Ok but covid definitely came from a lab

Well these guys sure have a knack for predicting these things. Ever heard of Event 201? In October 2019, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation ran a “tabletop exercise” of a coronavirus pandemic. Interesting…

Event 201 | Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security

 

Ok

 

No comment

 

If this was a murder trial, your reasoning wouldn’t hold water at all. The circumstantial evidence would raise major suspicion for further investigation, and you would get fired from your job for not grasping this.

Nonetheless, just the very fact that Fauci promotes Gain of Function research to begin with is already major cause for concern just on its own at face value, and he deserves ridicule for it.

No I will not bother with you anymore because I GUARANTEE that you will not change your mind no matter how much more info that I provide. I know exactly how you are. I remember you.

 

Here’s more for you. What the heck, you can just prove my point for me. Your responses are incredibly predictable, lol.

Hearing Wrap Up: Suppression of the Lab Leak Hypothesis Was Not Based in Science - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability


Key Takeaways

• Former NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci and Former NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins were directly involved in the drafting, publication, and public promotion of Proximal Origin — a paper written to suppress the COVID-19 lab-leak hypothesis.

• There was a coordinated effort between public health officials in the United States government and expert scientists to craft a narrative that would advance the zoonotic origin of COVID-19 in order to protect the Chinese government from any potential criticism and repercussions.

• The conclusions drawn by the co-authors of “Proximal Origin” rest on insufficient evidence, draw inaccurate assumptions, and have never been proven or verified by the wider scientific community.

• Dr. Kristian Andersen confirmed the U.S. funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology fell below recommended bio-safety markers.

• Scientific integrity was abandoned by Dr. Fauci, Dr. Collins, and the co-authors of Proximal Origin in favor of political expediency. Suppressing a legitimate scientific theory to advance the preferred narrative of senior government officials is egregious and must be fully investigated.

• There is still more work to be done to hold public health officials accountable for their actions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Select Subcommittee emphasizes its outstanding request for transcribed interviews and documents from Dr. Fauci and Dr. Collins.

 

Here’s more for you. Let me also put out there that Fauci initially denied having ever been involved with funding Gain of Function research to begin with. He did this in front of Congress. So we already know that he lied about that.

Anthony Fauci's Deceptions – The Daily Sceptic

Anthony Fauci’s Deceptions

On April 17th 2020, with much of the country still in some form of lockdown and news of overwhelmed hospitals dominating the headlines, Dr. Anthony Fauci, then a member of the President’s Coronavirus Task Force, was asked a question toward the end of a White House press briefing: Was there a possibility that this novel virus came from a lab in Wuhan, China?

“There was a study recently,” Fauci said confidently, “where a group of highly qualified evolutionary virologists looked at the sequences there and the sequences in bats as they evolve, and the mutations that it took to get to where it is now is totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.” In other words, it wasn’t from the lab.

This moment set the template for much that would follow from Fauci over the next three years. That is, evasion, deception and misdirection about his support of high-risk virology research and its connection to the possibility that a lab leak in Wuhan caused a worldwide catastrophe.

Fauci, who was the face of the public health community during the crisis, pushed the idea that the evidence strongly indicated that the virus was just a tragic, natural occurrence. He insisted, repeatedly, that an epidemic that started in Wuhan was unlikely to have been the result of an escape from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

But Fauci had an incentive to arrive at his conclusion about the deadly pandemic that started in Wuhan. The WIV was known for doing high-risk virology research studying and manipulating coronaviruses. Fauci, as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for almost 40 years, had funded such research at the WIV.

Fauci’s posture — dismissive toward the theory of the lab leak, and later, condescending toward those who entertained it — set what became the accepted narrative about the origins of the pandemic. It was a narrative that was parroted by the Government, public health officials and the media, and even enforced by social media platforms at the request of the Biden White House.

But last month, a trove of explosive emails and other documents were released by the U.S. House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. These revealed evidence of Fauci’s and other officials’ behind-the-scenes involvement with scientists and journalists, demonstrating their efforts to quash the lab leak theory.

The recently disclosed private communications, first reported by Public and Racket, lay bare that the “highly qualified” authors of the paper that Fauci had asserted in April 2020 likely disproved a lab leak — what became known informally as the ‘Proximal Origin’ paper — actually had extensive uncertainty about the virus being the result of a natural event. This was grossly at odds with what became their published position.

The paper that Fauci recommended was published on March 17th 2020. But in February, just the month before, Kristian Andersen, one of the paper’s authors, wrote a Slack message to his colleagues saying: “[T]he lab escape version of this is so friggin’ likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario.”

Robert Garry, another co-author, wrote on Slack the same month: “It’s not crackpot to suggest this could have happened, given the Gain of Function research we know is happening.” Ian Lipkin, yet another co-author, emailed on February 11th that there was the “possibility of inadvertent release… at the institute in Wuhan. Given the scale of bat CoV research pursued there and the site of emergence of first human cases we have a nightmare of circumstantial evidence to assess.”

These are but a few examples of their correspondence. …

At the time of the paper’s drafting, which went on at least from February through early March, when it was accepted by the journal Nature Medicine, Andersen had an $8.9 million grant under review by NIAID. The grant was approved in May. …

If you want to understand why there has been such a collapse of trust in our public health leaders, this story is a good place to start.

During his decades as head of NIAID, Fauci oversaw the distribution of billions of dollars each year in research grants and contracts, some of which were awarded explicitly for what is commonly referred to as “gain-of-function research of concern”. This research involves manipulating viruses to become more transmissible and/or deadly in humans, with the hope that doing so might help advance development of vaccines and therapeutics against threats that don’t exist but theoretically might in the future. …

Fauci has long been a vocal advocate for this type of research. And, despite pleas for it to stop, for at least a decade this dangerous research has been funded by the National Institutes of Health and NIAID. This connection was affirmed by Fauci, and is documented in published papers: NIH and NIAID are listed as financiers of the project in the acknowledgements of the most infamous gain-of-function study in history.

And I have documented that at least several NIH/NIAID-funded studies were involved in potentially creating more deadly coronaviruses.

There is no ambiguity: the NIH and NIAID have funded and supported this work. Yet Fauci, and his then-boss Collins, during the Covid years, repeatedly obscured and even outright denied their involvement.

In May 2021, Collins released a statement that said:

Neither NIH nor NIAID have ever approved any grant that would have supported “gain-of-function” research on coronaviruses that would have increased their transmissibility or lethality for humans.

Why would Collins put out a statement denying what is clearly true? In a word: Wuhan.

Though complex, the facts here are unequivocal. The NIH gave millions of dollars to a nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance. From that pot of money, EcoHealth funnelled hundreds of thousands of dollars in sub-awards to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Grant applications to NIH from EcoHealth explicitly spell out work involving the creation of deadlier or more transmissible pathogens. It said the researchers would use infectious clone technology and humanised mice (i.e., rodents that are engineered to have human receptors for viruses) to test the ability of newly created coronaviruses to infect humans.

Yet in November 2021, when Senator Rand Paul questioned Fauci in a Congressional hearing about his funding of this research and its connection to the WIV, Fauci responded “gain-of-function is a very nebulous term” and that a considerable amount of effort had been spent “to give a more precise definition to the type of research that is of concern that might lead to a dangerous situation.” Paul shot back, “You’re defining away gain-of-function. You’re simply saying it doesn’t exist because you changed the definition on the NIH website!”

 

LOL so thank you for proving my point. You will not even consider changing your mind. If a man’s fingerprints were found at the murder scene, you would conclude that he’s innocent outright. Have a good day, sir. Lmaoooo….

 

The same FBI who now says that it leaked from the Wuhan lab?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/02/28/fbi-director-christopher-wray-wuhan-lab/

FBI Director Wray acknowledges bureau assessment that Covid-19 likely resulted from lab incident | CNN Politics

 

It’s spelled there* not their.

Well I provided evidence that Fauci funded Gain of Function research at the Wuhan Lab, because he did. And I admitted already that it was more speculative in saying that it was intentionally released.

You’re making the claim that it happened naturally, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and you’re not giving any good reasons why.

As I said, the FBI has already gone public saying that a lab leak is likely. It’s just about putting 2+2 together now. Fauci funded this research, and a lab leak is highly likely. Connect the dots.

And regarding your other thing about Nature magazine, that’s already directly addressed in the article I referenced.

“Contrary to Fauci’s seeming objectivity about the paper, according to documents released by the House subcommittee, in February 2020 Fauci, along with Francis Collins, then head of the National Institutes of Health (which oversees NIAID), took part in a conference call with a number of scientists, including several of the paper’s authors, prompting them to begin work on what would ultimately be the Proximal Origin paper.

On March 6, as the paper was headed toward publication, the virologists had changed their minds about the distinct possibility that the virus came out of the Wuhan lab. Andersen wrote to Fauci, Collins, and Jeremy Farrar, then a health advisor to the British government and director of the Wellcome Trust, an influential public health organization. He thanked them for their “advice and leadership as we have been working through the SARS-CoV-2 ‘origins’ paper.” Fauci replied two days later, telling Andersen, “Nice job on the paper.”

Indeed, Fauci and Collins were so closely involved with the paper that in internal communications among the paper’s five authors they referred to the pair as the “Bethesda Boys” (a reference to NIH headquarters, in Bethesda, Maryland).

At the time of the paper’s drafting, which went on at least from February through early March, when it was accepted by the journal Nature Medicine, Andersen had an $8.9 million grant under review by NIAID. The grant was approved in May.”

That reeks of a conflict of interest.

 

Oh so now you’re just neutral about it? Ok. Do what you need to save face lol

 

“I agree one possibility is much more likely than the other. The fact that you can't support your obvious conclusion illustrates that there is no obvious reality to your conclusion. Otherwise you wouldn't have to expend much energy at all, as the conclusion would be obvious.”

Since you clearly don’t agree with me, and you’re saying that one possibility is much more likely than the other, you are saying that you are concluding that a lab leak is unlikely. Either that, or you are making another sticky stretch and concluding that a lab leak is possible, but that the Gain of Function research that Fauci funded has zero to do with it.

But then you post this also,

“I'm surprised you don't do just a little more research into this stuff you post.
The Proximal Origin investigation led by a bunch of republicans with a clear agendas in mind relied on the testimony of two virologists, Kristian Andersen and Robert Garry. These two thought the virus might have come from a Chinese lab. The reported this to Fauci, who told them to contact the FBI.

But after the hearing, and further research they both reversed their claim in a revised assessment by publishing in the journal Nature Medicine in March 2020, “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.”

So you either think a lab leak has nothing to do with Fauci, or you think that it naturally occurred, which again, wouldn’t involve Fauci. This makes sense, since you highly questioned my implications of Fauci from the get go.

 

But then there’s this post of yours, which you made before I entered the convo.


“As of June 22, 2023

Of the three possibilities — natural, accidental, or deliberate — the most scientific evidence yet identified supports natural emergence. More than half of the earliest Covid-19 cases were connected to the Huanan market, and epidemiologic mapping revealed that the concentration of cases was centered there. In January 2020, Chinese officials cleared the market without testing live animals, but positive environmental samples, including those from an animal cage and a hair-and-feather–removal machine, indicated the presence of both SARS-CoV-2 and Covid-susceptible animals.5 Recently released findings included raccoon dog DNA, pointing to a possible SARS-CoV-2 progenitor. Samples from early cases in humans also contained two different SARS-CoV-2 lineages. Although only one lineage spread globally, the existence of multiple lineages suggests that a SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in animals may have led to multiple spillover events.

5 Recently released findings included raccoon dog DNA, pointing to a possible SARS-CoV-2 progenitor. Samples from early cases in humans also contained two different SARS-CoV-2 lineages. Although only one lineage spread globally, the existence of multiple lineages suggests that a SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in animals may have led to multiple spillover events.

Proponents of the accidental laboratory leak theory stress the geographic location of the WIV in the city where the pandemic began. They point to the presence of the bat coronavirus RaTG13 strain at the laboratory, arguing that genetic manipulations such as gain-of-function (GOF) research may have produced SARS-CoV-2. Most scientists refute this theory because there is considerable evolutionary distance between the two viruses. However, the possibility that the laboratory held a different progenitor strain to SARS-CoV-2 that led to a laboratory leak cannot be unequivocally ruled out. ~ The Origins of Covid-19 — Why It Matters (and Why It Doesn’t)”