SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Lab or natural?
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1620734398

Message started by WebsterMark on 05/11/21 at 04:59:58

Title: Lab or natural?
Post by WebsterMark on 05/11/21 at 04:59:58

Long and complicated read, but worth the effort.

The CliffNotes version is the source of SARS-CoV-2 is more likely to be from the lab as opposed to a natural jump from animals. Couple the science facts outlined in the article with the political objection to any possibility the lab was the source and it seems highly likely that’s where it came from.

The last few paragraphs bring a familiar name into the conversation so it will be interesting to see our defenders of Democracy provide cover for their chosen one.

https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by Eegore on 05/11/21 at 06:09:58

It is good that more information is coming forth.

Here are some of the references in full from this article as well as some of my own research.

Original grant information and requests.

https://grantome.com/grant/NIH/R01-AI110964-06

https://grantome.com/grant/NIH/R01-AI110964-04

Shi's NLM document:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7097006/

Easy breakdown by Yuri Deigin:

https://yurideigin.medium.com/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens-of-gain-of-function-research-f96dd7413748

An older, but yet to be refuted analysis of the lack of natural transfer chain.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.06199

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by MnSpring on 05/11/21 at 09:16:49

(From the link originaly posted)

The best was:

Quote:

“…Chinese authorities. China’s central authorities did not generate SARS2, but they sure did their utmost to conceal the nature of the tragedy and China’s responsibility for it. They suppressed all records at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and closed down its virus databases. They released a trickle of information, much of which may have been outright false or designed to misdirect and mislead. They did their best to manipulate the WHO’s inquiry into the virus’s origins, and led the commission’s members on a fruitless run-around. So far they have proved far more interested in deflecting blame than in taking the steps necessary to prevent a second pandemic….”

“… The worldwide community of virologists. Virologists around the world are a loose-knit professional community. They write articles in the same journals. They attend the same conferences.
They have common interests in seeking funds from governments and in not being overburdened with safety regulations….”

“…Virologists knew better than anyone the dangers of gain-of-function research. But the power to create new viruses, and the research funding obtainable by doing so, was too tempting. They pushed ahead with gain-of-function experiments. They lobbied against the moratorium imposed on Federal funding for gain-of-function research in 2014, and it was raised in 2017…”

“… This seems to mean that either the director of the NIAID, Anthony Fauci, or the director of the NIH, Francis Collins, or maybe both, would have invoked the footnote in order to keep the money flowing to Shi’s gain-of-function research. … “

“… In conclusion. If the case that SARS2 originated in a lab is so substantial, why isn’t this more widely known? As may now be obvious, there are many people who have reason not to talk about it. The list is led, of course, by the Chinese authorities. But virologists in the United States and Europe have no great interest in igniting a public debate about the gain-of-function experiments that their community has been pursuing for years…”

Nor have other scientists stepped forward to raise the issue. Government research funds are distributed on the advice of committees of scientific experts drawn from universities.
Anyone who rocks the boat by raising awkward political issues runs the risk that their grant will not be renewed and their research career will be ended.
Maybe good behavior is rewarded with the many perks that slosh around the distribution system. … “

Golly Gee Wally,
Is that not what a WHOLE BUNCH of people
have been saying since day ONE!

Oh, but wait for it.
(Just like the Vicar of Dibley and the ‘duck’)
The SPIN is coming !

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by Eegore on 05/11/21 at 09:59:28

I think the difference is people on day one knew the answer before they knew the question which is a convenient way to go about knowing things.

People on day 365 are providing evidence that people from day 1 never needed, but are using now to prove how right they were. Good thing that somebody else went out and got something useable beyond conjecture.

If only nobody ever wanted proof of anything then we could just save all this time using real things in the real world and instead just go back to assigning blame without evidence.

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by WebsterMark on 05/11/21 at 10:31:36

Just watched Fauci redefine terms in an effort to claim US Government funding played no direct role in the research that seems to have a high probability of being the source of this particular virus.

Look, I don’t believe anyone intended for a designed and engineered virus to escape particularly since those most likely to be infected would be the researchers themselves and Fauci, for all his faults, wouldn’t want to be linked to this. But based on the article (which I haven’t seen factual objections to) it appears perhaps at best US officials were foolish to trust a Chinese lab to do work they funded and at worst, wanted the data but purposely looked the other way, maybe with fingers crossed.

Will we ever conclusively find out? Hard to say. As the article points out, because President Trump repeated the logical assertion that the virus probably originated in Wuhan lab, and the media, hell-bent on destroying Trump, immediately championed the natural infection route through a bad theory. As we know, the main stream media is not going to admit they were wrong so it’s guaranteed that this article will get shut down as quickly as possible.

Thank God for Tucker Carlson and a few other honest media types not afraid to put information out.

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by Eegore on 05/11/21 at 11:34:21

Can you reference the article?

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by MnSpring on 05/11/21 at 12:23:22

Quote:

5D7D7F776A7D180 wrote:

I think the difference is people on day one knew the answer before they knew the question ...

I think many people knew the answer, on day one,
BECAUSE OF:

…seeking funds from governments…
…awkward political issues runs the risk that their grant will not be renewed…
…led the commission’s members on a fruitless run-around…
...Fauci redefine terms...
…media, hell-bent on destroying Trump…
...did their utmost to conceal the nature of the tragedy and China’s responsibility for it...
... designed to misdirect and mislead...
...did their best to manipulate the WHO’s inquiry ...
...led the commission’s members on a fruitless run-around...

The truth has taken this long.

But hey,
get a 'shot'
and watch a farting duck on TV,
all is good.

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by Serowbot on 05/11/21 at 12:49:42

340601101706112E021108630 wrote:

Thank God for Tucker Carlson and a few other honest media types not afraid to put information out.

Fox News won a court case by 'persuasively' arguing that no 'reasonable viewer' takes Tucker Carlson seriously
https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-karen-mcdougal-case-tucker-carlson-2020-9?op=1

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by Eegore on 05/11/21 at 13:11:03

I think many people knew the answer, on day one,
BECAUSE OF:

…seeking funds from governments…
…awkward political issues runs the risk that their grant will not be renewed…
…led the commission’s members on a fruitless run-around…
...Fauci redefine terms...
…media, hell-bent on destroying Trump…
...did their utmost to conceal the nature of the tragedy and China’s responsibility for it...
... designed to misdirect and mislead...
...did their best to manipulate the WHO’s inquiry ...
...led the commission’s members on a fruitless run-around...

The truth has taken this long.

That would make sense if the claims were made after, not before these things happened or were researched.

Maybe someday we can get rid of needing evidence for all those claims and just go back to holding people accountable by opinion alone.

Anyone can claim every virus that makes the news is manufactured, and then when evidence is found by people who do not think conjecture is equal to truth, they just use that evidence and say they were right all along. This is equal to saying everyone has a dead father named John and then using obituaries other people put together to cherry-pick the ones that fulfil that prediction.

Even now we don't actually know. But at least there is evidence that has a direct nexus to the virus.

Media that is anti-Trump is not proof of a manufactured virus.

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by MnSpring on 05/11/21 at 14:10:46

Quote:

2533243921343922560 wrote:

Fox News won a court case by 'persuasively' arguing that no 'reasonable viewer' takes Tucker Carlson seriously...

I See, so your view is:

... no 'reasonable viewer' takes Tucker Carlson seriously ...

YET,
I am to believe, and take seriously,
Colbert, Kimmel, Maddow, Maher, Matthews, Sharpton, Anderson, DeGeneres, (and a subject of a Monarchy), just to name a few,
as if it was God’s word.

Opps, the word God does not work for the people that believe in, not believing.
OK let’s try, ‘Gospel’,
Opps again, another, ‘bad’, reference.

So I am suppose to believe them
(and others like them),
simply because I have been, TOLD TO !

OK Got It.

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by eau de sauvage on 05/11/21 at 14:50:43

Welcome back Mark. lol.

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by WebsterMark on 05/11/21 at 16:07:40

1535373F2235500 wrote:

Can you reference the article?

What article? I saw online, Cspan I think. I’m sure it’s on the news.

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by WebsterMark on 05/11/21 at 16:10:23

3523342931242932460 wrote:

[quote author=340601101706112E021108630 link=1620734398/0#4 date=1620754296]Thank God for Tucker Carlson and a few other honest media types not afraid to put information out.

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by MnSpring on 05/11/21 at 17:20:23

Quote:

0626242C3126430 wrote:

"... Maybe someday we can get rid of needing evidence for all those claims and just go back to holding people accountable by opinion alone ... "

Already their.
Read any, 'RED', laws,
or proposed 'RED' laws. ?

One person hates Firearms, also hates a person,
POOF, that person's guns are GONE,
On the OPINION, of one person.

(As the, 'experts' all side on the accusers side,
because they all are of the, OPINION,
Firearms are bad)

How did that saying go;
If you were accused of being a Witch, you were thrown in the water.
If you drowned, you were not a Witch.
If you did not drown, then you were a Witch,
and burned at the stake !
LOLLOLOLOLOLOLOL

But let the Spin, Spin !

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by Eegore on 05/11/21 at 20:01:27

Already their.
Read any, 'RED', laws,
or proposed 'RED' laws. ?

I mean the examples you provided about the topic in this thread and specifically those examples.

I can bring up any other topic and say it's "like" this. In this case it would be like a neighbor calling in a Red Law event, the cops come take a guy's guns and then the guy goes and stabs his girlfriend to death. The person who called in the Red Law then uses this event to say how right they were about him not having guns, an then says the proof was mainstream media being anti-Trump.

In context of C-19 and people saying they "knew" it was manufactured using the research of people that needed evidence to form an opinion is literally something anyone can do. Anyone can claim things with no evidence and then use the work of others to validate their stance.

At best it's a guess. News programs that are anti-Trump are not proof that a disease is manufactured.

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by T And T Garage on 05/11/21 at 20:09:48

5E7E7C74697E1B0 wrote:

Eegore once again brings the unflappable logic.

Such a joy to see/watch!

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by WebsterMark on 05/12/21 at 04:13:26

What I have not heard anyone ask Fauci is to simply describe what his definition of gain of function research is. During his bout with Sen Rand Paul yesterday, he claimed Paul’s assertions were incorrect and then said the NIH does not do gain of function research but then immediately a sentence later went on to say “unless it’s within acceptable boundaries” or somesuch language. What does that actually mean? What is the actual technical definition of gain of function research as it relates to microorganism research? I would think manipulating the spike proteins to match up with human respiratory airway cells at a higher rate would seem to fit the definition of gain of function research wouldn’t it? And if so, did or did not the NIH help fund this research, directly or indirectly, at the Wuhan laboratory?

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by Eegore on 05/12/21 at 05:23:04

I don't agree Fauci should know by memorization the parameters, since they change, of the entirety of gain if function policy for the NIH.

I do think however he should have pointed the Senator to the NIH Office of Science Policy and encouraged him to look through the material himself, or request a representative(s) to attend for questioning.

I mean why aren't they pulling people from NSABB for questioning? (National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity) People act like Fauci comes up with all these decisions himself.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7128689/

https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/statement-funding-pause-certain-types-gain-function-research

https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/nih-lifts-funding-pause-gain-function-research

https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/nih-commitment-transparency-research-involving-potential-pandemic-pathogens

https://www.gryphonscientific.com/resources/gain-of-function/

https://osp.od.nih.gov/biotechnology/gain-of-function-research/

Comparative resource:

https://osp.od.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Gain_of_Function_Deliberative_Process_Written_Public_Comments.pdf

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by WebsterMark on 05/12/21 at 08:34:58

I would disagree a little. On one hand, gain of function research is not your average type of research. It’s like having a brother-in-law who has top-secret clearance in the government and works on nuclear missiles and having another brother-in-law who is a mechanic somewhere. You don’t exactly know what mechanic works on, just that he’s a mechanic, but you know for sure about the one who works on nuclear missiles. Gain of function research is not like finding a new Viagra. Fauci should know all the details by now, it’s been year and a half.

On the other hand, I don’t know if you know the name Alex Berenson but he’s a writer who has been on the Covid story from the very beginning. He was on Tucker Carlson last night and pushed back against Tucker‘s portrayal that Fauci is the key figure in the Covid pandemic.

I tend to agree with Alex‘s position. Fauci is the head of a multi billion dollar organization and the funding that went to the Wuhan lab for this gain of function research was relatively small and in fact probably hidden perhaps on purpose or just due to the sheer volume of activity.

Fauci deserves plenty of scorn but I can’t see pinning the whole thing on him. China? Sure, Fauci? Not so much.

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by Eegore on 05/12/21 at 10:59:12

I agree with Berenson regarding Fauci, but it is easier to demonize a single human than a multi-billion dollar organization. I follow Alex Berenson and while I originally was ok with what he said, almost all of his predictions are wrong.

The intentional misleading of the Danish vaccine results in nursing homes was when I finally said this guy is just scavenging for anything he can get ahold of, and like most, hopes people never actually read what he puts out as reference.

Those of us that do read, and do the math see the lies. Read this and tell me there was a 40% increase in deaths in nursing home due to the vaccine. Show me exactly how that math works. This is what Berenson offers as "proof" yet nobody who looks at it can replicate his results:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.08.21252200v1.full.pdf

His blatant mischaracterization of what "Suspected but Unconfirmed" is obvious spin on facts. Again hoping people accept his interpretation and never look at how that definition is actually reached.

It's important to understand that Berensen is saying if you got vaccinated, then never got Covid, but later had a runny nose, you are listed as being infected with Covid 19. Does that make sense? It does if you need to skew data to make vaccines look like they gave you Covid.

When he tosses out stuff like "vaccines transiently suppress lymphocytes" he again hopes nobody knows what that actually means. and won't look it up. Drops in lymphocyte blood count is a good thing for an immune response, but make it sound bad hoping people won't know better. A permanent loss is the issue, and no record exists that Berenson can use.

His claim that Israel is an example that vaccines don't work is opposite of what is actually happening. He offers a Hebrew article as "proof" but if you translate it or have someone who can read Hebrew they would indicate most of the fatalities in that report did not receive a vaccine.

https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/B13FB1TMO

The issue with Berenson is he is very selective in how he presents misleading data. He was right to scrutinize the system of reporting, and administration but I think he gets too much revenue to admit he was wrong, or to report in a way that reflects the outcomes of the references he offers. He has done this for a while now, I most often find him misrepresenting correlating data as causation and imagining up unrelated scenarios to prove inconsistent or incorrect math.

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by MnSpring on 05/12/21 at 19:40:14

Quote:

6E4E4C44594E2B0 wrote:

...I can bring up any other topic and say it's "like" this. ...
an then says the proof was mainstream media being anti-Trump
...

WOW, and you say;
"Banning a Red Car,
because it was used in a bank robbery,
will stop all Bank robbers"

Is a bad, 'example', ????????????

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by Eegore on 05/12/21 at 19:50:21

"…media, hell-bent on destroying Trump…"

You provided that reasoning, not me.

"WOW, and you say;
"Banning a Red Car,
because it was used in a bank robbery,
will stop all Bank robbers"

Is a bad, 'example', ????????????"

In context to what I said, yes. It is a bad example if you want to change anyone's mind. Specific to that context and only that context with the exception of all other forms of context.

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by MnSpring on 05/12/21 at 19:58:58

Quote:

253B343538253E23510 wrote:

...once again brings the unflappable logic...

You believe that:
"...News programs that are anti-Trump are not proof that a disease is manufactured...."
is, 'unflappable logic'.

Sure do hope you do NOT DRIVE your MC,
with your EYES CLOSED,
(Cause no one said you had to open them)

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by WebsterMark on 05/13/21 at 07:37:53

I don’t follow Berenson close enough to know.
As far as inaccurate predictions and fuzzy math, that simply puts him in the same category as the rest of the media. The only difference I can tell is he’s shunned from MSM as someone unreliable but he’s no more inaccurate than Paul Krugman for example.

Don’t really care about that I don’t wanna get into it. The point I think we agree on is while Fauci has a lot to answer for and should resign, he’s definitely not the one to blame for Covid. That lies entirely with the Chinese government.

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by Eegore on 05/13/21 at 08:10:36

"The point I think we agree on is while Fauci has a lot to answer for and should resign, he’s definitely not the one to blame for Covid."

What if you can pin down a specific, or a few, actions should Fauci resign for?

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by WebsterMark on 05/13/21 at 09:31:54

Sorry, I see from rereading what I wrote that it implied you thought Fauci should resign which perhaps you don’t.My bad.

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by Eegore on 05/13/21 at 09:57:25

Maybe he should. What reasons do you have?

As of right now I see deficiencies across the board, but it is easier to blame a person than to audit multiple organizations and assign blame by percentage to all involved. That's the responsibility leadership signs up for.

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by WebsterMark on 05/13/21 at 10:42:53

That rarely happens and certainly not in government with elected representatives, appointed officials and unionized bureaucrats.

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by Eegore on 05/13/21 at 11:32:28

What reasons do you have for Fauci to resign?

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by Rockn on 05/13/21 at 13:25:35

4F6F6D65786F0A0 wrote:

What reasons do you have for Fauci to resign?

I think its something like: orange man good, science man bad.

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by Eegore on 05/13/21 at 13:33:28

"I think its something like: orange man good, science man bad."

Typically that is the answer I get. Nothing specific or "quotes" that aren't actually words that were actually spoken, or written ever. Again this goes towards how easy it is to blame a figurehead. Unfortunately the actual problem still exists as the CEO, President, Czar etc. is removed.

One thing is Webstermark does not historically take offense to questions and get defensive just because a question is asked, and from what I can recall will usually articulate an answer intended to further the conversation.

Versus resorting to name-calling and disbelief that anyone would question a part of a topic that is obviously only to be interpreted one way - and one way only. That of course is why no research or evidence is needed to know things.

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by WebsterMark on 05/13/21 at 15:41:57

I would have either fired him or made somebody else the voice of the NIH once it came clear the liberal media decided to use him as a tool to punish Trump. Fauci enjoyed that. But that’s Trump’s fault, should have dumped him.

Fauci’s consistent mantra that he was following the science when obviously he wasn’t was BS on one hand but on the other hand what else was he going to do? He lied about masks in the beginning in the exact same way Trump downplayed the pandemic in the beginning also to avoid “panic” and should have defended Trump but didn’t.

And Fauci knowingly over-touted the effectiveness of masks repeatedly citing selected studies.

But all this is moot. The work that Trump put in making sure that the vaccines were being manufactured has paid off today since the CDC relaxed their mask guidelines (more due to pressure than science!) Fauci will go back into the shadows where he came from and hopefully pay a little bit closer attention to the funding documents he signs for research.

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by Eegore on 05/14/21 at 05:45:39

I know Fauci has gone back and forth, sort of, in regards to masks. I am not sure what part you refer to as a lie.

I do not think he has a responsibility to defend Trump, even if their tactics were similar. this to me is no different than me saying if Fauci should resign for downplaying severity so should Trump.

Having sat in multiple incident command centers, and even being sent to DC which was a disaster, I can say there is no simple answer to any of this. I think this idea that Fauci is responsible for all things NIH and CDC is like saying Trump is responsible for all things US government.

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by WebsterMark on 05/14/21 at 07:04:20

We do regularly cut off the head of the snake. Regardless, I would have moved him to the back office.

I have no idea what Fauci knows or doesn't know. It's a little suspicious that he's hanging his hat on the definition of gain of function. And i saw his answer where he said the NIH funded someone other than the Wuhan lab while knowing full well the money went to a group that absolutely was going to use Wuhan. That's like saying you didn't buy a car from Ford, you bought a car from finance company because that's who you send your payments to.

Fauci won't be investigated and it will be a long time before we ever really know the chain of events that brought us Covid.

All we know with certainty is that the Chinese government is to blame.

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by MnSpring on 05/14/21 at 21:14:44

Quote:

2707050D1007620 wrote:

...
I do not think he has a responsibility to defend Trump,...

So if you had the power to fire or hire a person.
and that person Constantly Belittled you.
Would you fire them,
or pat them on the back ?

Title: Re: Lab or natural?
Post by Eegore on 05/15/21 at 23:10:37

"So if you had the power to fire or hire a person.
and that person Constantly Belittled you.
Would you fire them,
or pat them on the back ?"

If I am given only those two choices I would first request a team evaluate the statements of them, and myself for accuracy. If I am doing things in a way that is facilitating this behavior I need to, as a leader, fix my contribution long before I consider firing or patting anyone.

I would then assess the legality of firing someone based off of my opinion that they are belittling me, seek legal counsel, hold a few ethics boards and then decide if they should be fired based off my opinion.

I have done this before and it worked out just fine.

What I would not do is expect Fauci to "defend" Trump. Especially when he knows absolutely nothing about epidemiology and makes profoundly incorrect statements like everything going back to normal by Easter, or that it will Just go away. I get it, this isn't Trump's field of expertise, but expecting anyone to defend the POTUS even if the POTUS is wrong is a bad idea.

No good leader expects subordinates to enforce poor or good decision making though blind obedience.