Might also note that, according to that article, they were performing another review of the policies on GOF, so perhaps other changes are coming.

Again, because they chose to classify it as not GOF doesn't mean it automatically wasn't. If it was, as we've established a majority of outside opinion thinks, then it could have been illegal.

Edited June 28, 2023 by KansasTiger

[homersapien 11,393]

Fauci "scandal"= Hunter Biden "scandal" = Fauci "scandal"

Similarities are remarkably similar.  No actual evidence in either case.  Same laypeople fabricating conspiracies worthy of Q-Anon.  

 

[Leftfield 2,617]

13 hours ago, KansasTiger said:

I'm not dismissing their definition, WAPO did when they got an outside opinion that mostly disagreed.

It's a sign that how the NIH was choosing to classify it was questionable, at best. 

We've established that the NIH was probably misclassifying their research. Their motives are always going to be a mystery in this day and age where investigative journalism is lacking. But for those of us that don't inherently trust govt institutions, it's a red flag.

You are inferring conclusions that aren't there. 

WAPO didn't dismiss the NIH's definition. In fact, after reading the article I'm assuming you were referring to (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/29/repeated-claim-that-fauci-lied-congress-about-gain-of-function-research/) it appears it wasn't WAPO that questioned the scientists at all. It was The Intercept. The WAPO article is neutral, as it should be, and claims the subject is disputed in the scientific community. The article does not make a claim one way or the other, though it does say that Rand Paul is incorrect in saying Fauci lied:

EcoHealth’s research has come under increased scrutiny after more details about its work in China have been revealed, either through congressional or journalistic pressure. The NIH letter, flawed though it may be, indicates the federal government is taking a closer look, too.

But we see no reason to change the Two Pinocchio rating we awarded Paul. There is a split in the scientific community about what constitutes gain-of-function research. To this day, NIH says this research did not meet the criteria — a stance that is not an outlier in the scientific community. Indeed, it appears as if EcoHealth halted the experiment as soon as it seemed to veer in that direction.

Meanwhile, Cotton and Cruz are spinning the letter as confirming what it does not say. They are welcome to offer an opinion about its meaning. But, so far, it’s not a fact that NIH has admitted funding gain-of-function research. So they also earn Two Pinocchios.

[KansasTiger 3,248]

12 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

You are inferring conclusions that aren't there. 

WAPO didn't dismiss the NIH's definition. In fact, after reading the article I'm assuming you were referring to (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/29/repeated-claim-that-fauci-lied-congress-about-gain-of-function-research/) it appears it wasn't WAPO that questioned the scientists at all. It was The Intercept. The WAPO article is neutral, as it should be, and claims the subject is disputed in the scientific community. The article does not make a claim one way or the other, though it does say that Rand Paul is incorrect in saying Fauci lied:

EcoHealth’s research has come under increased scrutiny after more details about its work in China have been revealed, either through congressional or journalistic pressure. The NIH letter, flawed though it may be, indicates the federal government is taking a closer look, too.

But we see no reason to change the Two Pinocchio rating we awarded Paul. There is a split in the scientific community about what constitutes gain-of-function research. To this day, NIH says this research did not meet the criteria — a stance that is not an outlier in the scientific community. Indeed, it appears as if EcoHealth halted the experiment as soon as it seemed to veer in that direction.

Meanwhile, Cotton and Cruz are spinning the letter as confirming what it does not say. They are welcome to offer an opinion about its meaning. But, so far, it’s not a fact that NIH has admitted funding gain-of-function research. So they also earn Two Pinocchios.

You know what. Youre right. I shouldn't have said WAPO went out and got an outside opinion. I was on the verge of being impressed with at least that facet of the article; would have been out of character for them. I should have known better.

The article is far from neutral. But I know that's hard to come to terms with, so I'll just let that be for now.

[AUApostle 7,651]

Human guinea pigs.

[KansasTiger 3,248]

40 minutes ago, AUDevil said:

Human guinea pigs.

That's kind of good news for those that got the placebo...

[SLAG-91 1,483]

Seems like the place to put this...

https://theintercept.com/2023/06/29/covid-nih-personal-email-foia/

[homersapien 11,393]

On 6/27/2023 at 11:02 PM, KansasTiger said:

Also, we ceased GOF for a reason. It's dangerous. To continue to fund it outside the US to skirt a rule Obama put in place, is very shady, if not potentially illegal .I'm no expert on the details of the law when it comes to that kind of activity.

Are you an expert in virology?

Point being, I don't think anyone on this forum is in a position to make definitive assertions about the significance or purpose of any virological research, much less what the NIH and/or Fauci has sponsored in the past. 

Edited June 30, 2023 by homersapien

[KansasTiger 3,248]

38 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Are you an expert in virology?

Point being, I don't think anyone on this forum is in a position to make definitive assertions about the significance or purpose of any virological research, much less what the NIH and/or Fauci has sponsored in the past. 

Which is why I cited the one opinion outside the NIH as my argument,  where again, the majority of scientists asked disagreed with the NIH. At the very least, that brings into question the need for more outside opinion, not a falling back to relying on the NIH's definition that has just been called into quedtion.

Just from an effective argument standpoint, If half of America doesn't trust the NIH and Fauci, using how the NIH classifies this research as a main argument point is not effective in convincing anyone that doesn't already see it the way you do.