Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Fauci is a liar: letter proves that NIH did fund gain of function research

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by seanD View Post
    I got to tell ya, Fauci looks genuinely scared compared to their last encounter...

    Fauci wants to keep his paycheck and/or reputation. The guy is 80 years old. He needs to step down.
    "You should just assume going forward that if I am ever wrong it is a typo" - Backup
    "
    Reality simply does not change based upon consensus or desire." - rogue

    Comment


    • #77
      Did this exchange between Fauci and Paul take place before or after the FBI's "moderately confident" conclusion? If afterward, the Fauci isn't even paying attention to the news.
      "You should just assume going forward that if I am ever wrong it is a typo" - Backup
      "
      Reality simply does not change based upon consensus or desire." - rogue

      Comment


      • #78
        It seems that those actually conducting the research were under no illusions about exactly what they were doing.

        daszak-glee.jpg

        https://dailycaller.com/2021/11/03/f...uhan-covid-19/
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          It seems that those actually conducting the research were under no illusions about exactly what they were doing.

          daszak-glee.jpg

          https://dailycaller.com/2021/11/03/f...uhan-covid-19/
          Damning.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • #80
            does anyone have the before and after definition of "gain of function" research that they changed on the NIH website?

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              does anyone have the before and after definition of "gain of function" research that they changed on the NIH website?
              I though you were our resident expert on the wayback web.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                does anyone have the before and after definition of "gain of function" research that they changed on the NIH website?
                Here you go:
                https://justthenews.com/government/f...eater-scrutiny


                Reminds me of how one of the government organizations (CDC I think) rewrote the definition of vaccines.
                "So when you actually get the virus, you're going to start producing antibodies against multiple pieces of the virus. So, your antibodies are probably better at that point than the vaccination."
                - Pfizer Scientist Chris Croce

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                  Here you go:
                  https://justthenews.com/government/f...eater-scrutiny


                  Reminds me of how one of the government organizations (CDC I think) rewrote the definition of vaccines.
                  It was the CDC. They changed the definition from a medication that grants immunity to one that merely offers protection. The goal was explicitly to silence critics who pointed out, correctly, that mRNA shots didn't meet the CDC's definition of vaccine, so instead of fixing the vaccine, they simply changed the definition. See my post here.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                    It was the CDC. They changed the definition from a medication that grants immunity to one that merely offers protection. The goal was explicitly to silence critics who pointed out, correctly, that mRNA shots didn't meet the CDC's definition of vaccine, so instead of fixing the vaccine, they simply changed the definition. See my post here.
                    That was such a big middle finger, wagged in our faces. Just a shade more subtle than Jenuinely Psucky's flippant responses, or that feckless dingbat who laughed at the question about inflation.
                    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                    Beige Federalist.

                    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                    Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                    Proud member of the LGBFJB community.

                    Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                    Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                    Justice for Matthew Perna!

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                      It was the CDC. They changed the definition from a medication that grants immunity to one that merely offers protection. The goal was explicitly to silence critics who pointed out, correctly, that mRNA shots didn't meet the CDC's definition of vaccine, so instead of fixing the vaccine, they simply changed the definition. See my post here.
                      Sometimes new science requires a change in definitions. There was nothing about the mRNA vaccines that needed to be "fixed".

                      Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_planet


                      The issue of a clear definition for planet came to a head in January 2005 with the discovery of the trans-Neptunian objectEris, a body more massive than the smallest then-accepted planet, Pluto. In its August 2006 response, the International Astronomical Union (IAU), recognised by astronomers as the world body responsible for resolving issues of nomenclature, released its decision on the matter during a meeting in Prague. This definition, which applies only to the Solar System (though exoplanets had been addressed in 2003), states that a planet is a body that orbits the Sun, is massive enough for its own gravity to make it round, and has "cleared its neighbourhood" of smaller objects approaching its orbit. Under this formalized definition, Pluto and other trans-Neptunian objects do not qualify as planets. The IAU's decision has not resolved all controversies, and while many astronomers have accepted it, some planetary scientists have rejected it outright, proposing a geophysical or similar definition instead.

                      © Copyright Original Source

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                        Fauci wants to keep his paycheck and/or reputation. The guy is 80 years old. He needs to step down.
                        I honestly don't know how he still had a job after what he did during the AIDS epidemic. Let alone several more decades of bungling.
                        "So when you actually get the virus, you're going to start producing antibodies against multiple pieces of the virus. So, your antibodies are probably better at that point than the vaccination."
                        - Pfizer Scientist Chris Croce

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                          Sometimes new science requires a change in definitions.
                          It had nothing to do with science and was simply a ruse employed in an attempt to silence critics.

                          definition.jpg
                          https://technofog.substack.com/p/cdc...ion-of-vaccine

                          Why fix your vaccine that doesn't act like a vaccine when you can simply move the goalposts instead?
                          Last edited by Mountain Man; 11-07-2021, 11:18 AM.
                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                            It had nothing to do with science and was simply a ruse employed in an attempt to silence critics.

                            definition.jpg
                            https://technofog.substack.com/p/cdc...ion-of-vaccine

                            Why fix your vaccine that doesn't act like a vaccine when you can simply move the goalposts instead?
                            If the old definition (as interpreted by some people) would mean that nothing qualifies as a vaccine, it's time to change the definition.

                            Source: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/breakthrough-infections-coronavirus-after-vaccination


                            ​​​​​​A breakthrough infection is an infection with a virus, bacterium or other germ after you have been vaccinated. This is an expected occurrence for a small percentage of those receiving any vaccine, since no vaccine for any disease is 100% effective in preventing infection in every person who receives it.

                            © Copyright Original Source

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                              If the old definition (as interpreted by some people) would mean that nothing qualifies as a vaccine, it's time to change the definition.
                              The old definition was just fine. The only reason the CDC changed it, and you can follow the link above to see the relevant internal communications, was because of critics pointing out that the mRNA jab didn't meet the CDC's own longstanding and perfectly acceptable definition. That's not following the science, that's moving the goalposts.
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                                Sometimes new science requires a change in definitions. There was nothing about the mRNA vaccines that needed to be "fixed".
                                Except new science wasn't what changed it. It was the need to adjust in order to dismiss people who questioned their mRNA vaccines. Politics is the reason why it changed. nothing else.
                                "So when you actually get the virus, you're going to start producing antibodies against multiple pieces of the virus. So, your antibodies are probably better at that point than the vaccination."
                                - Pfizer Scientist Chris Croce

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by seer, 05-19-2022, 10:59 AM
                                41 responses
                                336 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Gondwanaland  
                                Started by rogue06, 05-18-2022, 07:43 AM
                                3 responses
                                33 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by seer, 05-17-2022, 09:33 AM
                                7 responses
                                95 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post KingsGambit  
                                Started by Gondwanaland, 05-15-2022, 08:09 PM
                                9 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by seer, 05-15-2022, 11:46 AM
                                4 responses
                                63 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X