|
Post by blue-footedbooby on Jun 4, 2024 12:25:22 GMT -5
This is all very general and vague. Give one or more specific examples where he intentionally lied for some nefarious purpose. I know early on he over-emphasized cloth masks and downplayed N95, but we know that was due to a critical shortage in N95 masks needed for first responders and hospitals. I don't hold that against him nearly as much as the failure of putting a completely ill-equipped Kushner in charge of getting masks, with the associated ineptitude associated with greed and politics involved in that effort. But that was him lying to the American people about masks. We now know that he lied about the 6 foot rule, he just made that up out of his ass. Of course anyone with half a brain new this was total BS at the time. He has lied about his involvement with the Wuhan Lab and the use of gain of function research that was going on there. He lied about the source of the leak - when there was virologist from the beginning that worked for him that thought it was a real possibility, but he led the nation to believe that there was no possibility of a lab leak, and squashed any further research on this. And he lied about 'following the science' throughout the pandemic - and constantly described policy positions and scientific facts. And is on tape specifically saying he wants to destroy the lives of those that do not agree with him. He was involved in the censorship of those that disagreed. The censorship of scientists and doctors that had a different opinion. Advocated people lose their job if they disagreed with him. Fauci, huh? "6-feet distancing wasn't his guideline but one created by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention before scientists had learned that the new virus was airborne, not spread simply by droplets emitted a certain distance." Wuhan lab? So. "But the one thing I know for sure is that the viruses that were funded by the NIH, phylogenetically, could not be the precursor of SARS-CoV-2" Emails encouraged discovery and not cover-up. "He read from an email he sent in February 2020 where he spoke about encouraging a colleague worried about a lab leak to examine the evidence "as soon as possible" and, if the concerns were valid, report the findings to the "appropriate authorities"." What proof of not following the science? It was GOP that was pushing chloriquine and Iverectim, not Fauci. Destroys lives? where is this noted?
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Jun 4, 2024 13:29:13 GMT -5
This is all very general and vague. Give one or more specific examples where he intentionally lied for some nefarious purpose. I know early on he over-emphasized cloth masks and downplayed N95, but we know that was due to a critical shortage in N95 masks needed for first responders and hospitals. I don't hold that against him nearly as much as the failure of putting a completely ill-equipped Kushner in charge of getting masks, with the associated ineptitude associated with greed and politics involved in that effort. But that was him lying to the American people about masks. We now know that he lied about the 6 foot rule, he just made that up out of his ass. Of course anyone with half a brain new this was total BS at the time. He has lied about his involvement with the Wuhan Lab and the use of gain of function research that was going on there. He lied about the source of the leak - when there was virologist from the beginning that worked for him that thought it was a real possibility, but he led the nation to believe that there was no possibility of a lab leak, and squashed any further research on this. And he lied about 'following the science' throughout the pandemic - and constantly described policy positions and scientific facts. And is on tape specifically saying he wants to destroy the lives of those that do not agree with him. He was involved in the censorship of those that disagreed. The censorship of scientists and doctors that had a different opinion. Advocated people lose their job if they disagreed with him. Your outrage seems rather selective to me. Trump was told early on how deadly it was and intentionally kept the news from the public to prevent panic. You don't seem to have a problem with that, but if Fauci downplays masks to make sure that healthcare workers have enough of the supply during a pandemic, you think he is a terrible person. The 6 foot rule came from the CDC, not Fauci. He clearly has said he doesn't know where they came up with it and it isn't based on any clinical trials he was aware of, but it wasn't his decision, he was just relaying the guidance from the CDC. You are speculating that his involvement was bigger and that he know more about the Wuhan lab than anybody with knowledge has said. I asked for quotes, you haven't given any. I don't recall him ever saying there was no possibility of a lab leak. He definitely pushed back on the conspiracy theories based on the possibility of a lab leak, such as that it was weaponized and intentionally released. Everybody is a Monday morning quarterback. Again, find something that he intentionally lied about by saying they were "following the science". Things were changing constantly, the whole pandemic was a new disease and nobody knew exactly what was going to happen. They gave their best advice based on their knowledge at each point of time, which evolved as they learned more. Again, what tape and what quote? There were absolutely attempts to squash pseudo-science that was sending people to vets and other sketchy sources to self-medicate with chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, colloidal silver, Ivermectin, etc. There were a lot of fringe, largely discredited voices peddling those "alternatives"
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 4, 2024 14:28:27 GMT -5
So you think it was a coincidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was studying if a bat coronavirus could be made to infect a human cell line, was right down the road. I think reasonable people could implement Occam's Razor and come to a different conclusion. The proximity of the lab makes it a plausible possibility. But the plotting of the early cases links to the market, not the lab. That data is still valid today. Despite Blue's claims that he is not 100% convinced of the "Lab Leak" idea, he obviously is 100% convinced of the "Lab Leak" idea. Everything he posts about COVID-19 shows this. But he pretends otherwise because he knows this puts him deep into conspiracy theory territory.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jun 4, 2024 14:55:39 GMT -5
The proximity of the lab makes it a plausible possibility. But the plotting of the early cases links to the market, not the lab. That data is still valid today. Despite Blue's claims that he is not 100% convinced of the "Lab Leak" idea, he obviously is 100% convinced of the "Lab Leak" idea. Everything he posts about COVID-19 shows this. But he pretends otherwise because he knows this puts him deep into conspiracy theory territory. TIL believing the CDC Director about COVID is “conspiracy theory territory”.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 4, 2024 15:26:55 GMT -5
Despite Blue's claims that he is not 100% convinced of the "Lab Leak" idea, he obviously is 100% convinced of the "Lab Leak" idea. Everything he posts about COVID-19 shows this. But he pretends otherwise because he knows this puts him deep into conspiracy theory territory. TIL believing the CDC Director about COVID is “conspiracy theory territory”. I think you meant to say, "the Trump-appointed former head of the CDC", the same guy whose agency was responsible for (among other things) the "6-foot rule" that you now say was completely unwarranted. The guy (Redfield) is a lifelong, high-level virus researcher, and certainly knows more about viruses than I do. But his statement just said he thought the "lab leak" was "more likely", not conclusive. And he's only one person. Many other virus researchers think the "lab leak" is less likely. There were six independent studies of this by US government agencies, and four said zoonotic while two said lab -- and none of them had high confidence either way. It's not entertaining the possibility of the "lab leak" that is conspiracy theory territory. It's the total belief in it, as well as the belief in a concerted cover-up -- both of which Blue denies. But his posts tell a different story, as he constantly pushes opinion pieces about the "lab leak" as confirmed facts and explicitly claims that Fauci and others engaged in a cover-up.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png)
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,584
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jun 4, 2024 16:27:15 GMT -5
I personally think the lab leak is most likely. I probably would put it at 75-80% vs. natural. But what the heck to do I know.
People I trust - that seem to be more honest about this - seem to put it around 50/50. I know that generally virologists think lab leak is less than 50%, but then they have a MAJOR incentive for this to be natural and not sure their opinion can be fully taken on face value - or the only relevant expert opinion.
Fauci and his ilk put this at less than 1% very early on - and censored anything that didn't support natural. I didn't censor people with my opinion - Fauci did. The certainty that he told the American people was lie - as we know from the emails at the time. I think this is a big deal - but if that is the way science is now supposed to work, how will anyone trust it in the future?
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png)
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,584
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jun 4, 2024 16:46:18 GMT -5
Also, the reason I posted that article - is because it ran in the NY Times. The paper that used to call lab leak as proven false, as misinformation - and completely discredited.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Jun 4, 2024 16:54:28 GMT -5
Also, the reason I posted that article - is because it ran in the NY Times. The paper that used to call lab leak as proven false, as misinformation - and completely discredited. It was clearly published as a guest opinion piece. The NY Times will public dissenting opinions.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Jun 4, 2024 16:55:26 GMT -5
Also, the reason I posted that article - is because it ran in the NY Times. The paper that used to call lab leak as proven false, as misinformation - and completely discredited. It was a guest opinion piece by the author of a book, not NY Times reporting or opinion. That is perfectly fine, because other opinions should be heard, but that is what it was.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 4, 2024 16:57:56 GMT -5
I know that generally virologists think lab leak is less than 50%, but then they have a MAJOR incentive for this to be natural and not sure their opinion can be fully taken on face value It's a key sign of science conspiracy theories when people claim that the scientific community in some subject has some nebulous "incentive" to cover up or suppress some supposed fact. Scientists as a group tend to be skeptical and eager to show that they have figured out something that other people have missed, making them quite unlikely to participate in cover-ups. As always, the smaller the number of people involved, the easier it is to suborn them all, but for something like COVID-19, which captured the attention of the entire world? That's ridiculous. Also, once again you seem to not understand the meaning of the word "censor", because here you are posting about the "lab leak" theory, and Fauci isn't sending the secret police to your house, or trying to stop this forum for publishing your words, or anything like that. Obviously people have been talking about this "lab leak" idea for the last four years or so, and not a single one of them has been arrested for it. There have been no legal injunctions against pushing the idea. Etc. Etc.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Jun 4, 2024 17:57:37 GMT -5
I know that generally virologists think lab leak is less than 50%, but then they have a MAJOR incentive for this to be natural and not sure their opinion can be fully taken on face value It's a key sign of science conspiracy theories when people claim that the scientific community in some subject has some nebulous "incentive" to cover up or suppress some supposed fact. Scientists as a group tend to be skeptical and eager to show that they have figured out something that other people have missed, making them quite unlikely to participate in cover-ups. As always, the smaller the number of people involved, the easier it is to suborn them all, but for something like COVID-19, which captured the attention of the entire world? That's ridiculous. Also, once again you seem to not understand the meaning of the word "censor", because here you are posting about the "lab leak" theory, and Fauci isn't sending the secret police to your house, or trying to stop this forum for publishing your words, or anything like that. Obviously people have been talking about this "lab leak" idea for the last four years or so, and not a single one of them has been arrested for it. There have been no legal injunctions against pushing the idea. Etc. Etc. Whoever was censoring it did a pretty crappy job. “I will tell you, more and more, we’re hearing the story [that the new coronavirus emerged from a Wuhan lab].” — President Trump, in a news conference, April 15, 2020
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Jun 4, 2024 20:11:12 GMT -5
(and personally I think it is nowhere near that high of a chance, simply because zoonotic origin passes the Occam's Razor test much more easily) So you think it was a coincidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was studying if a bat coronavirus could be made to infect a human cell line, was right down the road. I think reasonable people could implement Occam's Razor and come to a different conclusion. Wuhan is one of the largest cities in China. I'd bet most of the top 10 largest cities in any country with a big biomedical sector have virology labs in the metro area doing research on local viruses of interest (in this case, coronaviruses). Not saying lab leak isn't a possibility but this is a pretty tenuous argument in favor of it.
|
|
|
Post by vbman100 on Jun 4, 2024 20:55:21 GMT -5
Good point. So let’s say it was a lab leak. 100% What do you think the solutions would be to prevent the next pandemic/epidemic following a lab leak? Maybe restricting travel from that area? Maybe closing schools and businesses in that area and others affected? Maybe working on a vaccine for it? Using items that may help prevent the spread of the cause? Like masks? Or ventilation? Just spitballing here. Maybe creating a task force to help research and prevent the spread of things like Ebola and Covid? Any other solutions you could think of? I mean, those can only be thought of if this is a lab leak. If it’s not, then we’ll just have to throw our hands up and wait to think of other solutions. Oh and I just tested positive for Covid about 5 days ago. Fever for 2 days, coughing, congestion, some body aches. My wife hasn’t gotten it and my two young children haven’t either. Very fortunate. I mean - knowing the cause for something that killed 7 million people would be something that is fairly important to know. Like, maybe we need MUCH better safeguards when studying and working with highly infectious diseases? It is like saying - Chernobyl happened, those that died are dead. Those that will die, will die. Why do we need to know how this happened? Why should we even try to learn from a nuclear power plant meltdown? I said I agree it was a lab leak. Your answer is better and more safeguards when studying and working with highly infectious diseases. I agree. But I kind of thought those were already in place. Any other solutions now that we have all decided it was a lab leak? I would almost have to say that if it is a lab leak, it was purposefully leaked to spread a virus. And hope that everyone is ill-equipped to know how to handle that.
|
|
|
Post by XAsstCoach on Jun 4, 2024 21:38:02 GMT -5
Obviously people have been talking about this "lab leak" idea for the last four years or so, and outside China not a single one of them has been arrested for it. There have been no legal injunctions against pushing the idea. Etc. Etc. Edited slightly for accuracy... ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png)
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jun 5, 2024 5:30:47 GMT -5
With over seven million deaths now attributed to COVID worldwide, there's an awful lot of legal liability out there. China has made moves to cut off origination information because they think it is in their best interests to claim the disease got its start somewhere else (they've been pointing at the USA). That being the case, there continue to be a lot of unknowns, which allow the conspiracy theorists to jump in with their opinions. Most of these naturally support their previously held ideology. No surprise there.
|
|