All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (1 Viewer)

superchuck500

U.S. Blues
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
2,563
Reaction score
6,110
Location
Charleston, SC
Offline
This whole response to the Kristian Anderson email is so representative of the hysterical populist component of America right now. "Bombshell" from "leaked emails" show "Fauci knew scientists believed virus was engineered in Wuhan lab!" "Massive coverup!"

It was a FOIA production of a federal official's emails - that's not a leak. The comments were made to Fauci as part of an ongoing email discussion of current origin theories as of January 31, just 20 days after the first genome was posted to the databases. And the researchers in the email have commented at various times along the way that they had some early questions about some of the details in the genome that they later figured out were likely evolutionary after additional analysis. None of this was ever secret but more importantly, they can explain what they saw that raised their questions and they can explain how they came to the determination they did as a matter of science.

Again, a bureaucrat can't make a virus be something other than it is. You can't "cover up" a virus. Any refutation of this has to be scientific - has to be based on the virus itself. Sure, experts might disagree, they do all the time, but that's where this discussion has to be. Taking an email out of context and assuming that the information known just 20 days into a research project on a novel virus was the end-all-be-all and any subsequent change was a conspiracy is just stupid.
 
Last edited:

J-DONK

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
368
Reaction score
474
Age
41
Location
Minnesota
Offline
This whole response to the Kristian Anderson email is so representative of the hysterical populist component of America right now. "Bombshell" from "leaked emails" show "Fauci knew scientists believed virus was engineered in Wuhan lab!" "Massive coverup!"

It was a FOIA production of a federal official's emails - that's not a leak. The comments were made to Fauci as part of an ongoing email discussion of current origin theories as of January 31, just 20 days after the first genome was posted to the databases. And the researchers in the email have commented at various times along the way that they had some early questions about some of the details in the genome that they later figured out were likely evolutionary after additional analysis. None of this was ever secret but more importantly, they can explain what they saw that raised their questions and they can explain how they came to the determination they did as a matter of science.

Again, a bureaucrat can't make a virus be something other than it is. You can't "cover up" a virus. Any refutation of this has to be scientific - has to be based on the virus itself. Sure, experts might disagree, they do all the time, but that's where this discussion has to be. Taking an email out of context and assuming that the information known just 20 days into a research project on a novel virus was the end-all-be-all and any subsequent change was a conspiracy is just stupid.

I actually agree with you for the most part on all this Chuck. The timeline break down like this:

1. Fauci gets the email from Andersen about the origin not matching evolutionary theory.
2. The paper gets released in March by Andersen stating why he thinks the virus has a zoonotic origin. He then gave theories on how that might have happened.(This is were the pangolin thing came from.)
3. No one can find a intermediate species carrier, or a early proto-coronvirus that infected humans as proposed by Andersen.
4. We are back at lab leak being a strong possibility.

It's easy to see how Fauci was operating on the best information he had at the time.

However, that's not the only part of the email dump that's an issue. Fauci testified before congress that the NIH was not involved in gain of function work. You can watch the exchange with Rand Paul. There is an email that clearly states the NIH was involved in gain of function research. That could be defined as a "cover up". He was always using semantics anyways. It's been covered by multiple news sources that the NIH was funding the WIV via Ecohealth.

He also has a very strange email about mask back in February. He seems to be giving an honest opinion in that they aren't necessary, or needed. This goes along with statement about not needing mask that he gives a month later, but seems to contradict his later reasoning for giving that statement.
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,923
Reaction score
2,104
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Offline
I actually agree with you for the most part on all this Chuck. The timeline break down like this:

1. Fauci gets the email from Andersen about the origin not matching evolutionary theory.
2. The paper gets released in March by Andersen stating why he thinks the virus has a zoonotic origin. He then gave theories on how that might have happened.(This is were the pangolin thing came from.)
3. No one can find a intermediate species carrier, or a early proto-coronvirus that infected humans as proposed by Andersen.
4. We are back at lab leak being a strong possibility.

It's easy to see how Fauci was operating on the best information he had at the time.

However, that's not the only part of the email dump that's an issue. Fauci testified before congress that the NIH was not involved in gain of function work. You can watch the exchange with Rand Paul. There is an email that clearly states the NIH was involved in gain of function research. That could be defined as a "cover up". He was always using semantics anyways. It's been covered by multiple news sources that the NIH was funding the WIV via Ecohealth.

He also has a very strange email about mask back in February. He seems to be giving an honest opinion in that they aren't necessary, or needed. This goes along with statement about not needing mask that he gives a month later, but seems to contradict his later reasoning for giving that statement.

Iirc, the mask part of your comments are based on things Fauci said when the WHO was saying the virus wasn't airborne and that mask effectiveness would be minimal. They were clearly wrong, but that was the going theory at the time. What's funny is that there were lots of other people, including posters on SR saying that it was pretty clearly airborne and the WHO had it wrong. As we learned more, Fauci had to change his opinions and recommendations, which should be expected.

I don't buy that the money sent to the Wuhan lab was earmarked for gain of function research. Whoever sent the money couldn't have known it would go to that specific purpose. Regardless, there's really zero proof that that's what the funds were used for.
 

Optimus Prime

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,569
Reaction score
2,527
Age
44
Location
Washington DC Metro
Offline
Iirc, the mask part of your comments are based on things Fauci said when the WHO was saying the virus wasn't airborne and that mask effectiveness would be minimal. They were clearly wrong, but that was the going theory at the time. What's funny is that there were lots of other people, including posters on SR saying that it was pretty clearly airborne and the WHO had it wrong. As we learned more, Fauci had to change his opinions and recommendations, which should be expected.

I don't buy that the money sent to the Wuhan lab was earmarked for gain of function research. Whoever sent the money couldn't have known it would go to that specific purpose. Regardless, there's really zero proof that that's what the funds were used for.

posted this in the EE

good article talking about debate of airborne or not between the scientists and the WHO and why they got it wrong
===========================================

 

J-DONK

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
368
Reaction score
474
Age
41
Location
Minnesota
Offline
Iirc, the mask part of your comments are based on things Fauci said when the WHO was saying the virus wasn't airborne and that mask effectiveness would be minimal. They were clearly wrong, but that was the going theory at the time. What's funny is that there were lots of other people, including posters on SR saying that it was pretty clearly airborne and the WHO had it wrong. As we learned more, Fauci had to change his opinions and recommendations, which should be expected.

I don't buy that the money sent to the Wuhan lab was earmarked for gain of function research. Whoever sent the money couldn't have known it would go to that specific purpose. Regardless, there's really zero proof that that's what the funds were used for.

You are forgetting he already gave a reason for his comments.


As Fauci told the Washington Post here , at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, masks were not recommended for the general public, as authorities were trying to prevent a mask shortage for health workers and the extent of asymptomatic spread was unknown.

As far as zero proof of the NIH link to WIV:


For instance, in 2017, WIV published a study that said researchers had found a coronavirus from a bat that could be transmitted directly to humans. WIV researchers used reverse genetics to deliberately create novel recombinants of wild bat coronavirus backbones and spike genes, then tested the ability of these chimeric (man-made) viruses to replicate in — not just infect — a variety of cell lines. The article reported the discovery of novel coronavirus backbone and spike combinations that do not exist in nature and are capable of replicating efficiently in human cells with the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), the protein that provides the entry point for the coronavirus to hook into and infect human tissue.

The article, under its list of funders, included: the National Institutes of Health.

China will tell you this research had absolutely nothing to do with covid-19 despite the obvious link. That none of the samples match covid-19, and no you can't look at any of the raw data.
 

nolaspe

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
318
Reaction score
919
Age
44
Location
NOLA
Offline
posted this in the EE

good article talking about debate of airborne or not between the scientists and the WHO and why they got it wrong
===========================================

Was going to post this after seeing it in the EE lol...

Speaking of the gqp hysterics re: the emails, I was perusing fbook when eating breakfast earlier and there was a local news post by wdsu or wgno regarding the incentives being put out to get people vaccinated (free beer, guns, etc), and the comment section was full of rabid statements about Fauci's emails, how science is wrong, how the vaccine is basically poison, etc...

It's pretty sad really, and there's no use engaging any of them in any form of civil discourse (like I'd even try anyway)...
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,923
Reaction score
2,104
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Offline
You are forgetting he already gave a reason for his comments.




As far as zero proof of the NIH link to WIV:




China will tell you this research had absolutely nothing to do with covid-19 despite the obvious link. That none of the samples match covid-19, and no you can't look at any of the raw data.

Keep in mind Fauci was working for the Trump administration and at the time they weren't settled on the mask issue and later had to deal with mask shortages, so it was really a messaging issue more than a science issue at that point. Fauci had to sell whatever narrative they were going with at the time and it's obvious why it became muddled. The feigned outrage of Fauci detractors are mostly people looking for a scapegoat. It's pretty comical to think they had all their ducks in a row during the early months of a novel virus spreading rapidly around the world at the time.

China is clearly not trustworthy on the subject, but making unproven assumptions also isn't right. Two wrongs don't make a right. So until it's proven that the funding was used specifically for gain of function research, that argument doesn't hold water.
 

Saintamaniac

Rise Sons of the Gold & Purple
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
793
Reaction score
1,565
Age
51
Location
Laplace, LA
Offline
When there's an armed robbery and the robber gets killed with his own gun, we don't grieve for the robber. When there is a murder attempt and the victim gets the gun and kills his/her assailant, we don't grieve for the attempted murderer. When a child rapist goes to prison and is raped or murdered, we don't grieve for the child rapist.

When Covid deniers, anti-maskers and anti-vaccinationists get Covid and die from it, I have a cup of coffee and enjoy the schadenfreude.
 

superchuck500

U.S. Blues
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
2,563
Reaction score
6,110
Location
Charleston, SC
Offline
I actually agree with you for the most part on all this Chuck. The timeline break down like this:

1. Fauci gets the email from Andersen about the origin not matching evolutionary theory.
2. The paper gets released in March by Andersen stating why he thinks the virus has a zoonotic origin. He then gave theories on how that might have happened.(This is were the pangolin thing came from.)
3. No one can find a intermediate species carrier, or a early proto-coronvirus that infected humans as proposed by Andersen.
4. We are back at lab leak being a strong possibility.

It's easy to see how Fauci was operating on the best information he had at the time.

However, that's not the only part of the email dump that's an issue. Fauci testified before congress that the NIH was not involved in gain of function work. You can watch the exchange with Rand Paul. There is an email that clearly states the NIH was involved in gain of function research. That could be defined as a "cover up". He was always using semantics anyways. It's been covered by multiple news sources that the NIH was funding the WIV via Ecohealth.

He also has a very strange email about mask back in February. He seems to be giving an honest opinion in that they aren't necessary, or needed. This goes along with statement about not needing mask that he gives a month later, but seems to contradict his later reasoning for giving that statement.

Yeah, I haven't had time to explore the gain-of-function angle, I know it's an issue. I'd really like to see some new virology on the areas of concern (natural versus manipulated), perhaps there are papers I haven't seen or perhaps it's just because we've reached the end of what we can do without better transparency from China or just stumbling upon an intermediate host.

The whole mask thing is overblown IMO. It took the conventional health regulation community quite some time to come around to transmission being primarily airborne (in part due to WHO's reluctance, which goes to the article Optimus posted).
 

B4YOU

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2019
Messages
413
Reaction score
663
Age
41
Location
DC
Offline
.....
When Covid deniers, anti-maskers and anti-vaccinationists get Covid and die from it, I have a cup of coffee and enjoy the schadenfreude.
It’s hard for me not to take a Darwinian view on this. I’ve reached a point of acceptance. If people want to ignore 220 years of vaccines being effective and the advice of experts, then so be it.
 

J-DONK

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
368
Reaction score
474
Age
41
Location
Minnesota
Offline
Keep in mind Fauci was working for the Trump administration and at the time they weren't settled on the mask issue and later had to deal with mask shortages, so it was really a messaging issue more than a science issue at that point. Fauci had to sell whatever narrative they were going with at the time and it's obvious why it became muddled. The feigned outrage of Fauci detractors are mostly people looking for a scapegoat. It's pretty comical to think they had all their ducks in a row during the early months of a novel virus spreading rapidly around the world at the time.

China is clearly not trustworthy on the subject, but making unproven assumptions also isn't right. Two wrongs don't make a right. So until it's proven that the funding was used specifically for gain of function research, that argument doesn't hold water.

I don't believe there was any kind of mass mask shortage in early February. This would have been right after the travel restriction to China. It's strange he wouldn't even suggest using an N-95 mask. It appears consistent with this messaging in March, but it's hard to believe the same reasoning would apply in a personal email to a colleague. I don't think it's unfair for conservatives to use it as a gotcha pointing out that Fauci didn't truly believe mask were effective early on.

As far as the funding goes, it was cancelled because of the controversy. I provided an article that pointed towards a 2017 paper published on bat coronavirus research with the NIH listed as funding. This is really part of a much larger topic: America's culpability in funding, and training the WIV researchers. There are some questions that should be answered on why America was involved in such a poorly run lab, and why train China to do this research. Could these samples not be transported to a more secure lab in America?

Edit this to add an interview of Katherine Eban by MSNBC this morning:



Her piece:

 
Last edited:

nolaspe

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
318
Reaction score
919
Age
44
Location
NOLA
Offline
The self-own in the last line of quaren's letter is exquisite...

 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
4,536
Reaction score
7,526
Location
Midwest
Offline
J Donk, you can say there wasn’t a mask shortage, but you’d be totally wrong. In my hospital they were rationing the N-95’s and having people without direct patient contact wear cloth masks we brought from home early on. By May-June, IIRC, the shortage of surgical masks had eased so that surgical masks were provided to everyone who worked in the hospital. At first we were saving our surgical masks in case they ran out, and they were researching ways to sterilize them.

People were still reusing their N-95’s and putting them in brown paper bags between shifts for a while after that. It wasn’t until several months later that the shortage of N-95’s was eased.
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,923
Reaction score
2,104
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Offline
J Donk, you can say there wasn’t a mask shortage, but you’d be totally wrong. In my hospital they were rationing the N-95’s and having people without direct patient contact wear cloth masks we brought from home early on. By May-June, IIRC, the shortage of surgical masks had eased so that surgical masks were provided to everyone who worked in the hospital. At first we were saving our surgical masks in case they ran out, and they were researching ways to sterilize them.

People were still reusing their N-95’s and putting them in brown paper bags between shifts for a while after that. It wasn’t until several months later that the shortage of N-95’s was eased.

Indeed, I clearly recall a period of time when you couldn't get any masks at all in some markets, particularly the N-95s. Even on Amazon there was a significant backlog of many of the masks they were selling on their site. The shortage was legit.
 

where yat brah

Active member
Joined
Dec 28, 2019
Messages
16
Reaction score
29
Age
56
Location
Gulf Breeze
Offline
February 2020, I tried finding Level 3 surgical masks and N95 masks. I have a corporate account with Henry Schein, one of the largest medical supply companies in the US. Publicly traded. I pushed my request up to the territory manager and eventually to corporate HQ. I wasn't allowed to purchase even one box of 50. Instead, I was given Level 2 surgical masks. And, only allowed to purchase 2 boxes. I even called the 3M corporate office in MN and was told that there was a national shortage and I couldn't even buy a box from them. I went to the my local hospital and snaked 4 N95's from a box in PACU over a weekend when I knew there wouldn't be anyone in PACU. About 2 weeks later, I had a case and was told the hospital had put their N95's under lock and key. Only anesthesia and people working on the COVID floor could obtain one.
 

nolaspe

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
318
Reaction score
919
Age
44
Location
NOLA
Offline
February 2020, I tried finding Level 3 surgical masks and N95 masks. I have a corporate account with Henry Schein, one of the largest medical supply companies in the US. Publicly traded. I pushed my request up to the territory manager and eventually to corporate HQ. I wasn't allowed to purchase even one box of 50. Instead, I was given Level 2 surgical masks. And, only allowed to purchase 2 boxes. I even called the 3M corporate office in MN and was told that there was a national shortage and I couldn't even buy a box from them. I went to the my local hospital and snaked 4 N95's from a box in PACU over a weekend when I knew there wouldn't be anyone in PACU. About 2 weeks later, I had a case and was told the hospital had put their N95's under lock and key. Only anesthesia and people working on the COVID floor could obtain one.
I was lucky that my parents were able to get a small supply of N95's very early on (my Dad is a retired physician), and they sent me a box of them to Dallas when I was living there last year.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Top Bottom