covid foia lawsuit

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by WTF

Yes I noticed you highlighted the points you thought bolstered your case.

I hate to let you in on a secret....but that is what each side does.

How about you highlighted in red when you find something definitive instead of speculative.

And yes I was the one that brought that up in the MTP interview...it sure sounds like he hasn't heard anything that has changed his mind.

then why after 2 and a half years of DA NILE (and retiring) is Fauci "suddenly" open minded? doesn't seem strange at all to you, does it?


so .. both sides intentionally suppress the facts? interesting opinion. can you prove that?


thank you valued poster.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

then why after 2 and a half years of DA NILE (and retiring) is Fauci "suddenly" open minded? doesn't seem strange at all to you, does it?


so .. both sides intentionally suppress the facts? interesting opinion. can you prove that?


thank you valued poster.

I didn't say suppress, I said highlight.

That is wtf you conspiracy theorists do.

Now run along until you conjure up something a tad more definitive.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by WTF

I didn't say suppress, I said highlight.

That is wtf you conspiracy theorists do.

Now run along until you conjure up something a tad more definitive.

you didn't read one word. keep believing Fauci. because he wants you to.



Fauci then weighed in, objecting to the preprint’s description of Chinese scientists “surreptitiously” deleting the sequences. The word was loaded, said Fauci, and the reason they’d asked for the deletions was unknown.

claiming that a new analysis of public data from the Huanan market in Wuhan provided “dispositive evidence” that the virus first leapt to humans from animals sold there. But a number of top scientists, Bloom among them, questioned that assertion, saying the preprints, while worthy, relied on incomplete data and found no infected animal.

“[Daszak] and NIH have acted badly,” Sachs told Vanity Fair. “There has been a lack of transparency…and there is a lot more to know and that can be known.” He said that the NIH should support an “independent scientific investigation” to examine the “possible role” in the pandemic of the NIH, EcoHealth Alliance, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and a partner laboratory at the University of North Carolina.


Of all those high-level people, almost no one ranked as high as Fauci, a scientific kingmaker who dispensed billions in grant money each year—and Daszak was determined to share a podium with him. The idea was admittedly a reach. Though he’d met with Fauci and received funding from his agency, Daszak was relatively obscure. But he had cultivated back-channel access to the minders who guarded Fauci’s calendar.



The gambit worked. Fauci signed on to give a presentation on the Zika virus at the Cosmos Club on March 30, and the RSVPs flowed in. The guests came from an array of deep-pocketed federal agencies: the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Pentagon, even NASA.


The wagon-circling on that Zoom call reflected a siege mentality at the NIH whose cause was much larger than Bloom and the missing sequences. It couldn’t be made to disappear with creative editing or deletion. And it all began with a once-obscure science nonprofit in Manhattan that had become the conduit for federal grant money to a Wuhan research laboratory.


In 2014, Fauci’s agency had issued a $3.7 million grant to EcoHealth Alliance, a nongovernmental organization dedicated to predicting and helping to prevent the next pandemic by identifying viruses that could leap from wildlife to humans. The grant, titled Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence, proposed to screen wild and captive bats in China, analyze sequences in the laboratory to gauge the risk of bat viruses infecting humans


If anything, the MERS study Daszak proposed was even riskier. So he pitched a compromise to the NIH: that if any of the recombined strains showed 10 times greater growth than a natural virus, “we will immediately: i) stop all experiments with the mutant, ii) inform our NIAID Program Officer and the UNC [Institutional Biosafety Committee] of these results and iii) participate in decision making trees to decide appropriate paths forward.”

Allowing such risky research to go forward at the Wuhan Institute of Virology was “simply crazy, in my opinion,” says Jack Nunberg, director of the Montana Biotechnology Center. “Reasons are lack of oversight, lack of regulation, the environment in China,” where scientists who publish in prestigious journals get rewarded by the government, creating dangerous incentives. “So that is what really elevates it to the realm of, ‘No, this shouldn’t happen.’”



By late December 2019, cases of what would soon be identified as SARS-CoV-2 began emerging around the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in the Jianghan district of Wuhan, roughly eight miles from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.


In mid-January of 2020, Vanity Fair can reveal, Redfield expressed his concerns in separate phone conversations with three scientific leaders: Fauci; Jeremy Farrar, the director of the U.K.’s Wellcome Trust; and Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director general of the World Health Organization (WHO). Redfield’s message, he says, was simple: “We had to take the lab-leak hypothesis with extreme seriousness.”



The previous evening, Andersen had emailed Fauci, saying that he and scientists including Garry, Farzan, and the Australian virologist Edward Holmes all found the genetic sequence “inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”


But within three days, four of the scientists on the call, including Andersen, Garry, and Holmes, had shared the draft of a letter arguing the opposite. Farrar shared a copy with Fauci, who offered feedback ahead of its publication on March 17 in Nature Medicine. The letter, The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2, analyzed the genomic sequence and made a seemingly unequivocal statement: “we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.”

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by WTF

I didn't say suppress, I said highlight.

That is wtf you conspiracy theorists do.

Now run along until you conjure up something a tad more definitive.

Just for clarity what conspiracy are you referring too?

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Just for clarity what conspiracy are you referring too?

anyone who doesn't accept as absolute fact the Fauci narrative. had to be animal to human no matter what as the source of the pandemic. because Fauci said so.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

anyone who doesn't accept as absolute fact the Fauci narrative. had to be animal to human no matter what as the source of the pandemic. because Fauci said so.

Well Animal to Human hasn't been proven any more than the so called "Lab Leak" Theory. Now in order to prove the Animal to Human theory the so called Sars-Cov2 Virus must be isolated and purified in a culture without any other contaminates present from the Animal in question. Then their must be a culture made from the lung fluid, snot whatever from a sick human and the Sars-Cov2 Virus genome must be discovered and be identical to the Animal's. Then with all this a healthy animal or human must be made ill with it intentionally to confirm this virus from an animal will infect humans and cause disease. There is no publication out there that says that's been done. So to say an animal to human is the cause of Covid-19 is a guess.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Well Animal to Human hasn't been proven any more than the so called "Lab Leak" Theory. Now in order to prove the Animal to Human theory the so called Sars-Cov2 Virus must be isolated and purified in a culture without any other contaminates present from the Animal in question. Then their must be a culture made from the lung fluid, snot whatever from a sick human and the Sars-Cov2 Virus genome must be discovered and be identical to the Animal's. Then with all this a healthy animal or human must be made ill with it intentionally to confirm this virus from an animal will infect humans and cause disease. There is no publication out there that says that's been done. So to say an animal to human is the cause of Covid-19 is a guess.

after 2 and a half years it's less than a guess considering not one animal anywhere has been found to have covid. no bats, no pangolins. no seafood. nada. yet the press continues to report studies saying "most likely" without any proof at all.

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

anyone who doesn't accept as absolute fact the Fauci narrative. had to be animal to human no matter what as the source of the pandemic. because Fauci said so.

Fauci became an "anti-Trump" to many a long time ago. He can do no wrong.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Well Animal to Human hasn't been proven any more than the so called "Lab Leak" Theory. Now in order to prove the Animal to Human theory the so called Sars-Cov2 Virus must be isolated and purified in a culture without any other contaminates present from the Animal in question. Then their must be a culture made from the lung fluid, snot whatever from a sick human and the Sars-Cov2 Virus genome must be discovered and be identical to the Animal's. Then with all this a healthy animal or human must be made ill with it intentionally to confirm this virus from an animal will infect humans and cause disease. There is no publication out there that says that's been done. So to say an animal to human is the cause of Covid-19 is a guess.

Was the above done for SARS-Cov1 before it died out? Or MERS which will eventually die out because the replication factor is less than 1? It has been said that SARS-Cov1 came from a bat and MERS came from a Camel.

The genome for SARS-CoV2 has been identified. Its genome is much different than the genomes of the corona viruses that they were experimenting with at the WuHan lab.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/searc...62&action=view

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Was the above done for SARS-Cov1 before it died out? Or MERS which will eventually die out because the replication factor is less than 1? It has been said that SARS-Cov1 came from a bat and MERS came from a Camel.

The genome for SARS-CoV2 has been identified. Its genome is much different than the genomes of the corona viruses that they were experimenting with at the WuHan lab.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/searc...62&action=view

Here's the first comment, from the content creator.

"JJ Medicine
JJ Medicine
6 months ago (edited)
IMPORTANT UPDATE: Hi everyone. As many have commented, the hypothesis of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 mentioned in this video is outdated and highly likely to be incorrect. At the time of recording this lesson (April 2020), what was mentioned in this lesson was the prevailing hypothesis. But as time has gone on, new evidence has emerged, and this is NOT the prevailing hypothesis at present. So, please disregard what is mentioned here for the possible origin of SARS-CoV-2. The reproductive number and mortality rate of SARS-CoV-2 is likely different (due to different variants) than what is presented here as well. Other information is accurate. If there is any other information that is incorrect, please let me know. Thanks - I hope you all find this lesson helpful and informative, and my apologies for not providing an update sooner. JJ."

Really?

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Was the above done for SARS-Cov1 before it died out? Or MERS which will eventually die out because the replication factor is less than 1? It has been said that SARS-Cov1 came from a bat and MERS came from a Camel.

The genome for SARS-CoV2 has been identified. Its genome is much different than the genomes of the corona viruses that they were experimenting with at the WuHan lab.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/searc...62&action=view

Well you better go find a publication that shows scientific proof that whoever did these studies was able to isolate SarsCov2 and then initiate disease in a healthy animal. There has to be definitive proof this Virus caused disease. Now there is publications stating they they isolated and purified this virus. But nothing how they did it and in Silico computing of a Genome doesn't count.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Was the above done for SARS-Cov1 before it died out? Or MERS which will eventually die out because the replication factor is less than 1? It has been said that SARS-Cov1 came from a bat and MERS came from a Camel.

The genome for SARS-CoV2 has been identified. Its genome is much different than the genomes of the corona viruses that they were experimenting with at the WuHan lab.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/searc...62&action=view

who says so? China? Fauci? your so-called proof has a major flaw. not one animal as i noted above, bat, pangolin, anything has yet to be found that carries covid. so why is that?


your so-called video proof is two years old. can't you find something newer?

so you expect people to believe that covid came from an animal that has about a 1 in 10,000 chance if it had the virus to infect a human? when not one animal with the virus has ever been found? that it was a one off mutation, that it beat 1 in 10,000 odds?


also not one bat or pangolin was sold in the so-called epicenter .. the Wuhan wet market, for several years before the pandemic? i'd like to hear you explain that, given the apparent consensus is the wet market?

why are you and others like WTF so willing to completely dismiss the WIV lab when it's now known that gain of function research was indeed being done there? Fauci's DA NILES have been disproved. he lied under oath when Rand Paul bitch slapped his little punk ass over it.

are you gonna let Fauci pull a Slick Willie Blythe? you know ..

it depends on what the definition of "is" is ...


bahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

who says so? China? Fauci? .


your so-called video proof is two years old. can't you find something newer?


also not one bat or pangolin was sold in the so-called epicenter .. the Wuhan wet market, for several years before the pandemic? i'd like to hear you explain that, given the apparent consensus is the wet market?

why are you and others like WTF so willing to completely dismiss the WIV lab when it's now known that gain of function research was indeed being done there?

In the link are four scientists that explain why the paper that said that SARS-CoV2 came from the Wuhan lab is wrong.

No bat or pangolin sold at the wet market for several years. A third animal got infected with CoVid at the wet market. A human got infected by that animal. With a replication factor of 3 spread it to three other humans rather quickly. Then it took off from there. The replication factor of SARS-CoV2 is greater that the factor for SARS-CoV1. SARS-CoV1 died out because the replication factor was less than one. SARS-CoV1 died out before it could find hosts to infect.

Yes, there was gain of function research conducted at the WuHan lab. They played with the spike protein of Corona viruses whose genome is a lot different than the genome of SARS-CoV2. You won't accept that fact. I have not heard any scientist say that the genome of the viruses at the Wuhan lab is the same as the genome of SARS-CoV2. The scientist in the link below said the difference in the genomes is by 3,000 plus nucleotides. If that is the case, then SARS-CoV2 did not come from the WuHan lab.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/searc...40&action=view

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

In the link are four scientists that explain why the paper that said that SARS-CoV2 came from the Wuhan lab is wrong.

No bat or pangolin sold at the wet market for several years. A third animal got infected with CoVid at the wet market. A human got infected by that animal. With a replication factor of 3 spread it to three other humans rather quickly. Then it took off from there. The replication factor of SARS-CoV2 is greater that the factor for SARS-CoV1. SARS-CoV1 died out because the replication factor was less than one. SARS-CoV1 died out before it could find hosts to infect.

Yes, there was gain of function research conducted at the WuHan lab. They played with the spike protein of Corona viruses whose genome is a lot different than the genome of SARS-CoV2. You won't accept that fact. I have not heard any scientist say that the genome of the viruses at the Wuhan lab is the same as the genome of SARS-CoV2. The scientist in the link below said the difference in the genomes is by 3,000 plus nucleotides. If that is the case, then SARS-CoV2 did not come from the WuHan lab.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/searc...40&action=view

another fail. do you really think China is going to allow any real research? they wiped the wet market to cover everything. don't be so naive.



what animal? seafood? crabs? what? stop buying the political version.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

another fail. do you really think China is going to allow any real research? they wiped the wet market to cover everything. don't be so naive.



what animal? seafood? crabs? what? stop buying the political version.

You FAILED to understand what the four scientists were saying. Go back and listen to the first 9 minutes. The SARS-CoV2 virus came from nature and not any lab!!!