|
|
Post by Maxperson on May 26, 2021 6:43:16 GMT
The funding is not relevant to whether or not one is more likely than the other. Yeah, it's only relevant to Fuacci's early assertions that it couldn;t possibly have been a lab escape. My favorite bit the last few days was CNN admitting they only went so hard against the Wuhan Lab Accident theory because Trump initially touted and they couldn't possibly agree with him. LOL I'm not surprised. CNN admitted on air in 2016 that the media was giving Hillary a pass and that they at CNN were doing everything they could to get her elected. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on May 26, 2021 11:11:44 GMT
In their defense, Trump is also the guy who asked about whether or not injecting disinfectants and shoving UV lights into one's body was a good idea and also said the virus was a democratic hoax.
Not to mention (all of Trump's lies)
When you cry wolf so many times, nobody is going to believe you the one time you might possibly be right. Not only that, he was asserting it came from the lab without proof. Not only that but the media in general and Trump are not friends. They aren't going to give somebody a fair shake who calls them "the enemy of the people" and encourages one's supporters to be violent towards them. It's one of those itty, bitty things people forget.
There still isn't any proof really, but it does need to be investigated to rule or not rule it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on May 26, 2021 11:35:56 GMT
The funding is not relevant to whether or not one is more likely than the other. You obviously don't understand how government and industry work. No funding = no lab experiments = no potential lab escape. Key words: Statement of Work. Scope and funding. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on May 26, 2021 11:36:39 GMT
You do realize that those labs get funding from a variety of sources right? Not only that, there is no proof the virus came from the lab in the first place. The possibility is there, but you don't have any smoking gun so to speak. Funding or lack there of is not a smoking gun or even any kind of proof. It just means they had money for research. Which is their primary job. Gee.....
Nice try putting a square peg into a round hole. You need to whittle it more.
Interesting article:
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on May 26, 2021 13:35:11 GMT
In their defense, Trump is also the guy who asked about whether or not injecting disinfectants and shoving UV lights into one's body was a good idea and also said the virus was a democratic hoax.
Not to mention (all of Trump's lies)
When you cry wolf so many times, nobody is going to believe you the one time you might possibly be right. Not only that, he was asserting it came from the lab without proof. Not only that but the media in general and Trump are not friends. They aren't going to give somebody a fair shake who calls them "the enemy of the people" and encourages one's supporters to be violent towards them. It's one of those itty, bitty things people forget.
There still isn't any proof really, but it does need to be investigated to rule or not rule it out.
That's not a defense. Just because someone says some dumb things or lies(and all politicians lie), doesn't mean that you don't have an obligation to vet his statements. ESPECIALLY if you are a news organization who has a duty to the truth and shouldn't have an opinion about a president, pro or con. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on May 26, 2021 13:41:19 GMT
The funding is not relevant to whether or not one is more likely than the other. You obviously don't understand how government and industry work. No funding = no lab experiments = no potential lab escape. Key words: Statement of Work. Scope and funding. Which still is not relevant to whether one is more likely than the other. So let's break that down further. "No funding = no lab experiments..." That's a load of bullshit. The 600k isn't even close to being enough money to do that sort of experiment. It was a moderate boost most likely, but those experiments would have happened regardless. "no lab experiments = no potential escape." Okay. But so what. If there's a 5%(arbitrary number) chance of escape with funding, funding is irrelevant to whether or not the wild is more or less likely. It's more likely no matter what. You can say that the being able to do lab experiments creates a greater chance for escape than no experiments, but you can't say that the funding made it more likely to be the lab than the wild. |
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on May 26, 2021 15:30:47 GMT
You obviously don't understand how government and industry work. No funding = no lab experiments = no potential lab escape. Key words: Statement of Work. Scope and funding. Which still is not relevant to whether one is more likely than the other. So let's break that down further. "No funding = no lab experiments..." That's a load of bullshit. The 600k isn't even close to being enough money to do that sort of experiment. It was a moderate boost most likely, but those experiments would have happened regardless. "no lab experiments = no potential escape." Okay. But so what. If there's a 5%(arbitrary number) chance of escape with funding, funding is irrelevant to whether or not the wild is more or less likely. It's more likely no matter what. You can say that the being able to do lab experiments creates a greater chance for escape than no experiments, but you can't say that the funding made it more likely to be the lab than the wild. The way government contracts work is you are only authorized to do the work scoped out in the contract. Unless some other entity is funding WIV to do experiments that led to a potential lab escape of covid, then *this* funding can be potentially traced to it. Contractors are required to report progress periodically. We don't know enough details - was the $600k "early-start" money with additional funding coming? What does the statement of work say? Does the SoW that NIH had with Ecohealth Alliance indicate that were testing whether bat viruses could infect humans, or just the subcontract SoW between EHA and WIV? That is - did EHA act as a middleman for work that Fauci wanted done but couldn't otherwise authorize WIV to do if they paid them directly? Why did the NIH cut off funding to EHA last year at the height of the covid pandemic? BTW, here are the receipts: reporter.nih.gov/project-details/9819304The $661k was for budget dates of July 2019 - June 2021 - not 5 years as Fauci claims. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on May 26, 2021 18:30:12 GMT
Which still is not relevant to whether one is more likely than the other. So let's break that down further. "No funding = no lab experiments..." That's a load of bullshit. The 600k isn't even close to being enough money to do that sort of experiment. It was a moderate boost most likely, but those experiments would have happened regardless. "no lab experiments = no potential escape." Okay. But so what. If there's a 5%(arbitrary number) chance of escape with funding, funding is irrelevant to whether or not the wild is more or less likely. It's more likely no matter what. You can say that the being able to do lab experiments creates a greater chance for escape than no experiments, but you can't say that the funding made it more likely to be the lab than the wild. The way government contracts work is you are only authorized to do the work scoped out in the contract. Unless some other entity is funding WIV to do experiments that led to a potential lab escape of covid, then *this* funding can be potentially traced to it. Contractors are required to report progress periodically. We don't know enough details - was the $600k "early-start" money with additional funding coming? What does the statement of work say? Does the SoW that NIH had with Ecohealth Alliance indicate that were testing whether bat viruses could infect humans, or just the subcontract SoW between EHA and WIV? That is - did EHA act as a middleman for work that Fauci wanted done but couldn't otherwise authorize WIV to do if they paid them directly? Why did the NIH cut off funding to EHA last year at the height of the covid pandemic? BTW, here are the receipts: reporter.nih.gov/project-details/9819304The $661k was for budget dates of July 2019 - June 2021 - not 5 years as Fauci claims. This is China we are talking about. I don't think Fauci did fund gain of function research. I do think it was done anyway. A research facility like the one at Wuhan would have tight government oversight and probably some government funding as well. They'd do their own research and send reports that only showed Fauci and the others what they wanted them to see, not what was actually being done. As for why cut off the funding in the middle of a pandemic? When you have a place that 1) might have been the cause of the pandemic, and 2) is in China and therefore completely untrustworthy, you don't fund it. I bet Trump was behind the cutting of those funds. |
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on May 26, 2021 19:02:02 GMT
The way government contracts work is you are only authorized to do the work scoped out in the contract. Unless some other entity is funding WIV to do experiments that led to a potential lab escape of covid, then *this* funding can be potentially traced to it. Contractors are required to report progress periodically. We don't know enough details - was the $600k "early-start" money with additional funding coming? What does the statement of work say? Does the SoW that NIH had with Ecohealth Alliance indicate that were testing whether bat viruses could infect humans, or just the subcontract SoW between EHA and WIV? That is - did EHA act as a middleman for work that Fauci wanted done but couldn't otherwise authorize WIV to do if they paid them directly? Why did the NIH cut off funding to EHA last year at the height of the covid pandemic? BTW, here are the receipts: reporter.nih.gov/project-details/9819304The $661k was for budget dates of July 2019 - June 2021 - not 5 years as Fauci claims. This is China we are talking about. I don't think Fauci did fund gain of function research. I do think it was done anyway. A research facility like the one at Wuhan would have tight government oversight and probably some government funding as well. They'd do their own research and send reports that only showed Fauci and the others what they wanted them to see, not what was actually being done. As for why cut off the funding in the middle of a pandemic? When you have a place that 1) might have been the cause of the pandemic, and 2) is in China and therefore completely untrustworthy, you don't fund it. I bet Trump was behind the cutting of those funds. Fair enough. Doesn't change the fact that we shouldn't have been funding communists who view us as enemies. That's what no one in government gets - China doesn't view us as competition. They view us as an enemy to conquer. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on May 26, 2021 23:49:55 GMT
In their defense, Trump is also the guy who asked about whether or not injecting disinfectants and shoving UV lights into one's body was a good idea and also said the virus was a democratic hoax.
Not to mention (all of Trump's lies)
When you cry wolf so many times, nobody is going to believe you the one time you might possibly be right. Not only that, he was asserting it came from the lab without proof. Not only that but the media in general and Trump are not friends. They aren't going to give somebody a fair shake who calls them "the enemy of the people" and encourages one's supporters to be violent towards them. It's one of those itty, bitty things people forget.
There still isn't any proof really, but it does need to be investigated to rule or not rule it out.
That's not a defense. Just because someone says some dumb things or lies(and all politicians lie), doesn't mean that you don't have an obligation to vet his statements. ESPECIALLY if you are a news organization who has a duty to the truth and shouldn't have an opinion about a president, pro or con. Tell that to Fox news and all the other conservative news conglomerates. You talk a good talk, but when the right leaning news does the exact same thing and right leaning politicians advocate violence upon news reporters and people they don't like, don't expect the left leaning news to be the bigger person. That's just not human nature. Trump also brought alot of that shit upon himself with his antics. They didn't have to spin him asking if disinfectants was an effective treatment for Covid-19 after all (when most intelligent people know that injecting disinfectants into one's body is a very bad idea).
Not to mention the optics of fucking a pornstar while your wife is giving birth to one's child. Then paying the pornstar to keep quiet during the time your campaigning is an even worse idea.
I could go on, but the list would take up hundreds of pages of the stupid shit Trump has done/said and the news just reporting it. Hell, most of it was on live TV!
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on May 27, 2021 0:14:42 GMT
That's not a defense. Just because someone says some dumb things or lies(and all politicians lie), doesn't mean that you don't have an obligation to vet his statements. ESPECIALLY if you are a news organization who has a duty to the truth and shouldn't have an opinion about a president, pro or con. Tell that to Fox news and all the other conservative news conglomerates. You talk a good talk, but when the right leaning news does the exact same thing and right leaning politicians advocate violence upon news reporters and people they don't like, don't expect the left leaning news to be the bigger person. That's just not human nature. Trump also brought alot of that shit upon himself with his antics. They didn't have to spin him asking if disinfectants was an effective treatment for Covid-19 after all (when most intelligent people know that injecting disinfectants into one's body is a very bad idea).
Not to mention the optics of fucking a pornstar while your wife is giving birth to one's child. Then paying the pornstar to keep quiet during the time your campaigning is an even worse idea.
I could go on, but the list would take up hundreds of pages of the stupid shit Trump has done/said and the news just reporting it. Hell, most of it was on live TV!
Er, no. I hold FOX and Breitbart to the same standards as CNN and MSNBC. All of them are propaganda mouth pieces for their political ideologies. All of them are abject failures at the duty they owe the American people as "news" organizations. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on May 27, 2021 0:56:08 GMT
Okay then. I can respect that.
You still can't say Trump wasn't responsible for most of the bad publicity he brought upon himself with his bullshit. In the end, what will bring him down will be his own ego, hubris and narcissism. He won't be able to help himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on May 27, 2021 15:51:51 GMT
Okay then. I can respect that.
You still can't say Trump wasn't responsible for most of the bad publicity he brought upon himself with his bullshit. In the end, what will bring him down will be his own ego, hubris and narcissism. He won't be able to help himself.
Yes, he was responsible for most of his bad publicity, but a good chunk was invented(or at least played up hard) by the media. I mean, fuck, the media spent 3 weeks on fucking covfefe, trying to make it some sort of code word for the Russians or something. As for Trump now, he's pretty much gone. I see next to nothing about him in the news and really don't care to follow him anymore. Let it go. Stop letting him dominate your destiny. It will be another year before we see if he's going to be that influential(and back in the news) with the midterms. No sense in stressing over him until then. Or even after, really, but you will anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on May 27, 2021 17:31:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on May 27, 2021 20:36:52 GMT
Yep. It's *all* horseshit. Notice how no one in the media is breathlessly linking to tweets of Chinese slaves suddenly dropping dead on the sidewalk... Yet last year it fit their fear theater in their bid to get rid of Trump... These are the same assholes who keep pushing the narrative that a few people occupying a room in Congress somehow = functional control of the US government. |
|
