Fauci was warned that COVID-19 may have been ‘engineered,’ emails show

[hedrick]

One tidbit I just saw. In Fauci’s emails don’t prove a Wuhan conspiracy, but raise further questions they say that according to the State department Wuhan was doing secret work for the Chinese government, and it did involve gain of function. So the NIH grant seems not to be the big issue, except for the attack on Fauci.

 

[whatbogsends]

One tidbit I just saw. In Fauci’s emails don’t prove a Wuhan conspiracy, but raise further questions they say that according to the State department Wuhan was doing secret work for the Chinese government, and it did involve gain of function. So the NIH grant seems not to be the big issue, except for the attack on Fauci.

Right, i mean, who cares if Fauci lied in testimony to Congress? The important thing is not criticizing Fauci.

 

[stevil]

I know you don't like giving your opinion, but i welcome you and Pommer to provide a reasonable explanation as to why Anderson not only reversed his position in those 4 days, but went as far as calling his previous position "crackpot"? Why on earth would you call what you and 3 other scientists in the related field thought was probable 4 days earlier "crackpot", except to change the narrative.

"Andersen replied: ‘it specifically means we thought—on preliminary look—that the virus could have been engineered and/or manipulated. Turns out the data suggest otherwise—which is the conclusion of our paper.’”"

Seems he is just following the data. That's what scientists do.

 

[stevil]

One tidbit I just saw. In Fauci’s emails don’t prove a Wuhan conspiracy, but raise further questions they say that according to the State department Wuhan was doing secret work for the Chinese government, and it did involve gain of function. So the NIH grant seems not to be the big issue, except for the attack on Fauci.

If they were doing secret work then the NIH supposedly did't know about it and didn't approve it and gave funding without knowing of this secret work.

 

[KCfromNC]

The topics are adjacent. There was a clear effort to create a narrative in which a) it was natural origin and b) there was no lab leak were unquestioned facts. Both of those statements have been shown to be, at best, wholly unproven.

Of course, as usual, you sidestepped the thrust of the post.

The res of the post didn't offer much other than leading questions and vague innuendo. I thought the attempt to change the subject was more interesting, honestly.

Since no one has taken me up on the offer, maybe you can provide a reasonable explanation as to why Anderson not only reversed his position (which was shared by 3 other scientists in the field and he felt strongly enough about it to send it to the head of the NIH) in those 4 days, but went as far as calling his previous position "crackpot"?

Perhaps he's one of those people who is open to changing their mind when new evidence shows up rather that continuing to make stuff up to feed their preconceptions. I don't know why this is so hard for some to conceive of.

 

[whatbogsends]

"Andersen replied: ‘it specifically means we thought—on preliminary look—that the virus could have been engineered and/or manipulated. Turns out the data suggest otherwise—which is the conclusion of our paper.’”"

Seems he is just following the data. That's what scientists do.

And they usually condemn what they thought 4 days prior as "crackpot theory", right?

Dishonesty and cover up shown, and a collective shrug by the left.

 

[whatbogsends]

The res of the post didn't offer much other than leading questions and vague innuendo. I thought the attempt to change the subject was more interesting, honestly.

Perhaps he's one of those people who is open to changing their mind when new evidence shows up rather that continuing to make stuff up to feed their preconceptions. I don't know why this is so hard for some to conceive of.

Open to changing their mind and calling what they themselves thought (multiple researchers) "crackpot" 4 days later.

I'm open to changing my mind. I don't, however, condemn a previous perception "crackpot theory".

In his public statement 4 days later, he didn't say "we thought they had been engineered, but further analysis indicated otherwise", it simply said "any suggestion that it wasn't natural is crackpot theory", and forgot to include - "which is what me and my colleagues thought 4 days ago.

 

[stevil]

And they usually condemn what they thought 4 days prior as "crackpot theory", right?

Dishonesty and cover up shown, and a collective shrug by the left.

I'm not on the left.

I follow data and science not crackpot conspiracies unsupported by data.

 

[stevil]

In his public statement 4 days later, he didn't say "we thought they had been engineered, but further analysis indicated otherwise", it simply said "any suggestion that it wasn't natural is crackpot theory", and forgot to include - "which is what me and my colleagues thought 4 days ago.

"Andersen replied: ‘it specifically means we thought—on preliminary look—that the virus could have been engineered and/or manipulated. Turns out the data suggest otherwise—which is the conclusion of our paper.’”

 

[KCfromNC]

Open to changing their mind and calling what they themselves thought (multiple researchers) "crackpot" 4 days later.

I'm open to changing my mind. I don't, however, condemn a previous perception "crackpot theory".

Good for you, thanks for sharing.

If it were me, though, I wouldn't use that particular individual trait as the sole basis for attempting to promote a conspiracy theory at the highest levels of several large government organizations.

 

[whatbogsends]

I'm not on the left.

It's funny, because i am on the left, or at least had been for the last 20 years. I've diverged from a lot of the left the last 8 months.

It's also funny, because the vast, vast majority of your posts align with the left.

I follow data and science not crackpot conspiracies unsupported by data.

You follow data and science, and it raises no eyebrows that someone not only does a complete turnaround in their assessment in 4 days, but calls their previous assessment "crackpot".

Those who proclaimed "lab leak is conspiracy theory" have been shown to have been compromised. Those who wrote the Lancet statement decrying lab leak as conspiracy theory blatantly lied about their conflicts of interest, specifically declaring "no competing interests" when they did, indeed have them.

You ignore biosafety specialists and instead defer to those who've been shown to have been concealing and misrepresenting information.

 

[whatbogsends]

Good for you, thanks for sharing.

If it were me, though, I wouldn't use that particular individual trait as the sole basis for attempting to promote a conspiracy theory at the highest levels of several large government organizations.

If it were me, i wouldn't continue to support multiple people who've been caught in dishonest statements in direct contradiction to their written communications.

You continue to display not a shred of objectiveness in your assessment, simply a blind devotion to Fauci and the CDC, despite their, generously stated, complete lack of candor.

 

[KCfromNC]

If it were me, i would continue to support multiple people who've been caught in dishonest statements in direct contradiction to their written communications.

I really can't comment on that particular choice.

You continue to display not a shred of objectiveness in your assessment, simply a blind devotion to Fauci and the CDC, despite their, generously stated, complete lack of candor.

Hmm, attacking the messenger. I can't say I'm surprised.

 

[stevil]

It's funny, because i am on the left, or at least had been for the last 20 years. I've diverged from a lot of the left the last 8 months.

It's also funny, because the vast, vast majority of your posts align with the left.

Have you had a discussion with me about my ideas on fiscal policy, on unions, on affirmative action, on taxation, on social benefits?

I would say I'm centre right. I hardly ever vote for the left leaning parties in my country.

You follow data and science, and it raises no eyebrows that someone not only does a complete turnaround in their assessment in 4 days, but calls their previous assessment "crackpot".

I myself might make early assessments on things, then I work to see if my assessments are true or not. If they prove to be not true, I am more than happy to change my view to match the data.

You seem to have some kind of fixation on the term "crackpot"
And for some reason you use this to create a scenario of corruption and various coverups that you have no evidence at all for. This meets the very definition of a conspiracy theory.

Those who proclaimed "lab leak is conspiracy theory" have been shown to have been compromised.

The president of USA and Fox News opinion shows where claiming that the Covid outbreak WAS due to a lab leak in Wuhan. They weren't saying that it is one possibility amongst many possibilities. They were saying that it WAS the case despite not having any evidence at all in support of this claim. The very definition of a conspiracy theory.

 

[whatbogsends]

The president of USA and Fox News opinion shows where claiming that the Covid outbreak WAS due to a lab leak in Wuhan. They weren't saying that it is one possibility amongst many possibilities. They were saying that it WAS the case despite not having any evidence at all in support of this claim. The very definition of a conspiracy theory.

And we had people on the other side lying about their conflicts of interest (or lack thereof) and making the claim that it was definitely natural origin at a time in which they couldn't possibly have known.

To consider one conspiracy theory and the other valid debate is absurd.

 

[whatbogsends]

Hmm, attacking the messenger. I can't say I'm surprised.

You can call it an attack, it was simply an observation. Since you don't actually present any substance, what else is there to comment on?

 

[stevil]

And we had people on the other side lying about their conflicts of interest (or lack thereof) and making the claim that it was definitely natural origin at a time in which they couldn't possibly have known.

To consider one conspiracy theory and the other valid debate is absurd.

Fauci has explained the reasons why he says it is much more likely to not be a lab leak and not be a manufactured variant. His reasons don't rule out a lab leak, and he is supportive of an investigation into the origins of the outbreak.

 

[KCfromNC]

You can call it an attack, it was simply an observation.

Thanks for letting me know how seriously to take observations in your posts.

Since you don't actually present any substance, what else is there to comment on?

What more substance would you expect to dismantle a baseless conspiracy theory than to point out the obvious holes in it? I mean, all we have is researchers changing their mind after looking at the data more closely and a fixation on a single particular word used when refining their conclusions. There's nothing of any substance to comment on there - simply pointing out how vacuous it is should be sufficient. As is pointing out the constant shifting between "engineered" and "lab leak" in the rhetoric.

 

[whatbogsends]

Thanks for letting me know how seriously to take observations in your posts.


What more substance would you expect to dismantle a baseless conspiracy theory than to point out the obvious holes in it? I mean, all we have is researchers changing their mind after looking at the data more closely and a fixation on a single particular word used when refining their conclusions. There's nothing of any substance to comment on there - simply pointing out how vacuous it is should be sufficient. As is pointing out the constant shifting between "engineered" and "lab leak" in the rhetoric.

No, there were 900+ pages of documents released by the FOIA and were reported on by several media outlets, and commented on by numerous scientists in the field of study. The conclusion that the NIH funded gain of function research was overwhelming.

I linked multiple articles and excerpts from those documents, and spoke to their implications.

You, on the other hand, have been arguing solely on the basis of minutia and trying to win points without actually addressing any of the information.

Fauci was untruthful in testimony to Congress about NIH's funding of gain of function research.

Additionally, documents released in a _different_ FOIA request show that he was given information about it being potentially engineered, and worked to bury that information and control the narrative.

That i can talk about both things isn't "moving the goalposts", it's having a broader discussion on topics of which Fauci has been less than candid about.

 

[KCfromNC]

No, there were 900+ pages of documents released by the FOIA and were reported on by several media outlets, and commented on by numerous scientists in the field of study.

And the best you can do is pick on the word "crackpot"? That doesn't really inspire me to think there's anything behind this.

The conclusion that the NIH funded gain of function research was overwhelming.

I thought the topic was that it was suspicious that scientists revised their opinion about whether the virus was natural. Why all the jumping around to unrelated conspiracy theories?