Here's a COVID thread for you

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

The guys name is Nicholas Wade. If you are going to keep using him as an expert in this matter, which he isn't, then at least get his name right.

My bad. Sorry. But have you read the article? He refutes WITH DOCUMENTATION just about everything you have said. In his 11,000 word article (and I read every word of it), he traces the history of Sars1 and Sars2 (Covid) research and all the worthwhile and meaningless arguments put forth about the two Covid origination theories. He does not pick a side; he just reports facts. And contrary to what you continue to claim, they ARE FACTS, and not "conspiracy theory" BS. In fact, the bat theory is every bit as much a conspiracy theory as the lab theory. As he and others point out true science demands the consideration of ALL sides, even if they are or seem to be contradictory. I have yet to hear you state or refer to a single FACT. All you have done is repeat the typical talking-point OPINIONS of others.

 

[WreckinGT]

My bad. Sorry. But have you read the article? He refutes WITH DOCUMENTATION just about everything you have said. In his 11,000 word article (and I read every word of it), he traces the history of Sars1 and Sars2 (Covid) research and all the worthwhile and meaningless arguments put forth about the two Covid origination theories. He does not pick a side; he just reports facts. And contrary to what you continue to claim, they ARE FACTS, and not "conspiracy theory" BS. In fact, the bat theory is every bit as much a conspiracy theory as the lab theory. As he and others point out true science demands the consideration of ALL sides, even if they are or seem to be contradictory. I have yet to hear you state or refer to a single FACT. All you have done is repeat the typical talking-point OPINIONS of others.

Facts? He literally states that this is a theory with no proof at the beginning of his article.

I’ll describe the two theories, explain why each is plausible, and then ask which provides the better explanation of the available facts. It’s important to note that so far there is no direct evidence for either theory. Each depends on a set of reasonable conjectures but so far lacks proof. So I have only clues, not conclusions, to offer.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Facts? He literally states that this is a theory with no proof at the beginning of his article.

So your opinion is that covid-19 neither originated from a lab nor from nature, since we don't have definitive proof yet either way?

 

[WreckinGT]

If the NIH didn't ever fund bat research in the Wuhan Lab through EcoHealth, why would they have anything to cancel?

Here is one of your joyous fact checking websites:

Biden didn’t reinstate funding for Wuhan virus lab

CLAIM: President Joe Biden restored taxpayer funding for the Wuhan Institute of Virology...

apnews.com

"In 2014, the NIH granted an award to the EcoHealth Alliance, a New York-based environmental health nonprofit, for a research project on bat coronaviruses. As part of that project, the nonprofit worked with researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology."

Note that continued funding for EcoHealth was canceled last spring, after 6 years of work and funding. So basically you're correct in that funding was canceled. The main thesis of your assertion is thusly proven false that it never existed. Its in the public domain everywhere, including on NIH's website. If there was never any funding or work, then there wouldn't have been anything to cancel.

Here is an article from an asian news site from a year ago. It provides citations to sources and data that shows how several million dollars over the years has gone to fund these virology programs at the Wuhan Lab:

Why Would the US Have Funded the Controversial Wuhan Lab?

Reports about the connection between the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the Wuhan Institute of Virology risk feeding conspiracy theories about the origins of COVID-19.

thediplomat.com

And yes, specifically gain of function research:

Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab with U.S. Dollars

Biomedical research ultimately helps protect public health, Dr. Fauci argued in explaining his support for controversial research.

www.newsweek.com

"In 2019, with the backing of NIAID, the National Institutes of Health committed $3.7 million over six years for research that included some gain-of-function work. The program followed another $3.7 million, 5-year project for collecting and studying bat coronaviruses, which ended in 2019, bringing the total to $7.4 million."

It was obviously canceled for political reasons. You can read the transcript of the emails that lead to the termination of the project. https://www.sciencemag.org/sites/de...lled.partial email transcripts.April 2020.pdf. A cliff notes of it:

April 19th: NIH Director: Hey we heard you guys are using the WIV as a sub recipient of some of these grant funds. You need to stop that immediately.
April 19th: NIH Director: We also want a list of all China based participants since the grant started in 2014.
April 21st: EcoHealth President: We have never given any money from this grant to the WIV.
April 21st: NIH Director: We are noting that no monies have gone to the WIV as part of this grant. You also agree no money will go there in the future.
April 24th: NIH Director: Yeah, on second thought we are cancelling this. Best of luck to you guys.

 

[WreckinGT]

So your opinion is that covid-19 neither originated from a lab nor from nature, since we don't have definitive proof yet either way?

There seems to be much more consensus in the scientific community about the virus evolving naturally but yes, no one has given any real proof as to where it originated so nothing is really off the table. My point isn't that it couldn't have come from a lab. My point is that the very specific theory that it was built in the WIV lab and was funded by Fauci has absolutely no factual basis behind it and therefore is a conspiracy theory.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

There seems to be much more consensus in the scientific community about the virus evolving naturally but yes, no one has given any real proof as to where it originated so nothing is really off the table. My point isn't that it couldn't have come from a lab. My point is that the very specific theory that it was built in the WIV lab and was funded by Fauci has absolutely no factual basis behind it and therefore is a conspiracy theory.

Nobody is asserting that. I think you're arguing with yourself on this.

What people are asserting is that our NIH has been funding gain of function research at home and abroad (like the Wuhan Lab, and he has been an advocate of that), which could lead to things just like covid-19 happening.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Facts? He literally states that this is a theory with no proof at the beginning of his article.

Yes, and he said the exact same thing about the bat-origin THEORY. So why do you CHOOSE to believe one theory and REFUSE to believe another? Are you smarter than Wade or any of the experts he quoted? Do you know something they don't know?

 

[WreckinGT]

Yes, and he said the exact same thing about the bat-origin THEORY. So why do you CHOOSE to believe one theory and REFUSE to believe another? Are you smarter than Wade or any of the experts he quoted? Do you know something they don't know?

Im not choosing to believe either theory. Neither will ever be proven so its a waste of my time. But on one side you have a guy who no one has ever heard of before last week that writes science articles and on the other side you have The WHO, the CDC, the NIH, multiple studies, and the overall consensus of the scientific community. If you are choosing to blankly believe the science writer in that comparison then its hard to imagine its for any reason other than he said what you wanted to hear.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

There seems to be much more consensus in the scientific community about the virus evolving naturally but yes, no one has given any real proof as to where it originated so nothing is really off the table. My point isn't that it couldn't have come from a lab. My point is that the very specific theory that it was built in the WIV lab and was funded by Fauci has absolutely no factual basis behind it and therefore is a conspiracy theory.

Gee, consensus in the "science community". How impressive and meaningful ... NOT. There was once consensus in the science community that the sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was flat too. That shows how much a consensus in the "science community" means. There is also a consensus about climate change, except that there are plenty of scientists who dispute those claims but are never allowed to be heard because their facts don't match the agenda of the climate control freaks. You need look no further than former Tech professor and department chair Dr. Judith Curry as an example of how a once valued member of the climate change "community" was abruptly drummed out of it and put on a black list, because she realized and published that "The climate is going to change independent of what we do with emissions – Thinking that we can control the climate is misguided hubris". All this "consensus of the science community" means is that it's our way or the highway, defying the very nature of true science.

 

[WreckinGT]

Nobody is asserting that. I think you're arguing with yourself on this.

What people are asserting is that our NIH has been funding gain of function research at home and abroad (like the Wuhan Lab, and he has been an advocate of that), which could lead to things just like covid-19 happening.

Fauci has promoted GoF research at times in the past but I'm going to need to see some receipts on the claim that he and the NIH have advocated and funded GoF research at the Wuhan lab.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Im not choosing to believe either theory. Neither will ever be proven so its a waste of my time. But on one side you have a guy who no one has ever heard of before last week that writes science articles and on the other side you have The WHO, the CDC, the NIH, multiple studies, and the overall consensus of the scientific community. If you are choosing to blankly believe the science writer in that comparison then its hard to imagine its for any reason other than he said what you wanted to hear.

That no one has ever heard of ??? Holy s**t. He has been the science writer for the New York Times since 1982 (full time until 2012, freelance since then), and he also has written for both "Nature" and "Science". Just because you have never heard of him doesn't mean no one has ever heard of him. And you seem to demean his writing of science articles, totally ignoring the fact that most OBJECTIVE opinions on any matter, science or otherwise, come from people outside the "community" in question. I would trust Nicholas Wade's opinions (all well documented and supported) over what a member of a government agency says any day of the week.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Fauci has promoted GoF research at times in the past but I'm going to need to see some receipts on the claim that he and the NIH have advocated and funded GoF research at the Wuhan lab.

All the links about what they have posted are listed above. This one in particular probably best answers the particular question for proof you just posted. I know you don't like spending time reading what people post for you when you don't agree with them. But we're not just making things up out of thin air. The reason we are saying the things we are is because the NIH has been very clear about saying the things they say, and have posted it all in the public domain.

Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab with U.S. Dollars

Biomedical research ultimately helps protect public health, Dr. Fauci argued in explaining his support for controversial research.

www.newsweek.com

"the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the organization led by Dr. Fauci, funded scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses."

 

[WreckinGT]

All the links about what they have posted are listed above. This one in particular probably best answers the particular question for proof you just posted. I know you don't like spending time reading what people post for you when you don't agree with them. But we're not just making things up out of thin air. The reason we are saying the things we are is because the NIH has been very clear about saying the things they say, and have posted it all in the public domain.

Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab with U.S. Dollars

Biomedical research ultimately helps protect public health, Dr. Fauci argued in explaining his support for controversial research.

www.newsweek.com

"the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the organization led by Dr. Fauci, funded scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses."

Newsweek saying something doesn't actually make it true. What they are claiming has been publicly disputed. If the NIH has been as transparent as you claim then please point us to the NIH webpage or article where they advocate for GoF funding in the Wuhan lab.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Newsweek saying something doesn't actually make it true. What they are claiming has been publicly disputed. If the NIH has been as transparent as you claim then please point us to the NIH webpage or article where they advocate for GoF funding in the Wuhan lab.

The NIH pages and budgets referencing gain of function work and everything else were also been linked to above.

 

[WreckinGT]

The NIH pages and budgets referencing gain of function work and everything else were also been linked to above.

Yeah I wasn't expecting that you could. This is an actual statement from the NIAID so we can put this to rest:

The research by EcoHealth Alliance, Inc. that NIH funded was for a project that aimed to characterise at the molecular level the function of newly discovered bat spike proteins and naturally occurring pathogens. Molecular characterisation examines functions of an organism at the molecular level, in this case a virus and a spike protein, without affecting the environment or development or physiological state of the organism. At no time did NIAID fund gain-of-function research to be conducted at WIV.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Yeah I wasn't expecting that you could. This is an actual statement from the NIAID so we can put this to rest:

NIAID is one of the agencies accused of impropriety. What else would you expect them to say? That proves nothing.

 

[armeck]

Get vaxxed, get back to 'normal'

CDC says fully vaccinated people don't have to wear masks or distance indoors

"If you are fully vaccinated, you are protected."

www.axios.com

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Yeah I wasn't expecting that you could. This is an actual statement from the NIAID so we can put this to rest:

This has to be a joke. What do you mean you weren't expecting I could. I already did. Here is the link again. This is the actual statement of one of the sources of funding. You can look through as many as you want. Take special note of what specific experiments and protein manipulations they're doing. I don't know what you're getting at here, other than just trolling people and picking fights - both of which are against site rules. Continually accusing people of saying things they're not saying...then demanding people post proof when the very posts you're responding to contain those links is just bizarre. The NIAID did not fund any of this, the NIH did.

RePORT 〉 RePORTER

reporter.nih.gov

 

[Deleted member 2897]

NIAID is one of the agencies accused of impropriety. What else would you expect them to say? That proves nothing.

The NIH website lists all the various funding exercises they've done. Note the NIAID did not fund this - the NIH did and the NIAID merely requested and advocated for it. This is why nobody trusts these jack wagons - they talk out of both sides of their mouths. On their own website they even talk about periods when they paused gain of function research and restarted it, and where the money was going. And I posted exact grant approvals, LOL. At this point you just have to think he's trying to start fights and troll for some reason. He refuses to read the NIH's own website and demands we show references when the exact posts he responds to contain the links he's looking for.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Get vaxxed, get back to 'normal'

CDC says fully vaccinated people don't have to wear masks or distance indoors

"If you are fully vaccinated, you are protected."

www.axios.com

The CDC basically said they take for ****ing ever to analyze data, and that's why they announced today what the rest of the world knew several months ago. It looks like they took the overwhelming criticism in recent days from a broad array of sources to heart. Now if they can only say its okay for children outdoors by themselves to not wear masks, LOL.