Vaccine thread

[stawns]

16 minutes ago, AatuD2 said:

 

 

 

New information came out on Monday through a freedom of information request. I'm going to quote New York Times here... 

 

"Newly released documents and internal messages regarding a 2018 coronavirus research proposal reveal scientists’ concerns that the Chinese lab — which is now at the center of the COVID-19 lab leak theory — would be viewed by US officials as a safety risk.

Drafts and notes regarding a grant proposal called Project DEFUSE, coauthored by American researchers and scientists from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, were published by US Right to Know Monday through a Freedom of Information Act request. 

The proposal, which was ultimately rejected and denied funding by the US’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), was submitted by the now-controversial EcoHealth Alliance and sought to test engineering bat coronaviruses in a way that would make them more easily transmissible to humans.

 

The researchers proposed introducing “appropriate human-specific cleavage sites” to the spike proteins of SARS-related viruses in the lab.

 

...

 

Now, messages and notes between the proposal’s authors as well as early drafts released this week add another layer to the theory.

 

According to the new documents, the researchers had planned to conduct a portion of the research at the Wuhan lab where safety precautions are not up to US standards, according to US Right to Know, a nonprofit public health research group.

 

“Ralph, Zhengli. If we win this contract, I do not propose that all of this work will necessarily be conducted by Ralph, but I do want to stress the US side of this proposal so that DARPA are comfortable with our team,” Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance wrote to North Carolina-based researcher Ralph Baric and the Wuhan scientist at the center of the lab leak theory, Zhengli Shi.

 

“Once we get the funds, we can then allocate who does what exact work, and I believe that a lot of these assays can be done in Wuhan as well…”

 

He also said he wanted to “downplay” the Chinese involvement in the research in hopes of being granted funding by DARPA.

 

“I’m planning to use my resume and Ralph’s,” Daszak wrote. “Linfa/Zhengli, I realize your resumes are also very impressive, but I’m trying to downplay the non-US focus of this proposal so that DARPA doesn’t see this as a negative.” 

 

In an earlier version of the draft proposal, the researchers said the project would be “highly cost-effective” because it would only require a lab with a biosafety level of two (BSL-2), on a scale of one to four with four (BSL-4) being the strictest level of safety standards.

 

...

 

“This latest leak makes the case for a lab leak almost certain,” biologist Matt Ridley tweeted. “A reckless experiment, known at the time to be reckless, probably caused the death of millions of people. Scientists and the media conspired to conceal the evidence.”

 

That simply is not the case.  While intelligence agencies might think otherwise, the medical/scientific community is mostly in agreement

 

"Many virologists, epidemiologists, and other infectious disease experts still say that all available evidence points to SARS-COV-2 spilling over to humans from an animal host, most likely at a wet market in Wuhan.

 

Michael Worobey, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Arizona, told the Economist that this is the most plausible explanation for three reasons. Geographically, the pattern of the earliest cases centre on the wet market. Zoonotically, animals that could be infected with SARS-CoV-2 were present at the wet market, as confirmed by peer reviewed research published in Nature using swab data collected from the market before the outbreak.13

 

In addition, genetic evidence following the successive mutations that occur in a virus’s genome as it replicates from generation to generation point to two spillover events from animals to humans tied to the wet market.14 Writing on Twitter, Francois Balloux, chair in computational biology systems biology at UCL, said that three independent scientific approaches (direct, serology, and phylogenetics) are “highly consistent” in pointing to “a host jump of SARS-CoV-2 from animals to humans around November 2019.

 

“The evidence also fits a scenario of an initial emergence in China, followed by rapid transmission to Europe, with northern Italy having acted as the epicentre of the spread to the rest of the world,” he said"

 

https://www.bmj.com/content/382/bmj.p1556

Edited December 20, 2023 by stawns

[AatuD2]

3 minutes ago, stawns said:

 

That simply is not the case.  While intelligence agencies might think otherwise, the medical/scientific community is mostly in agreement

 

"Many virologists, epidemiologists, and other infectious disease experts still say that all available evidence points to SARS-COV-2 spilling over to humans from an animal host, most likely at a wet market in Wuhan.

 

Michael Worobey, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Arizona, told the Economist that this is the most plausible explanation for three reasons. Geographically, the pattern of the earliest cases centre on the wet market. Zoonotically, animals that could be infected with SARS-CoV-2 were present at the wet market, as confirmed by peer reviewed research published in Nature using swab data collected from the market before the outbreak.13

 

In addition, genetic evidence following the successive mutations that occur in a virus’s genome as it replicates from generation to generation point to two spillover events from animals to humans tied to the wet market.14 Writing on Twitter, Francois Balloux, chair in computational biology systems biology at UCL, said that three independent scientific approaches (direct, serology, and phylogenetics) are “highly consistent” in pointing to “a host jump of SARS-CoV-2 from animals to humans around November 2019.

 

“The evidence also fits a scenario of an initial emergence in China, followed by rapid transmission to Europe, with northern Italy having acted as the epicentre of the spread to the rest of the world,” he said"

 

https://www.bmj.com/content/382/bmj.p1556

 

 

From the paper that you linked 

 

No. As stated above, the US intelligence community has concluded that both the main theories—animal spillover at a wet market and laboratory leak—remain plausible, with a sense of resignation about ever finding a definitive answer.

 

A separate report also published in June, from the US Government Accountability Office,10 confirmed that National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding had gone to WIV and that the EcoHealth Alliance—the US research body partnering with it—“did not properly notify NIH in a timely manner of research at WIV, which, according to NIH, exceeded the safety threshold outlined in the 2016 award conditions.” Again, it cannot say whether a laboratory leak of any virus did or did not occur.

[stawns]

1 minute ago, AatuD2 said:

 

 

From the paper that you linked 

 

No. As stated above, the US intelligence community has concluded that both the main theories—animal spillover at a wet market and laboratory leak—remain plausible, with a sense of resignation about ever finding a definitive answer.

 

A separate report also published in June, from the US Government Accountability Office,10 confirmed that National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding had gone to WIV and that the EcoHealth Alliance—the US research body partnering with it—“did not properly notify NIH in a timely manner of research at WIV, which, according to NIH, exceeded the safety threshold outlined in the 2016 award conditions.” Again, it cannot say whether a laboratory leak of any virus did or did not occur.

Of course it remains plausible, they can't disprove anything.  Your claim that it is the consensus that a lab leak is most likely is not true in the medical and scientific communities........the people who actually study virus'

[the destroyer of worlds]

19 minutes ago, AatuD2 said:

 

 

 

New information came out on Monday through a freedom of information request. I'm going to quote New York Times here... 

 

"Newly released documents and internal messages regarding a 2018 coronavirus research proposal reveal scientists’ concerns that the Chinese lab — which is now at the center of the COVID-19 lab leak theory — would be viewed by US officials as a safety risk.

Drafts and notes regarding a grant proposal called Project DEFUSE, coauthored by American researchers and scientists from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, were published by US Right to Know Monday through a Freedom of Information Act request. 

The proposal, which was ultimately rejected and denied funding by the US’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), was submitted by the now-controversial EcoHealth Alliance and sought to test engineering bat coronaviruses in a way that would make them more easily transmissible to humans.

 

The researchers proposed introducing “appropriate human-specific cleavage sites” to the spike proteins of SARS-related viruses in the lab.

 

...

 

Now, messages and notes between the proposal’s authors as well as early drafts released this week add another layer to the theory.

 

According to the new documents, the researchers had planned to conduct a portion of the research at the Wuhan lab where safety precautions are not up to US standards, according to US Right to Know, a nonprofit public health research group.

 

“Ralph, Zhengli. If we win this contract, I do not propose that all of this work will necessarily be conducted by Ralph, but I do want to stress the US side of this proposal so that DARPA are comfortable with our team,” Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance wrote to North Carolina-based researcher Ralph Baric and the Wuhan scientist at the center of the lab leak theory, Zhengli Shi.

 

“Once we get the funds, we can then allocate who does what exact work, and I believe that a lot of these assays can be done in Wuhan as well…”

 

He also said he wanted to “downplay” the Chinese involvement in the research in hopes of being granted funding by DARPA.

 

“I’m planning to use my resume and Ralph’s,” Daszak wrote. “Linfa/Zhengli, I realize your resumes are also very impressive, but I’m trying to downplay the non-US focus of this proposal so that DARPA doesn’t see this as a negative.” 

 

In an earlier version of the draft proposal, the researchers said the project would be “highly cost-effective” because it would only require a lab with a biosafety level of two (BSL-2), on a scale of one to four with four (BSL-4) being the strictest level of safety standards.

 

...

 

“This latest leak makes the case for a lab leak almost certain,” biologist Matt Ridley tweeted. “A reckless experiment, known at the time to be reckless, probably caused the death of millions of people. Scientists and the media conspired to conceal the evidence.”

 

Having safety concerns is not proof that the virus came from the lab.  If the virus came from the lab, then

 

1)  The researchers were using viruses that were molecularly related to the virus of this pandemic.  The published record indicates that they were not.  Provide the evidence that they were using a virus that is molecularly related to the virus of this pandemic.

 

And,

 

2)  The researchers were using manipulation techniques that leave no indication that manipulations occurred.  The published record indicates that they were not.  Provide evidence that they were using manipulation techniques that leave no telltale signs of said manipulations.

 

You can have all the weak circumstantial evidence in the world.  What you need is a smoking gun.  You have none.  All indications are that the lab was researching coronaviruses and using manipulation techniques that could not possibly produce the virus of this pandemic.

 

And if you disagree, then produce the goods.  Provide us with the actual evidence of 1) and 2).  We can wait.  We have been waiting for years now.  Waiting for the lab leak crew to actually produce the goods.  And please, no YouTube video.  All that will prove is you nodded along with the video and did ZERO actual research looking into the sources of that video's information.  With the confidence you lot have, it should be VERY easy to provide something akin to a primary source.  PLEASE.  I'm begging you to give us the smoking gun.

[King Heffy]

17 minutes ago, AatuD2 said:

 

I must've missed that, but this latest NY Times article that I posted pretty much specifies that this particular work wasn't and wouldn't have been approved for the US and was done in Wuhan. 

 

https://nypost.com/2023/12/19/news/2018-covid-docs-reveal-scientists-safety-concerns-over-chinese-lab/

Got anything from a real source instead of this trash?

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-post/

[AatuD2]

1 minute ago, stawns said:

Of course it remains plausible, they can't disprove anything.  Your claim that it is the consensus that a lab leak is most likely is not true in the medical and scientific communities........the people who actually study virus'

 

 

People that study the virus said that it looks engineered.  I can find you the first memo sent to Dr Fauci. 

Doctors Quay and Muller state it here 

https://nypost.com/2021/06/06/damning-science-shows-covid-19-likely-engineered-in-lab/

 

The circumstancial evidence is overwhelming at this point. 

 

People need to stop associating those looking for the origin with those claiming that vaccines are bad. Those issues should not be conflated, as they have nothing to do with each other. 

 

This should be a big lesson for everyone that limits and safeties on research exist for a reason. 

[Satchmo]

12 minutes ago, 4petesake said:

 

Except as I posted yesterday  with a link in reply to one of your posts that research was and is being done on US soil.

No one is disputing that over 150 labs word wide - including the US - is dabbling in this stuff.

 

Some recent post of yours threw some shade on CNN.   I have plenty of shade to throw on the NY Post. 

 

BTW - one of your posts above quotes the New York Times and you then post an article by the Post.   The difference between the two is vast.   The former I tend to believe; the latter has spun some shit over the years and has not gained my trust.  (And yes, I know all about the Pulitzer the NYT had rescinded.)

 

Your article may prove shady dealings made to get funding.   I am no fan of that but let's not call it more than what it is -  shady dealings made to get funding.  It shouldn't happen, but it happens all the time.

 

Maybe something will come from this.  So far, I think the smoking gun is just a cartoon drawing.

 

 

[AatuD2]

8 minutes ago, the destroyer of worlds said:

 

Having safety concerns is not proof that the virus came from the lab.  If the virus came from the lab, then

 

1)  The researchers were using viruses that were molecularly related to the virus of this pandemic.  The published record indicates that they were not.  Provide the evidence that they were using a virus that is molecularly related to the virus of this pandemic.

 

And,

 

2)  The researchers were using manipulation techniques that leave no indication that manipulations occurred.  The published record indicates that they were not.  Provide evidence that they were using manipulation techniques that leave no telltale signs of said manipulations.

 

You can have all the weak circumstantial evidence in the world.  What you need is a smoking gun.  You have none.  All indications are that the lab was researching coronaviruses and using manipulation techniques that could not possibly produce the virus of this pandemic.

 

And if you disagree, then produce the goods.  Provide us with the actual evidence of 1) and 2).  We can wait.  We have been waiting for years now.  Waiting for the lab leak crew to actually produce the goods.  And please, no YouTube video.  All that will prove is you nodded along with the video and did ZERO actual research looking into the sources of that video's information.  With the confidence you lot have, it should be VERY easy to provide something akin to a primary source.  PLEASE.  I'm begging you to give us the smoking gun.

 

 

This is old news, but here you go 

 

https://nypost.com/2021/06/06/damning-science-shows-covid-19-likely-engineered-in-lab/

 

"The pair noted that the double CGG sequence has never been found naturally among the entire group of coronaviruses that includes CoV-2, which causes COVID-19.

 

But, in what Quay and Muller called a “damning fact,” it was found in CoV-2.

 

“Proponents of zoonotic origin must explain why the novel coronavirus, when it mutated or recombined, happened to pick its least favorite combination, the double CGG,” they wrote. “Why did it replicate the choice the lab’s gain-of-function researchers would have made?" 

 

 

[Satchmo]

3 minutes ago, AatuD2 said:

 

 

People that study the virus said that it looks engineered.  I can find you the first memo sent to Dr Fauci. 

Doctors Quay and Muller state it here 

https://nypost.com/2021/06/06/damning-science-shows-covid-19-likely-engineered-in-lab/

 

The circumstancial evidence is overwhelming at this point. 

 

People need to stop associating those looking for the origin with those claiming that vaccines are bad. Those issues should not be conflated, as they have nothing to do with each other. 

 

This should be a big lesson for everyone that limits and safeties on research exist for a reason. 

If anyone here has done that please call them out to discuss it.   Otherwise, please don't paint us all with that brush.

[Satchmo]

2 minutes ago, AatuD2 said:

 

 

This is old news, but here you go 

 

https://nypost.com/2021/06/06/damning-science-shows-covid-19-likely-engineered-in-lab/

 

"The pair noted that the double CGG sequence has never been found naturally among the entire group of coronaviruses that includes CoV-2, which causes COVID-19.

 

But, in what Quay and Muller called a “damning fact,” it was found in CoV-2.

 

“Proponents of zoonotic origin must explain why the novel coronavirus, when it mutated or recombined, happened to pick its least favorite combination, the double CGG,” they wrote. “Why did it replicate the choice the lab’s gain-of-function researchers would have made?" 

 

 

I'm beginning to think the New York Post is the only reliable source of news on this and there is a global conspiracy to keep this from all other news sites.

 

If you can just find me a scientist or two to back that up I'll stop believing all the other scientists.   

[the destroyer of worlds]

2 minutes ago, AatuD2 said:

 

 

This is old news, but here you go 

 

https://nypost.com/2021/06/06/damning-science-shows-covid-19-likely-engineered-in-lab/

 

"The pair noted that the double CGG sequence has never been found naturally among the entire group of coronaviruses that includes CoV-2, which causes COVID-19.

 

But, in what Quay and Muller called a “damning fact,” it was found in CoV-2.

 

“Proponents of zoonotic origin must explain why the novel coronavirus, when it mutated or recombined, happened to pick its least favorite combination, the double CGG,” they wrote. “Why did it replicate the choice the lab’s gain-of-function researchers would have made?" 

 

 

I don't know why a physicist is involved, but it always seems like you lot can only get "experts" who actually are not doing actual research in the field that they are providing actual opinion on.  

 

Thing is, the CGG code actually does occur.  It is one of 6 sequences that code for arginine.  Their argument fails to explain how this sequence cannot and does not exist naturally in coronaviruses.

 

Since all you got is a NY Post article, I'll post something similar.  Bring a peer reviewed scientific article, I'll do the same.

 

https://theconversation.com/covid-lab-leak-theory-rare-genetic-sequence-doesnt-mean-the-virus-was-engineered-162360

[AatuD2]

9 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

 

 

Maybe something will come from this.  So far, I think the smoking gun is just a cartoon drawing.

 

 

 

 

Multiple smoking guns, and lots of redacted emails and coverups. 

 

Also as seen in this thread, a huge mental block to seeing what's being presented. 

 

I actually believed in the wet market theory for the first two years until I heard the facts for Wuhan lab laid out all together. 

 

 

[Satchmo]

@Wiggums what confuses you?

 

This was hidden in my reply and you have click expand to see it:

 

AutuD2:

"People need to stop associating those looking for the origin with those claiming that vaccines are bad. Those issues should not be conflated, as they have nothing to do with each other. |

 

I have seen this mentioned in more than a few posts lately. I have yet to see anyone actually say it and have only seen accusations that it was said.

[Satchmo]

3 minutes ago, AatuD2 said:

 

Also as seen in this thread, a huge mental block to seeing what's being presented. 

 

 

 

That's one way to describe it.   There is a flip side to that argument that could easily be made if one was to forget their manners.

 

[AatuD2]

1 minute ago, the destroyer of worlds said:

I don't know why a physicist is involved, but it always seems like you lot can only get "experts" who actually are not doing actual research in the field that they are providing actual opinion on.  

 

Thing is, the CGG code actually does occur.  It is one of 6 sequences that code for arginine.  Their argument fails to explain how this sequence cannot and does not exist naturally in coronaviruses.

 

Since all you got is a NY Post article, I'll post something similar.  Bring a peer reviewed scientific article, I'll do the same.

 

https://theconversation.com/covid-lab-leak-theory-rare-genetic-sequence-doesnt-mean-the-virus-was-engineered-162360

 

Kristian G. Andersen, a professor of immunology and microbiology at Scripps Research. Andersen has studied the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

 

Let’s start with the Jan. 31 email. Andersen wrote to Fauci: “On a phylogenetic tree the virus looks totally normal and the close clustering with bats suggest that bats serve as the reservoir. The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (< 0.1 %) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered.”

He continued: “We have a good team lined up to look very critically at this, so we should know much more at the end of the weekend. I should mention that after discussions earlier today, Eddie, Bob, Mike, and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory. But we have to look at this much more closely and there are still further analyses to be done, so those opinions could still change.”

 

 

Then after a redacted set of emails and a meeting to discuss their strategy, they all come out with a different view later. 

[AatuD2]

2 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

That's one way to describe it.   There is a flip side to that argument that could easily be made if one was to forget their manners.

 

 

Oh the flip side argument has been made for the last three years in calling people racists and morons that even bring up the lab leak theory, and without any manners. 

[Satchmo]

1 minute ago, AatuD2 said:

 

Oh the flip side argument has been made for the last three years in calling people racists and morons that even bring up the lab leak theory, and without any manners. 

So call those people out.   Are they here?

[Wiggums]

13 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

@Wiggums what confuses you?

 

This was hidden in my reply and you have click expand to see it:

 

AutuD2:

"People need to stop associating those looking for the origin with those claiming that vaccines are bad. Those issues should not be conflated, as they have nothing to do with each other. |

 

I have seen this mentioned in more than a few posts lately. I have yet to see anyone actually say it and have only seen accusations that it was said.

 

The poster wants to mitigate damage, they know how people here like to get fussy and call people anti-vaxxers. They know they'll be attacked for bringing up anything about a lab leak.  

 

2 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

So call those people out.   Are they here?

 

You must be new.

 

What do you mean call them out?  Like, just stop.  He's not going to start calling people out for these things at this moment in time lol

Edited December 20, 2023 by Wiggums

[Satchmo]

Just now, Wiggums said:

 

The poster wants to mitigate damage, they know how people here like to get fussy and call people anti-vaxxers. They know they'll be attacked for bringing up anything about a lab leak.  

 

 

You must be new.

I am not new.   Neither am I paranoid or overly defensive.  I've also studied enough science to believe in it,  as well as the scientific readiness to be proven wrong at anytime.

 

I have seen many points of view in this thread.   I have seen many counter points of view made.  Some polite; some less so.  Most disagreements seem fair enough for a bunch of mostly middle aged guys on a hockey site.

 

You seem to be complaining about being called something you are not.  So am I.   If someone says something you don't like I think you should call THAT person out.   Leave me out of it unless I say something you don't like.

[RupertKBD]

5 hours ago, Master Mind said:

 

 

Escaping from a lab could be that it was intentional, or that it was just negligence. People have varying opinions.

 

If we agree that it is possible, then why was it not allowed to be discussed early on?

 

Maybe the thought was that would create distrust, but I think it creates more distrust to prevent people from talking about a subject. Makes it seem like there is something to hide, even if there isn't.

 

I think people just want the truth, or to know when someone's lying to them. Especially if you lost a loved one to covid, I think it's understandable to ask questions, even if you'll never be given the whole answer.

 

I'm unaware that there was any prohibition on discussing the possibility of a lab leak. That being said, people are free to disagree with the opinions of others. Some tend to do so more vehemently than others.....but that doesn't equate to "not allowed".....more like "not allowed without pushback".

[Sharpshooter]

I had my 5th vaccine jab a month ago. 
 

No side effects. 
 

Waited to get the flu vaccine a couple weeks later. 
 

No issues. 
 

 

[4petesake]

3 hours ago, Satchmo said:

No one is disputing that over 150 labs word wide - including the US - is dabbling in this stuff.

 

Some recent post of yours threw some shade on CNN.   I have plenty of shade to throw on the NY Post. 

 

BTW - one of your posts above quotes the New York Times and you then post an article by the Post.   The difference between the two is vast.   The former I tend to believe; the latter has spun some shit over the years and has not gained my trust.  (And yes, I know all about the Pulitzer the NYT had rescinded.)

 

Your article may prove shady dealings made to get funding.   I am no fan of that but let's not call it more than what it is -  shady dealings made to get funding.  It shouldn't happen, but it happens all the time.

 

Maybe something will come from this.  So far, I think the smoking gun is just a cartoon drawing.

 

 

 

You have me confused. I’m not sure why you think I’m throwing shade on CNN or the NYP or anyone else, maybe you have me confused with someone else. I’m certainly willing to reconsider if you have something from me stating otherwise.

 

I simply posted an article from Forbes written by Steven Salzberg  from Johns Hopkins that says the research conducted at BU was gain of function experiments on the SARS Covid virus in rebuttal to the statement that no such work could be done on US soil. Also I made no attempt to tie it to any lab leak here or in Wuhan or other theory on where the virus came from. 

[Bob Long]

5 hours ago, AatuD2 said:

 

 

 

New information came out on Monday through a freedom of information request. I'm going to quote New York Times here... 

 

"Newly released documents and internal messages regarding a 2018 coronavirus research proposal reveal scientists’ concerns that the Chinese lab — which is now at the center of the COVID-19 lab leak theory — would be viewed by US officials as a safety risk.

Drafts and notes regarding a grant proposal called Project DEFUSE, coauthored by American researchers and scientists from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, were published by US Right to Know Monday through a Freedom of Information Act request. 

The proposal, which was ultimately rejected and denied funding by the US’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), was submitted by the now-controversial EcoHealth Alliance and sought to test engineering bat coronaviruses in a way that would make them more easily transmissible to humans.

 

The researchers proposed introducing “appropriate human-specific cleavage sites” to the spike proteins of SARS-related viruses in the lab.

 

...

 

Now, messages and notes between the proposal’s authors as well as early drafts released this week add another layer to the theory.

 

According to the new documents, the researchers had planned to conduct a portion of the research at the Wuhan lab where safety precautions are not up to US standards, according to US Right to Know, a nonprofit public health research group.

 

“Ralph, Zhengli. If we win this contract, I do not propose that all of this work will necessarily be conducted by Ralph, but I do want to stress the US side of this proposal so that DARPA are comfortable with our team,” Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance wrote to North Carolina-based researcher Ralph Baric and the Wuhan scientist at the center of the lab leak theory, Zhengli Shi.

 

“Once we get the funds, we can then allocate who does what exact work, and I believe that a lot of these assays can be done in Wuhan as well…”

 

He also said he wanted to “downplay” the Chinese involvement in the research in hopes of being granted funding by DARPA.

 

“I’m planning to use my resume and Ralph’s,” Daszak wrote. “Linfa/Zhengli, I realize your resumes are also very impressive, but I’m trying to downplay the non-US focus of this proposal so that DARPA doesn’t see this as a negative.” 

 

In an earlier version of the draft proposal, the researchers said the project would be “highly cost-effective” because it would only require a lab with a biosafety level of two (BSL-2), on a scale of one to four with four (BSL-4) being the strictest level of safety standards.

 

...

 

“This latest leak makes the case for a lab leak almost certain,” biologist Matt Ridley tweeted. “A reckless experiment, known at the time to be reckless, probably caused the death of millions of people. Scientists and the media conspired to conceal the evidence.”

 

but this doesn't prove anything. Its a failed research proposal. 

[RupertKBD]

4 hours ago, Satchmo said:

@Wiggums what confuses you?

 

Everything....

[Master Mind]

2 hours ago, RupertKBD said:

 

I'm unaware that there was any prohibition on discussing the possibility of a lab leak. That being said, people are free to disagree with the opinions of others. Some tend to do so more vehemently than others.....but that doesn't equate to "not allowed".....more like "not allowed without pushback".

 

I'm referring to posts/accounts being deleted for bringing up the topic. I suppose the restrictions were effective if you and anyone else were unaware.

 

Getting pushback on ideas is fair game, that's the way it should be, rather than it be disallowed altogether.

 

5 hours ago, 4petesake said:

There isn’t anything wrong with a discussion about the origins of Covid in and of itself as knowing makes us all safer in the future. I think that many of the posters that brought it up wanted to attach it to discrediting health authorities & professionals who were doing that best they could with what knowledge we had at the time to protect the public and to keep hospitals from bursting at the seams. Remember there was a constant theme to assign nefarious intentions to every public health mandate and to Dr B herself, as in this quote from a post on the old board - 

 

“I have no problem with people being vaccinated or unvaccinated considering the vaccines seem to useless after a period of time until you need your booster shot. This rhetoric gets us nowhere except dividing us even more and not focused on the real culprits behind this which are politicians, government bureaucrats, and many important people who have accumulated a massive amount of wealth.”

 

In hindsight maybe we should have had a separate thread for discussion about origins, theories, mandates, etc. It probably would have been easier for mods to give posters more latitude in a thread not dedicated to public health and safety.

 

My counter point would be that restricting questions only fuels those individuals more. Let those questions be answered with information. The chosen path created plenty of distrust not only in the covid vaccine, but other vaccines/medicines too. A predictable outcome.

 

I don't know the full context of that quote, but maybe rules were put in place where they live that were nonsensical, and therefore they have a gripe with their government. The huge transfer of wealth is not a good look either. I don't really see that type of post as a problem, as it isn't explicitly saying to break the law or anything along those lines

 

A separate thread may have been helpful, and who knows, maybe there was a mandate from the Canucks org on what to allow. The issue was more of a problem on larger platforms though.