@vivify saidIt does not say that.
The link in your own Newsweek article from The Intercept says that experimental work was conducted "not at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, as was previously assumed". So there goes that notion.
Your link also shows the exact type of work done, which included screening people who worked with animals; no mention of increasing the lethality or transmissibility of the virus.
Since your own source refutes you, there's nothing futher to discuss.
Stop lying.
@metal-brain saidFrom The Intercept, which is linked to by the Newsweek article YOU posted:
It does not say that.
Stop lying.
https://theintercept.com/2021/09/06/new-details-emerge-about-coronavirus-research-at-chinese-lab/
key experimental work with humanized mice was conducted at a biosafety level 3 lab at Wuhan University Center for Animal Experiment — and not at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, as was previously assumed
Game over.
02 Mar 23
@vivify saidThat is a different source. That was not in the newsweek link as you claimed.
From The Intercept, which is linked to by the Newsweek article YOU posted:
https://theintercept.com/2021/09/06/new-details-emerge-about-coronavirus-research-at-chinese-lab/
key experimental work with humanized mice was conducted at a biosafety level 3 lab at Wuhan University Center for Animal Experiment — and not at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, as was previously assumed
Game over.
That was only one of the grants. You have proven nothing other than there are more than one. If you want to prove it go to the original document:
https://theintercept.com/document/2021/09/09/the-intercept-v-national-institutes-of-health/
@metal-brain saidI said Newsweek linked that source to support it's article.
That is a different source. That was not in the newsweek link as you claimed.
The link provided by your own source refutes you.
@vivify saidWrong grant. The article specifically stated the amount that went to the Wuhan Lab. Do the math. I provided the original document for you. You are talking about the wrong grant. Fauci already admitted to funding the Wuhan Lab.
I said Newsweek linked that source to support it's article.
The link provided by your own source refutes you.
https://www.paul.senate.gov/op_eds/fox-news-op-ed-sen-rand-paul-md-nih-lied-and-continues-lie-about-gain-function-research-and-covid/
You are barking up an empty tree. You proved nothing.
@metal-brain saidAs the link in your article says (which was already pointed out to you multiple times), those experiments were NOT done at the Wuhan lab, despite any funding the lab actually received.
Wrong grant. The article specifically stated the amount that went to the Wuhan Lab. Do the math. I provided the original document for you. You are talking about the wrong grant. Fauci already admitted to funding the Wuhan Lab.
Your issue seems to be simple reading comprehension.
@vivify saidAs always he needs to update his Russian / English translation software
As the link in your article already points out, experiments were NOT done at the Wuhan lab, despite any funding the lab actually received.
Your issue seems to be simple reading comprehension.
He’s also yet to explain the value in demonising anyone rather than learning some lessons about how to handle a pandemic regardless of where it’s come from.
Next up is bird flu by all accounts and that could make covid look like the snuffles. I hope someone somewhere is doing some research into that one before it upgrades it’s human to human transmission process.
@vivify saidOnce again, you are citing the wrong grant. The article even says "grants" at one point. You are stupidly assuming there was only one.
As the link in your article says (which was already pointed out to you multiple times), those experiments were NOT done at the Wuhan lab, despite any funding the lab actually received.
Your issue seems to be simple reading comprehension.
Experiments were done at the Wuhan lab. Why do you think the NIH got in hot water and Fauci was forced to deny it was GOF research? Read the Rand Paul link. It is all there.
https://www.paul.senate.gov/op_eds/fox-news-op-ed-sen-rand-paul-md-nih-lied-and-continues-lie-about-gain-function-research-and-covid/
And wouldn’t you know it, the NIH letter admitting the agency funded research that strengthened bat viruses in Wuhan makes no mention of gain of function research either. Rather, the letter argues that the experiments do not count as ePPP research “because these bat viruses had not been shown to infect humans.”
So what explains the change in terms? To avoid contradicting Dr. Fauci’s testimony that NIH does not fund gain of function research, the NIH is compelled to change the topic. The NIH is effectively moving the goalposts and arguing that any experiment that combines an unknown virus with a known pathogen such as the SARS coronavirus (15% mortality) is not gain-of-function because the experimenters do not know yet whether the recombinant virus will be enhanced.
That’s crazy! Defining away ‘gain-of-function’ research by saying it doesn’t exist unless you know in advance it will occur is the very essence of hubris.
02 Mar 23
@metal-brain saidI was only responding to the links you posted and information contained in them.
Once again, you are citing the wrong grant. The article even says "grants" at one point. You are stupidly assuming there was only one.
Experiments were done at the Wuhan lab. Why do you think the NIH got in hot water and Fauci was forced to deny it was GOF research? Read the Rand Paul link. It is all there.
https://www.paul.senate.gov/op_eds/fox-news-op-ed-sen-rand ...[text shortened]... h by saying it doesn’t exist unless you know in advance it will occur is the very essence of hubris.
For the record, I'm open to any investigations into Wuhan and the NIH's role. I just didn't see anything in the links you posted.
Maybe Fauci did oversee gain of function research; if so, I hope he's held responsible.
I said earlier that liberals were too quick to dismiss any and every claim made by conservatives; that's a terrible trait. So I'll read through whatever links you may have (provided the sources are reputable) and I'll even join your side in this forum if it checks. There are still investigations being done, so let's see what comes from them.
02 Mar 23
@vivify saidFair enough.
I was only responding to the links you posted and information contained in them.
For the record, I'm open to any investigations into Wuhan and the NIH's role. I just didn't see anything in the links you posted.
Maybe Fauci did oversee gain of function research; if so, I hope he's held responsible.
I said earlier that liberals were too quick to dismiss any and e ...[text shortened]... s forum if it checks. There are still investigations being done, so let's see what comes from them.
@vivify saidThe people that discussed the possibility of a lab leak clearly thought it was likely and went through a lot of trouble to keep it secret. This timeline is the best I have seen so far. Go to the part that says "‘Mid-January’: CDC director sounds the alarm" where Robert Redfield voiced his concern that a lab accident occurred at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. He shared this concern with Fauci, Farrar, and World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus which started the panic and secrecy.
I was only responding to the links you posted and information contained in them.
For the record, I'm open to any investigations into Wuhan and the NIH's role. I just didn't see anything in the links you posted.
Maybe Fauci did oversee gain of function research; if so, I hope he's held responsible.
I said earlier that liberals were too quick to dismiss any and e ...[text shortened]... s forum if it checks. There are still investigations being done, so let's see what comes from them.
https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/timeline-the-proximal-origin-of-sars-cov-2/
Notice Farrar said this in that timeline:
“We should use different phones; avoid putting things in emails; and ditch our normal email addresses and phone contacts,” Farrar wrote in his memoir. “I didn’t know the term then but I now had a burner phone, which I would use only for this purpose and then get rid of.”
That sure looks like they were covering it up to me. Seems stupid to write it down later though. Then they excluded Baric because he was seen as too close to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. That looks bad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The paper appears to have figured into subsequent discussions under a shorthand name: “SARS gain of function.” It initially appeared to the group of virologists to be “a how-to manual for building the Wuhan coronavirus in a laboratory,” alarming Fauci.
But Baric was excluded from subsequent discussions because he was seen as too close to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, according to Holmes.
“We said ‘let’s not invite Ralph, ’” Holmes said.
They excluded Redfield from discussion too. No lab leak supporters allowed or the expert on modifying coronaviruses.
07 Mar 23
Covid-19 may not have originated in China, Oxford University expert believes.
Coronavirus may have lain dormant across the world and emerged when the environmental conditions were right for it to thrive rather than starting in China, an Oxford University expert believes.
Dr Tom Jefferson, senior associate tutor at the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM), at Oxford and a visiting professor at Newcastle University, argues there is growing evidence that the virus was elsewhere before it emerged in Asia.
Last week, Spanish virologists announced that they had found traces of the disease in samples of waste water collected in March 2019, nine months before coronavirus was seen in China.
Italian scientists have also found evidence of coronavirus in sewage samples in Milan and Turin in mid-December, many weeks before the first case was detected, while experts have found evidence of traces in Brazil in November.
http://dubai.china-consulate.gov.cn/eng/zt/202007/t20200707_5133850.htm
07 Mar 23
@metal-brain said🥱
Covid-19 may not have originated in China, Oxford University expert believes.
Coronavirus may have lain dormant across the world and emerged when the environmental conditions were right for it to thrive rather than starting in China, an Oxford University expert believes.
Dr Tom Jefferson, senior associate tutor at the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM), at Ox ...[text shortened]... es in Brazil in November.
http://dubai.china-consulate.gov.cn/eng/zt/202007/t20200707_5133850.htm