1. #31976
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,600
    The Hill reports Fauci’s 375k NIH grant was used “to drug beagles & lock their heads in mesh cages filled with hungry sand flies so that the insects could eat them alive.” Some dogs’ vocal cords were removed to prevent barking. All in the name of “science”

    fake Qhtistian pretending to care about animals.

  2. #31977
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    8,343
    Left - Right - or Middle I think
    all parties need to press China on what happened at the lab and we need to hold them accountable for killing millions of people around the world. If we don’t I can guarantee that one day they will unleash another weapon that only they have a cure for.

  3. #31978
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,511
    Left - Right - or Middle I think
    all parties need to press China on what happened at the lab and we need to hold them accountable for killing millions of people around the world. If we don’t I can guarantee that one day they will unleash another weapon that only they have a cure for.
    And what if they don't?

  4. #31979
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,600
    I rather we continue enslaving China and getting cheap clothes, electronics, etc, tbh...

  5. #31980
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,406
    Colorado pondering healthcare rationing.

    ~120 ICU beds are free for the whole state.


  6. #31981
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Post Count
    18,121
    The Hill reports Fauci’s 375k NIH grant was used “to drug beagles & lock their heads in mesh cages filled with hungry sand flies so that the insects could eat them alive.” Some dogs’ vocal cords were removed to prevent barking. All in the name of “science”

    Why are you attacking science

  7. #31982
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,406
    ^^^fighting for the underderp, you love to see it.

    what about the puppies!

  8. #31983
    Believe. Cuck Ross's Avatar
    My Team
    Cleveland Cavaliers
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    537
    In Major Shift, NIH Admits Funding Risky Virus Research in Wuhan

    “I totally resent the lie you are now propagating.”
    Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared to be channeling the frustration of millions of Americans when he spoke those words during an invective-laden, made-for-Twitter Senate hearing on July 20. You didn’t have to be a Democrat to be fed up with all the xenophobic finger-pointing and outright disinformation, coming mainly from the right, up to and including the claim that COVID-19 was a bioweapon cooked up in a lab.
    The immediate target of Dr. Fauci’s wrath was Senator Rand Paul, who was pressing the nation’s top doctor to say whether the National Ins utes of Health had ever funded risky coronavirus research at the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology. Based on new information disclosed by the National Ins utes of Health, however, Paul might have been onto something.
    On Wednesday, the NIH sent a letter to members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce that acknowledged two facts. One was that EcoHealth Alliance, a New York City–based nonprofit that partners with far-flung laboratories to research and prevent the outbreak of emerging diseases, did indeed enhance a bat coronavirus to become potentially more infectious to humans, which the NIH letter described as an “unexpected result” of the research it funded that was carried out in partnership with the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology. The second was that EcoHealth Alliance violated the terms of its grant conditions stipulating that it had to report if its research increased the viral growth of a pathogen by tenfold.
    The NIH based these disclosures on a research progress report that EcoHealth Alliance sent to the agency in August, roughly two years after it was supposed to. An NIH spokesperson told Vanity Fairthat Dr. Fauci was “entirely truthful in his statements to Congress,” and that he did not have the progress report that detailed the controversial research at the time he testified in July. But EcoHealth Alliance appeared to contradict that claim, and said in a statement: “These data were reported as soon as we were made aware, in our year four report in April 2018.”



    The letter from the NIH, and an accompanying analysis, stipulated that the virus EcoHealth Alliance was researching could not have sparked the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, given the sizable genetic differences between the two. In a statement issued Wednesday, NIH director Dr. Francis Collins said that his agency “wants to set the record straight” on EcoHealth Alliance’s research, but added that any claims that it could have caused the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic are “demonstrably false.”
    EcoHealth Alliance said in a statement that the science clearly proved that its research could not have led to the pandemic, and that it was “working with the NIH to promptly address what we believe to be a misconception about the grant’s reporting requirements and what the data from our research showed.”
    But the NIH letter—coming after months of congressional demands for more information—seemed to underscore that America’s premier science ins ute has been less than forthcoming about risky research it has funded and failed to properly monitor. Instead of helping to lead a search for COVID-19’s origins, with the pandemic now firmly in its 19th month, the NIH has circled the wagons, defending its grant system and scientific judgment against a rising tide of questions. “It’s just another chapter in a sad tale of inadequate oversight, disregard for risk, and insensitivity to the importance of transparency,” said Stanford microbiologist Dr. David Relman. “Given all of the sensitivity about this work, it’s difficult to understand why NIH and EcoHealth have still not explained a number of irregularities with the reporting on this grant.”
    The disclosures of the last four months—since Vanity Fair was first to detail how conflicts of interest resulting from U.S. government funding of controversial virology research hampered America’s investigation into COVID-19’s origins—present an increasingly disturbing picture.



    Early last month, The Intercept publishedmore than 900 pages of do ents it obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the NIH, relating to EcoHealth Alliance’s grant research. But there was one do ent missing, a fifth and final progress report that EcoHealth Alliance had been required to submit at the end of its grant period in 2019.
    In its letter Wednesday, NIH included that missing progress report, which was dated August 2021. That report described a “limited experiment,” as the NIH letter phrased it, in which laboratory mice infected with an altered virus became “sicker than those infected with” a naturally occurring one.
    The letter did not mention the phrase “gain-of-function research” that has become so central to the bitter clashes over COVID-19’s origins. That type of controversial research—the manipulation of pathogens with the aim of making them more infectious in order to gauge their risk to humans—has divided the virology community. A review system established in 2017 requires federal agencies to particularly scrutinize any research proposals that involve enhancing a pathogen’s infectiousness to humans.
    Dr. Fauci’s spokesperson told Vanity Fairthat EcoHealth Alliance’s research did not fall under that framework, since the experiments being funded “were not reasonably expected to increase transmissibility or virulence in humans.”
    However, Alina Chan, a Boston-based scientist and coauthor of the book Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19,said the NIH was in a “very challenging position. They funded research internationally to help study novel pathogens and prevent against them. But they had no way to know what viruses had been collected, what experiments had been conducted, and what accidents might have occurred.”
    As scientists remain in a stalemate over the pandemic’s origins, another disclosure last month made clear that EcoHealth Alliance, in partnership with the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology, was aiming to do the kind of research that could accidentally have led to the pandemic. On September 20, a group of internet sleuths calling themselves DRASTIC (short for Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19) released a leaked $14 million grant proposal that EcoHealth Alliance had submitted in 2018 to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).



    It proposed partnering with the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology and constructing SARS-related bat coronaviruses into which they would insert “human-specific cleavage sites” as a way to “evaluate growth potential” of the pathogens. Perhaps not surprisingly, DARPA rejected the proposal, assessing that it failed to fully address the risks of gain-of-function research.
    The leaked grant proposal struck a number of scientists and researchers as significant for one reason. One distinctive segment of SARS-CoV-2’s genetic code is a furin cleavage site that makes the virus more infectious by allowing it to efficiently enter human cells. That is just the feature that EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology had proposed to engineer in the 2018 grant proposal. “If I applied for funding to paint Central Park purple and was denied, but then a year later we woke up to find Central Park painted purple, I’d be a prime suspect,” said Jamie Metzl, a former executive vice president of the Asia Society, who sits on the World Health Organization’s advisory committee on human genome editing and has been calling for a transparent investigation into COVID-19’s origins.
    The claims of a lab origin, made without evidence in April 2020 by President Donald Trump, have turned into a legitimate, long-haul hunt for the truth that even U.S. intelligence agencies cannot seem to determine. This summer an intelligence review ordered by President Joe Biden drew no definitive conclusions but left open the possibility that the virus leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan, China.
    The NIH’s letter to Congress stated that the agency is giving EcoHealth five days to submit any unpublished data from the experiments it funded. Republican leaders of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, who in June asked the NIH to demand such data, said in a statement Wednesday that “it’s unacceptable that the NIH delayed asking EcoHealth Alliance to submit unpublished data about risky research that they were required to under the terms of their grant.”
    Meanwhile, members of the DRASTIC coalition have continued their research. As one member, Gilles Demaneuf, a data scientist in New Zealand, told Vanity Fair,“I cannot be sure that [COVID-19 originated from] a research-related accident or infection from a sampling trip. But I am 100% sure there was a massive cover-up.”

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021...earch-in-wuhan



  9. #31984
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,600
    said Stanford microbiologist Dr. David Relman

    However, Alina Chan, a Boston-based scientist and coauthor of the book Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19, said

    said Jamie Metzl, a former executive

    again, you don't need to ask anybody's opinion if the do ents say straight up what these people are claiming...

  10. #31985
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    38,097
    Why are you attacking science
    This is funny.
    If we did not do research on dogs the major medical procedures now performed on hearts in human beings would be set back to almost nothing.
    I dont particularly like this as I love dogs. But huge advances were made due to these experiments.
    So because of this I suggest you and Chrissy decline any heart medicine or procedures as a show of support for non animal experimentation.

  11. #31986
    Believe. Cuck Ross's Avatar
    My Team
    Cleveland Cavaliers
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    537
    said Stanford microbiologist Dr. David Relman

    However, Alina Chan, a Boston-based scientist and coauthor of the book Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19, said

    said Jamie Metzl, a former executive

    again, you don't need to ask anybody's opinion if the do ents say straight up what these people are claiming...
    It’s just another chapter in a sad tale of inadequate oversight, disregard for risk, and insensitivity to the importance of transparency,” said Stanford microbiologist Dr. David Relman. “Given all of the sensitivity about this work, it’s difficult to understand why NIH and EcoHealth have still not explained a number of irregularities with the reporting on this grant.”

    what’s your issue with this?

    However, Alina Chan, a Boston-based scientist and coauthor of the book Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19,said the NIH was in a “very challenging position. They funded research internationally to help study novel pathogens and prevent against them. But they had no way to know what viruses had been collected, what experiments had been conducted, and what accidents might have occurred.”

    what’s your issue with this?


    If I applied for funding to paint Central Park purple and was denied, but then a year later we woke up to find Central Park painted purple, I’d be a prime suspect,” said Jamie Metzl, a former executive vice president of the Asia Society, who sits on the World Health Organization’s advisory committee on human genome editing and has been calling for a transparent investigation into COVID-19’s origins.

    what’s your issue with this?

    The do ents clearly say this.

    On Wednesday, the NIH sent a letter to members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce that acknowledged two facts. One was that EcoHealth Alliance, a New York City–based nonprofit that partners with far-flung laboratories to research and prevent the outbreak of emerging diseases, did indeed enhance a bat coronavirus to become potentially more infectious to humans, which the NIH letter described as an “unexpected result” of the research it funded that was carried out in partnership with the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology. The second was that EcoHealth Alliance violated the terms of its grant conditions stipulating that it had to report if its research increased the viral growth of a pathogen by tenfold.

  12. #31987
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    38,097
    In Major Shift, NIH Admits Funding Risky Virus Research in Wuhan


    “I totally resent the lie you are now propagating.”
    Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared to be channeling the frustration of millions of Americans when he spoke those words during an invective-laden, made-for-Twitter Senate hearing on July 20. You didn’t have to be a Democrat to be fed up with all the xenophobic finger-pointing and outright disinformation, coming mainly from the right, up to and including the claim that COVID-19 was a bioweapon cooked up in a lab.
    The immediate target of Dr. Fauci’s wrath was Senator Rand Paul, who was pressing the nation’s top doctor to say whether the National Ins utes of Health had ever funded risky coronavirus research at the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology. Based on new information disclosed by the National Ins utes of Health, however, Paul might have been onto something.
    On Wednesday, the NIH sent a letter to members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce that acknowledged two facts. One was that EcoHealth Alliance, a New York City–based nonprofit that partners with far-flung laboratories to research and prevent the outbreak of emerging diseases, did indeed enhance a bat coronavirus to become potentially more infectious to humans, which the NIH letter described as an “unexpected result” of the research it funded that was carried out in partnership with the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology. The second was that EcoHealth Alliance violated the terms of its grant conditions stipulating that it had to report if its research increased the viral growth of a pathogen by tenfold.
    The NIH based these disclosures on a research progress report that EcoHealth Alliance sent to the agency in August, roughly two years after it was supposed to. An NIH spokesperson told Vanity Fairthat Dr. Fauci was “entirely truthful in his statements to Congress,” and that he did not have the progress report that detailed the controversial research at the time he testified in July. But EcoHealth Alliance appeared to contradict that claim, and said in a statement: “These data were reported as soon as we were made aware, in our year four report in April 2018.”



    The letter from the NIH, and an accompanying analysis, stipulated that the virus EcoHealth Alliance was researching could not have sparked the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, given the sizable genetic differences between the two. In a statement issued Wednesday, NIH director Dr. Francis Collins said that his agency “wants to set the record straight” on EcoHealth Alliance’s research, but added that any claims that it could have caused the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic are “demonstrably false.”
    EcoHealth Alliance said in a statement that the science clearly proved that its research could not have led to the pandemic, and that it was “working with the NIH to promptly address what we believe to be a misconception about the grant’s reporting requirements and what the data from our research showed.”
    But the NIH letter—coming after months of congressional demands for more information—seemed to underscore that America’s premier science ins ute has been less than forthcoming about risky research it has funded and failed to properly monitor. Instead of helping to lead a search for COVID-19’s origins, with the pandemic now firmly in its 19th month, the NIH has circled the wagons, defending its grant system and scientific judgment against a rising tide of questions. “It’s just another chapter in a sad tale of inadequate oversight, disregard for risk, and insensitivity to the importance of transparency,” said Stanford microbiologist Dr. David Relman. “Given all of the sensitivity about this work, it’s difficult to understand why NIH and EcoHealth have still not explained a number of irregularities with the reporting on this grant.”
    The disclosures of the last four months—since Vanity Fair was first to detail how conflicts of interest resulting from U.S. government funding of controversial virology research hampered America’s investigation into COVID-19’s origins—present an increasingly disturbing picture.



    Early last month, The Intercept publishedmore than 900 pages of do ents it obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the NIH, relating to EcoHealth Alliance’s grant research. But there was one do ent missing, a fifth and final progress report that EcoHealth Alliance had been required to submit at the end of its grant period in 2019.
    In its letter Wednesday, NIH included that missing progress report, which was dated August 2021. That report described a “limited experiment,” as the NIH letter phrased it, in which laboratory mice infected with an altered virus became “sicker than those infected with” a naturally occurring one.
    The letter did not mention the phrase “gain-of-function research” that has become so central to the bitter clashes over COVID-19’s origins. That type of controversial research—the manipulation of pathogens with the aim of making them more infectious in order to gauge their risk to humans—has divided the virology community. A review system established in 2017 requires federal agencies to particularly scrutinize any research proposals that involve enhancing a pathogen’s infectiousness to humans.
    Dr. Fauci’s spokesperson told Vanity Fairthat EcoHealth Alliance’s research did not fall under that framework, since the experiments being funded “were not reasonably expected to increase transmissibility or virulence in humans.”
    However, Alina Chan, a Boston-based scientist and coauthor of the book Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19,said the NIH was in a “very challenging position. They funded research internationally to help study novel pathogens and prevent against them. But they had no way to know what viruses had been collected, what experiments had been conducted, and what accidents might have occurred.”
    As scientists remain in a stalemate over the pandemic’s origins, another disclosure last month made clear that EcoHealth Alliance, in partnership with the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology, was aiming to do the kind of research that could accidentally have led to the pandemic. On September 20, a group of internet sleuths calling themselves DRASTIC (short for Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19) released a leaked $14 million grant proposal that EcoHealth Alliance had submitted in 2018 to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).



    It proposed partnering with the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology and constructing SARS-related bat coronaviruses into which they would insert “human-specific cleavage sites” as a way to “evaluate growth potential” of the pathogens. Perhaps not surprisingly, DARPA rejected the proposal, assessing that it failed to fully address the risks of gain-of-function research.
    The leaked grant proposal struck a number of scientists and researchers as significant for one reason. One distinctive segment of SARS-CoV-2’s genetic code is a furin cleavage site that makes the virus more infectious by allowing it to efficiently enter human cells. That is just the feature that EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology had proposed to engineer in the 2018 grant proposal. “If I applied for funding to paint Central Park purple and was denied, but then a year later we woke up to find Central Park painted purple, I’d be a prime suspect,” said Jamie Metzl, a former executive vice president of the Asia Society, who sits on the World Health Organization’s advisory committee on human genome editing and has been calling for a transparent investigation into COVID-19’s origins.
    The claims of a lab origin, made without evidence in April 2020 by President Donald Trump, have turned into a legitimate, long-haul hunt for the truth that even U.S. intelligence agencies cannot seem to determine. This summer an intelligence review ordered by President Joe Biden drew no definitive conclusions but left open the possibility that the virus leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan, China.
    The NIH’s letter to Congress stated that the agency is giving EcoHealth five days to submit any unpublished data from the experiments it funded. Republican leaders of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, who in June asked the NIH to demand such data, said in a statement Wednesday that “it’s unacceptable that the NIH delayed asking EcoHealth Alliance to submit unpublished data about risky research that they were required to under the terms of their grant.”
    Meanwhile, members of the DRASTIC coalition have continued their research. As one member, Gilles Demaneuf, a data scientist in New Zealand, told Vanity Fair,“I cannot be sure that [COVID-19 originated from] a research-related accident or infection from a sampling trip. But I am 100% sure there was a massive cover-up.”

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021...earch-in-wuhan


    copy past wall of text and then dont read it.
    propaganda of lazy derp.

    They want to find the animal vector and its evolution and derp wants it to be manufactured in a lab.
    Sorry derp.

  13. #31988
    Believe. Cuck Ross's Avatar
    My Team
    Cleveland Cavaliers
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    537
    copy past wall of text and then dont read it.
    propaganda of lazy derp.

    They want to find the animal vector and its evolution and derp wants it to be manufactured in a lab.
    Sorry derp.
    The US funded research has been lied about by multiple parties. No one is claiming Covid is from a lab leak yet they are just calling for more transparency. Did you even read the article?

  14. #31989
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,511
    What is TSA's conspiracy theory this time?

  15. #31990
    Take the fcking keys away baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    93,021
    ROFL Karen

  16. #31991
    Believe. daboom1's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Post Count
    8,022

  17. #31992
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,600
    It’s just another chapter in a sad tale of inadequate oversight, disregard for risk, and insensitivity to the importance of transparency,” said Stanford microbiologist Dr. David Relman. “Given all of the sensitivity about this work, it’s difficult to understand why NIH and EcoHealth have still not explained a number of irregularities with the reporting on this grant.”

    what’s your issue with this?

    However, Alina Chan, a Boston-based scientist and coauthor of the book Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19,said the NIH was in a “very challenging position. They funded research internationally to help study novel pathogens and prevent against them. But they had no way to know what viruses had been collected, what experiments had been conducted, and what accidents might have occurred.”

    what’s your issue with this?


    If I applied for funding to paint Central Park purple and was denied, but then a year later we woke up to find Central Park painted purple, I’d be a prime suspect,” said Jamie Metzl, a former executive vice president of the Asia Society, who sits on the World Health Organization’s advisory committee on human genome editing and has been calling for a transparent investigation into COVID-19’s origins.

    what’s your issue with this?
    My issue is with fake news and outright lying. This is entirely a logical argument.

    If the do ents clearly state that this was gain-of-function research that unleashed COVID, you wouldn't need third parties having to explain that "what the do ents really say is that this is a gain-of-function research that launched COVID".

    You're (once again) trying to derive fact from fiction, by "connecting the dots" and all that stupidity. The 'smoking gun' do ents clearly don't say what some people (including you) wanted them to say, that's too bad. The papers are available for everyone to see and discern for themselves what they actually say.

    The do ents clearly say this.

    On Wednesday, the NIH sent a letter to members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce that acknowledged two facts. One was that EcoHealth Alliance, a New York City–based nonprofit that partners with far-flung laboratories to research and prevent the outbreak of emerging diseases, did indeed enhance a bat coronavirus to become potentially more infectious to humans, which the NIH letter described as an “unexpected result” of the research it funded that was carried out in partnership with the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology. The second was that EcoHealth Alliance violated the terms of its grant conditions stipulating that it had to report if its research increased the viral growth of a pathogen by tenfold.
    You can't even keep up with your own story, so let me help you.

    That's not "the do ents" (which are the do ents The Intercept obtained). The Intercept obtained those do ents "early last month" per your own story, so "on wednesday" certainly falls well past when the do ents were obtained.

    The letter also doesn't make any claims about origins of COVID (much to your grief, I'm sure) or gain-of-function. Simply point out that one contractor broke it's agreement with the NIH.

  18. #31993
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,600
    more wishcasting from beep boop

  19. #31994
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,600
    And what's with the alt Ross? Did you lose a bet?

  20. #31995
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,511
    what is this supposed to be?

    Fauci actually looks more like a bad haircut Chief Brodie than any Nazi.


  21. #31996
    Believe. Cuck Ross's Avatar
    My Team
    Cleveland Cavaliers
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    537
    My issue is with fake news and outright lying. This is entirely a logical argument.

    If the do ents clearly state that this was gain-of-function research that unleashed COVID, you wouldn't need third parties having to explain that "what the do ents really say is that this is a gain-of-function research that launched COVID".

    You're (once again) trying to derive fact from fiction, by "connecting the dots" and all that stupidity. The 'smoking gun' do ents clearly don't say what some people (including you) wanted them to say, that's too bad. The papers are available for everyone to see and discern for themselves what they actually say.



    You can't even keep up with your own story, so let me help you.

    That's not "the do ents" (which are the do ents The Intercept obtained). The Intercept obtained those do ents "early last month" per your own story, so "on wednesday" certainly falls well past when the do ents were obtained.

    The letter also doesn't make any claims about origins of COVID (much to your grief, I'm sure) or gain-of-function. Simply point out that one contractor broke it's agreement with the NIH.
    You’re barking up the wrong tree.

    Never once claimed the gain of function research unleashed Covid. Neither did anyone quoted in the article. Fauci lied about gain of function research being funded by the US.

  22. #31997
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,600
    You’re barking up the wrong tree.

    Never once claimed the gain of function research unleashed Covid. Neither did anyone quoted in the article. Fauci lied about gain of function research being funded by the US.
    No, I'm not. Let me remind you what you posted, because it looks like you have shaky memory...



    The letter goes to great lengths to explain why the EcoHealth Alliance research couldn't have been the progenitor to COVID (which purportedly was the question asked to them by a member of Congress), AND doesn't mention even once gain-of-function.

    That apparently didn't stop Richard H. Ebright, whoever that is, to claim the exact opposite in his clickbait tweet, and apparently you fell for it. It's ok, it happens.

    This obviously comes after Dr Fauci made Trump look stupid and repeatedly schooled Rand Paul in Congress, and the fake news have been non-stop since.

    I'm not a friend of Fauci, I don't owe him anything, but it's been clear for a long ass time Republicans hate his guts.

    To sum up, there's zero evidence so far that Fauci lied about the NIH research in Wuhan, and there has never been any admission from the NIH that he lied about the NIH research in Wuhan either.

    There's a bunch of internal papers from the NIH that also don't plainly state nor prove Fauci lied about the NIH research in Wuhan. But if you ask Ricky the biologist, or Rita the biochemist their opinions about those papers, they think it means Fauci lied. Good for them, it proves zero.

  23. #31998
    Veteran hater's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    70,642
    Pandemic is over here. But maybe not for long.....



  24. #31999
    Veteran hater's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    70,642

  25. #32000
    Veteran hater's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    70,642

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 8 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 8 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •