All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (2 Viewers)

[Maxp]

I fear we are really going to be in a bad place due to the obvious cuts to the federal agencies that deal with infectious disease, but also the negative effect the Affordable Care act has had on non urban hospitals. Our front line defenses are ineffectual and our ability to treat the populous is probably at an all time low. Factor in the cost of healthcare and I can see our system crashing. What do you think about the politics of this virus?

 

[MT15]

It's all true and we know that now due to the recent hearing and the emails and slack conversations that have been released.

Your vague message board deflections don't change the fact that we have the evidence that shows what I claim. If it's all untrue why don't you show how it is and be specific and detailed. No vague responses. I'm sure you won't do that though.

Oh, I already did. You ignored it. You never addressed it, I’m sure you didn’t read it even.

 

[SaintForLife]

There's an awful lot of presumption and reaching in this post.

Do tell and be specific. Vague message board refutations don't mean anything. Tell me where I'm wrong and I'll gladly eat crow.

 

[SaintForLife]

Oh, I already did. You ignored it. You never addressed it, I’m sure you didn’t read it even.

No you didn't. You said there are different ways to define gain of research. Okay, if that's true then show the different ways. You said those emails needed context. Provide the context then. I know you won't. You try to hide behind your vague comments and act like they refute the subject at hand, but it's obvious they don't.

The rest of your post was akin to a puff piece article that had no relevance to the lab leak, funding or Fauci and others getting caught lying.

 

[DaveXA]

Do tell and be specific. Vague message board refutations don't mean anything. Tell me where I'm wrong and I'll gladly eat crow.

You're connecting dots between Fauci, Covid and Wuhan Lab where there aren't any.

 

[MT15]

No you didn't. You said there are different ways to define gain of research. Okay, if that's true then show the different ways. You said those emails needed context. Provide the context then. I know you won't. You try to hide behind your vague comments and act like they refute the subject at hand, but it's obvious they don't.

The rest of your post was akin to a puff piece article that had no relevance to the lab leak, funding or Fauci and others getting caught lying.

Did you read the fact check? Or just look at the date and then complain? It explains the differing opinions on it. It explains the context. Nothing has really changed due to the recent emails. They evidence a robust debate, which your hacks have characterized as conspiracy.

The Wuhan Lab and the Gain-of-Function Disagreement - FactCheck.org

A disagreement between Republican Sen. Rand Paul and Dr. Anthony Fauci has put $600,000 of U.S. grant money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology back into the spotlight, while making "gain-of-function" research a household term -- all amid calls for more investigation into the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

www.factcheck.org

 

[DaveXA]

Did you read the fact check? Or just look at the date and then complain? It explains the differing opinions on it. It explains the context. Nothing has really changed due to the recent emails. They evidence a robust debate, which your hacks have characterized as conspiracy.

The Wuhan Lab and the Gain-of-Function Disagreement - FactCheck.org

A disagreement between Republican Sen. Rand Paul and Dr. Anthony Fauci has put $600,000 of U.S. grant money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology back into the spotlight, while making "gain-of-function" research a household term -- all amid calls for more investigation into the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

www.factcheck.org

Disagreement? That was Paul straight up being a disrespectful asshat.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Did you read the fact check? Or just look at the date and then complain? It explains the differing opinions on it. It explains the context. Nothing has really changed due to the recent emails. They evidence a robust debate, which your hacks have characterized as conspiracy.

The Wuhan Lab and the Gain-of-Function Disagreement - FactCheck.org

A disagreement between Republican Sen. Rand Paul and Dr. Anthony Fauci has put $600,000 of U.S. grant money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology back into the spotlight, while making "gain-of-function" research a household term -- all amid calls for more investigation into the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

www.factcheck.org

Fact check? HA.. they prefer Alternative Facts.. fits the narrative better.

 

[SaintForLife]

You're connecting dots between Fauci, Covid and Wuhan Lab where there aren't any.

The NIAID, under Fauci, funded the Wuhan lab which did gain of function research. Fauci claimed the US never funded any gain of function research in Wuhan. Here's Fauci saving Wuhan was doing gain of function research in this email that was heavily redacted until recently. As you can see in the email there was nothing that should have been redacted in that email. It was all about protecting Fauci.

What's incorrect about the dots I'm connecting?

 

[brandon]

The NIAID, under Fauci, funded the Wuhan lab which did gain of function research. Fauci claimed the US never funded any gain of function research in Wuhan. Here's Fauci saving Wuhan was doing gain of function research in this email that was heavily redacted until recently. As you can see in the email there was nothing that should have been redacted in that email. It was all about protecting Fauci.

What's incorrect about the dots I'm connecting?

You're not reading that email. You're just reading the highlighted part of the email that your handlers told you to read.

Read the whole thing.

 

[SaintForLife]

Did you read the fact check? Or just look at the date and then complain? It explains the differing opinions on it. It explains the context. Nothing has really changed due to the recent emails. They evidence a robust debate, which your hacks have characterized as conspiracy.

The Wuhan Lab and the Gain-of-Function Disagreement - FactCheck.org

A disagreement between Republican Sen. Rand Paul and Dr. Anthony Fauci has put $600,000 of U.S. grant money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology back into the spotlight, while making "gain-of-function" research a household term -- all amid calls for more investigation into the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

www.factcheck.org

That article is 2 years old. Nothing has changed? Seriously? We've learned a lot since 2021 that directly refutes the claims of Fauci, Anderson and the Proximal Orgins paper.

Robust debate?

 

[MT15]

That article is 2 years old. Nothing has changed? Seriously? We've learned a lot since 2021 that directly refutes the claims of Fauci, Anderson and the Proximal Orgins paper.

Robust debate?

No, you’re not really reading anything. Gain of function is not an exact term, that hasn’t changed. The differences of opinion on what constitutes gain of function haven‘t changed.

You’re still pretending that since Fauci knew that Chinese were doing gain of function, that means that the US was funding it and he OMG LIED. It doesn’t and they weren’t. There were various grants that funded different experiments. The US didn’t totally fund the Wuhan lab. These are very simple concepts, why do you keep ignoring them?

 

[MT15]

You're not reading that email. You're just reading the highlighted part of the email that your handlers told you to read.

Read the whole thing.

Narrator: but, in fact, he won’t read the whole thing, nor anything else that will contradict his conspiracy theories.

 

[SaintForLife]

No, you’re not really reading anything. Gain of function is not an exact term, that hasn’t changed. The differences of opinion on what constitutes gain of function haven‘t changed.

You’re still pretending that since Fauci knew that Chinese were doing gain of function, that means that the US was funding it and he OMG LIED. It doesn’t and they weren’t. There were various grants that funded different experiments. The US didn’t totally fund the Wuhan lab. These are very simple concepts, why do you keep ignoring them?

The email I posted shows Fauci acknowledging that Wuhan was doing gain of function research. We funded the Wuhan lab. A two year old article doesn't change what Fauci said in that email.

Fauci claimed that the US hadn't funded gain of research in Wuhan. He lied and got caught. It's as simple as that. The rest of his email doesn't change the fact that he admitted Wuhan was doing gain of function research.

 

[MT15]

The email I posted shows Fauci acknowledging that Wuhan was doing gain of function research. We funded the Wuhan lab. A two year old article doesn't change what Fauci said in that email.

Fauci claimed that the US hadn't funded gain of research in Wuhan. He lied and got caught. It's as simple as that. The rest of his email doesn't change the fact that he admitted Wuhan was doing gain of function research.

So you are saying the US provided 100% of the funding for the Wuhan lab? Yes or no

 

[brandon]

The email I posted shows Fauci acknowledging that Wuhan was doing gain of function research.

Yes.

We funded the Wuhan lab.

Yes.

Fauci claimed that the US hadn't funded gain of research in Wuhan. He lied and got caught.

This does not logically follow from the previous statements.

Funding the lab and funding gain of function research are two different things.

It is likely this funding was offered as part of a grant. Grants must be written for very specific things. We do not have evidence of a grant written by the Wuhan lab for gain of function research. It's likely that this money was part of a grant to fund virus research in some fashion - but that's a huge field that could include any number of research topics. You have no evidence that it was allocated to gain of function, specifically because that evidence does not exist.

 

[DaveXA]

Yes.


Yes.


This does not logically follow from the previous statements.

Funding the lab and funding gain of function research are two different things.

It is likely this funding was offered as part of a grant. Grants must be written for very specific things. We do not have evidence of a grant written by the Wuhan lab for gain of function research. It's likely that this money was part of a grant to fund virus research in some fashion - but that's a huge field that could include any number of research topics. You have no evidence that it was allocated to gain of function, specifically because that evidence does not exist.

Indeed, and hence why I stated he was connecting dots that weren't actually there.

 

[coldseat]

This does not logically follow from the previous statements.

Funding the lab and funding gain of function research are two different things.

It is likely this funding was offered as part of a grant. Grants must be written for very specific things. We do not have evidence of a grant written by the Wuhan lab for gain of function research. It's likely that this money was part of a grant to fund virus research in some fashion - but that's a huge field that could include any number of research topics. You have no evidence that it was allocated to gain of function, specifically because that evidence does not exist.

The grant award to ECOHealth actually prevented funding of gain of function research in the writing. And an independent oversight board confirmed that what ECOHealth used the money for wasn't classified as gain of function research.

 

[brandon]

The grant award to ECOHealth actually prevented funding of gain of function research in the writing. And an independent oversight board confirmed that what ECOHealth used the money for wasn't classified as gain of function research.

So now that SFL's theory has been fully debunked, I'm sure he'll be back to tell us how sorry he is for posting disinformation.