Fauci, Collins SQUASHED Lab Leak, Aimed To 'DISPROVE' Theory After A WEEK Of Debate: Report

[jameslouise]

What convinced you of this?l Cant seem to get rid of Hans Blaster name above, this is a reply to Lamievc from Jameslouise

Several things, I first heard of 'gain of function' )GoF) when Rand Paul kept going on about it, I had not heard of it before then. I looked into it and I could not believe scientists would be so stupid as to do it! What could possibly go wring eh? Then when I heard Fauci trying to fudge the definition of GoF and others both back him and refute him, it made me suspicious.
The big smoking gun for me is the vicinity of the Lab to the epicenter too

Also personally having had Covid twice the first one was very strange , it made me quite ill but not life threatening but it gave me absolutely terrible taste sensations which were to the point of pain, dysathesia/synethesia/literal neuralgia- hard to explain. It was all bizarre and not 'natura'l, and I repeat dreadful. The unusual long Covid stuff too, concerned me too and is also unusual , though I accept some of these symptoms are coincidental. . But once I heard that there is some dispute among virologists about some of the sequencing then that just about convinced me.

 

[jameslouise]

Poor reasoning skills.

Hi Hans
Do you have a strong faith in all things scientific, like the scientific community as a whole?

 

[Pommer]

Several things, I first heard of 'gain of function' )GoF) when Rand Paul kept going on about it, I had not heard of it before then. I could not believe scientists would be so stupid as to do it! What could possibly go wring eh? Then when I heard Fauci trying to fudge the definition of GoF and others both back him and refute him, it made me suspicious.
The big smoking gun for me is the vicinity of the Lab to the epicenter too

Also personally having had Covid twice the first one was very strange , it made me quite ill but not life threatening but it gave me absolutely terrible taste sensations which were to the point of pain, dysathesia/synethesia/literal neuralgia- hard to explain. It was all bizarre and not 'natura'l, and I repeat dreadful. The unusual long Covid stuff too, concerned me too and is also unusual , though I accept some of these symptoms are coincidental. . But once I heard that there is some dispute among virologists about some of the sequencing then that just about convinced me.

There is this “laboratory” called “nature” and it has created some of the most deadly pathogens known to man. And the SARS-CoV-2 is one of them. The ability for us to manipulate an RNA-virus is Brandee-new (22 years), and the “attempt” to do so would be fraught with all sorts of ethical concerns that no-one has seriously attempted to do such; because it can be so dangerous, or don’t you understand that?

 

[Larniavc]

Several things, I first heard of 'gain of function' )GoF) when Rand Paul kept going on about it, I had not heard of it before then. I looked into it and I could not believe scientists would be so stupid as to do it! What could possibly go wring eh? Then when I heard Fauci trying to fudge the definition of GoF and others both back him and refute him, it made me suspicious.
The big smoking gun for me is the vicinity of the Lab to the epicenter too

Also personally having had Covid twice the first one was very strange , it made me quite ill but not life threatening but it gave me absolutely terrible taste sensations which were to the point of pain, dysathesia/synethesia/literal neuralgia- hard to explain. It was all bizarre and not 'natura'l, and I repeat dreadful. The unusual long Covid stuff too, concerned me too and is also unusual , though I accept some of these symptoms are coincidental. . But once I heard that there is some dispute among virologists about some of the sequencing then that just about convinced me.

In what way do those examples indicate that it was man made?

 

[Tuur]

What has the origin of the virus got to do with informed consent of the vaccine? What exactly do you think was suppressed? Who was forced to get the vaccine?

All this is a sidebar to the original post, but a good many were forced to get the vaccine in order to keep their jobs. That had nothing to do with the origin of the virus or suppression of information, but you did ask.

FWIW, I got the vaccine due to data from my state's department of health that showed a significant reduction in the odds of death from the virus among the vaccinated in my demographic.

 

[KCfromNC]

Hi Hans
Do you have a strong faith in all things scientific, like the scientific community as a whole?

The nice part about the results from the scientific community is that since there is copious evidence for those conclusions, faith isn't needed at all.

 

[Tuur]

There is this “laboratory” called “nature” and it has created some of the most deadly pathogens known to man. And the SARS-CoV-2 is one of them. The ability for us to manipulate an RNA-virus is Brandee-new (22 years), and the “attempt” to do so would be fraught with all sorts of ethical concerns that no-one has seriously attempted to do such; because it can be so dangerous, or don’t you understand that?

Yes, it is fraught with ethical concerns. And yes, it does happen. Yes, it's dangerous. That has long been the point. That's why there's long been concern about gain-of-function research. Directly tinkering with genetic code is relatively new, but the whole concept of this is not. It was around long before some of us were born.

 

[Tuur]

it looks like the pathogen was engineered by man to me,

With all due respect, how can you tell an engineered pathogen from a natural one?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Hi Hans, Your faith in Healthcare systems is a credit to you but I do not share it. One of us is going to be shown to be gullible, lets wait and see who shall we?

Since you can't distinguish between "healthcare systems" and science (virology), I'm not really that concerned that you will show me to be gullible. (I'm not promoting conspiracy theories after all.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

Hi Hans
Do you have a strong faith in all things scientific, like the scientific community as a whole?

It is the breadth of the scientific community and their analysis that give me confidence in those analyses. Faith is unnecessary.

 

[Pommer]

Yes, it is fraught with ethical concerns. And yes, it does happen. Yes, it's dangerous. That has long been the point. That's why there's long been concern about gain-of-function research. Directly tinkering with genetic code is relatively new, but the whole concept of this is not. It was around long before some of us were born.

Of course this line of thought will just about kill “intelligent design”; I would expect some pushback from the YEC community.

 

[jameslouise]

and the “attempt” to do so would be fraught with all sorts of ethical concerns that no-one has seriously attempted to do such; because it can be so dangerous, or don’t you understand that?

I think it already has been is being,check out the youtube link in message 8

In what way do those examples indicate that it was man made?

??For the reasons outlined in message 8. If you want more detail on genome similarity, differences and apparently aberrant inserts check out the youtube link in message 8.

It is the breadth of the scientific community and their analysis that give me confidence in those analyses. Faith is unnecessary

Dont get me wrong I love scientific method and ethos but do you think the ruler of this world will leave scientists alone.?Do you think people in charge of funding allocations are not politically influenced? Do you think funders of research want a 'bang' for their buck? Do you think the most prestigious publications show bias and leaning and politicization? Why not actually listen to the link in message 8? It describes a political withdrawal away form investigation of covid origins there. It seems you have faith in anyone who claims to be scientific and shares your views. Peterson and Ridley are both scientists, hear them out why don't you?

 

[jameslouise]

FWIW, I got the vaccine due to data from my state's department of health that showed a significant reduction in the odds of death from the virus among the vaccinated in my demographic

I do not know how the USA handled stats but the UK government was misleading especially with the use of relative %, You will need some maths to follow it but watch what a statistician makes of it here.

With all due respect, how can you tell an engineered pathogen from a natural one?

Watch the video link in message 8 it explains it all concisely there?

Since you can't distinguish between "healthcare systems" and science (virology), I'm not really that concerned that you will show me to be gullible.

I am happy with my use of these word here

Of course this line of thought will just about kill “intelligent design”; I would expect some pushback from the YEC community

How so?

 

[Larniavc]

For the reasons outlined in message 8. If you want more detail on genome similarity, differences and apparently aberrant inserts check out the youtube link in message 8.

I can’t see anything beyond claims in message 8 and the video therein.

In your own wounds what specific piece of evidence you think is the best support for these claims?

 

[Tuur]

I do not know how the USA handled stats but the UK government was misleading especially with the use of relative %, You will need some maths to follow it but watch what a statistician makes of it here.

I knew one of the people gathering data for my state's health department. You had data of deaths grouped by demographics, noting those who had been vaccinated and those who had not. You can go around and around about what constituted a COVID-19 death, yet when it's applied to both, that's a wash. The chances I calculated myself - that was straightforward. Bottom line is I had a much less chance of dying from COVID-19 if I was vaccinated than if I wasn't, and I got vaccinated.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Dont get me wrong I love scientific method and ethos but do you think the ruler of this world will leave scientists alone.?

The world has no "ruler".

Do you think people in charge of funding allocations are not politically influenced? Do you think funders of research want a 'bang' for their buck?

What experience do you actually have with the funding of science? Is it none, or less?

Do you think the most prestigious publications show bias and leaning and politicization? Why not actually listen to the link in message 8?

Because neither of the persons in the video have any experience in the relevant fields. Both are also highly politically motivated.

It describes a political withdrawal away form investigation of covid origins there.

There is little more that can be done so long as China won't cooperate.

It seems you have faith in anyone who claims to be scientific and shares your views. Peterson and Ridley are both scientists, hear them out why don't you?

Keep away from evaluating people you don't know. It's not a good look.

 

[DaisyDay]

Peterson and Ridley are both scientists, hear them out why don't you?

When was the last time either of them did any science?

 

[jameslouise]

When was the last time either of them did any science?

Dunno, do you have to have work published to be a scientist? My guess is every day they are scientists. I thought science was 'the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the natural and physical world, or knowledge obtained about the world by watching it carefully (Dictionary Cambridge)
or
the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained."the world of science and technology (Google)
0r
Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence (the science council)
You think they are not scientists?

 

[jameslouise]

I knew one of the people gathering data for my state's health department. You had data of deaths grouped by demographics, noting those who had been vaccinated and those who had not. You can go around and around about what constituted a COVID-19 death, yet when it's applied to both, that's a wash. The chances I calculated myself - that was straightforward. Bottom line is I had a much less chance of dying from COVID-19 if I was vaccinated than if I wasn't, and I got vaccinated.

When you calculated this yourself what factor (ie %)did you allow for known complications associated with the pharmacological intervention?

 

[Pommer]

When you calculated this yourself what factor (ie %)did you allow for known complications associated with the pharmacological intervention?

Can’t bring yourself to call this “pharmacological intervention” a “vaccine”?
Yes, television was more complicated than radio, well spotted!