Lab Leak: The conspiracy theory is shaping up to look like real possibility

[RumTumTugger]

I get the impression that those who think Fauci's emails reveal something bad about Fauci are afraid that discussing the emails themselves would prove counterproductive.

One would think that you came into this thread after MMs post #577 about the emails and the subsequent discussion since you keep saying the emails are not being discussed. It took me all of 3 minutes to find MMs post and look at the following posts to see that they did indeed discuss the contents of the emails. The truth is that the only one who has not discussed the contents of the emails is you, Stoic go back to Post #577 and read the subsequent discussion tell us where those who have discussed them are wrong. stop accusing them of not discussing said content.

Folks this is leftist trick #10 refuse to show where your opponent is wrong and then falsely accuse them of what you are doing and declare yourself the winner when they get tired of repeating themselves.

[rogue06]

As people seem to like cartoons...
15z1hen19y371.jpg

RoV6QJIMkkNTDa2ro7efhd6MSJwkO5mFrpAs6JMJG3Q.jpg

[rogue06]

One would think that you came into this thread after MMs post #577 about the emails and the subsequent discussion since you keep saying the emails are not being discussed. It took me all of 3 minutes to find MMs post and look at the following posts to see that they did indeed discuss the contents of the emails. The truth is that the only one who has not discussed the contents of the emails is you, Stoic go back to Post #577 and read the subsequent discussion tell us where those who have discussed them are wrong. stop accusing them of not discussing said content.

Folks this is leftist trick #10 refuse to show where your opponent is wrong and then falsely accuse them of what you are doing and declare yourself the winner when they get tired of repeating themselves.

I've been more interested in just seeing how long those who admit not bothering to have looked at any of the emails continue to declare that they know they don't contain anything that is at the very least controversial and a conflict-of-interest. It is sort of like on the old Tonight Show with Jonny Carson with his Carnac the Magnificent shtick where he knew what was written without ever having read it.^[1]

1. Maybe it is better described as his character, Carnac the Magnificent, being able psychically provide the answer to a question written on a card sealed in an envelope.

For those who never saw it part of the fun was just how bad the jokes were and his delivery of them

MHVsjvT.gif


And the question?

tumblr_nv9i0nJRiR1sqf5tdo3_400.gif

[Stoic]

One would think that you came into this thread after MMs post #577 about the emails and the subsequent discussion since you keep saying the emails are not being discussed. It took me all of 3 minutes to find MMs post and look at the following posts to see that they did indeed discuss the contents of the emails. The truth is that the only one who has not discussed the contents of the emails is you, Stoic go back to Post #577 and read the subsequent discussion tell us where those who have discussed them are wrong. stop accusing them of not discussing said content.

One might think that, because MM was on my ignore list, due to his behavior in another thread.

For now, I'll just respond to the first of the claims in the link he provided.

1. Scientists told Fauci that COVID-19 might be engineered but he ignored them

Perhaps he didn't ignore them so much as he was unconvinced by them.

The specific claim is that NIH scientist Kristian Andersen said that the Wuhan coronavirus looked "potentially engineered". What is left out is that Andersen also said "There are still further analyses to be done, so those opinions could still change." The article also fails to mention that Andersen eventually came to the conclusion "that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus." -- source

The article also claims, "On April 18, 2020, three months after being told the virus looked engineered, Fauci told reporters at the White House, unequivocally, it didn't come from a lab", but he did not say that.

What he said was, "There was a study recently that we can make available to you, where a group of highly qualified evolutionary virologists looked at the sequences there and the sequences in bats as they evolve. And the mutations that it took to get to the point where it is now is totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human."


If anyone still thinks this claim is not entirely bogus, we can discuss it. Otherwise, I'll move on to the other claims in the article.

[seanD]

One might think that, because MM was on my ignore list, due to his behavior in another thread.

For now, I'll just respond to the first of the claims in the link he provided.

1. Scientists told Fauci that COVID-19 might be engineered but he ignored them

Perhaps he didn't ignore them so much as he was unconvinced by them.

The specific claim is that NIH scientist Kristian Andersen said that the Wuhan coronavirus looked "potentially engineered". What is left out is that Andersen also said ""There are still further analyses to be done, so those opinions could still change." The article also fails to mention that Andersen eventually came to the conclusion "that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus." -- source

The article also claims, "On April 18, 2020, three months after being told the virus looked engineered, Fauci told reporters at the White House, unequivocally, it didn't come from a lab", but he did not say that.

What he said was, "There was a study recently that we can make available to you, where a group of highly qualified evolutionary virologists looked at the sequences there and the sequences in bats as they evolve. And the mutations that it took to get to the point where it is now is totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human."


If anyone still thinks this claim is not entirely bogus, we can discuss it. Otherwise, I'll move on to the other claims in the article.

Conflict of interest is your stumbling block. Though you want to try and claim Fauci wasn't convinced by the "science" (though it should be noted that multiple scientific voices supporting lab leak existed), but there's nothing to suggest he wasn't just covering his behind since we now he and his group was involved in the Wuhan lab research. Why should I believe the former was his motive and not the latter and that Kristian Andersen was just being a good obedient researcher and covering for his scientific superior?

[Stoic]

Conflict of interest is your stumbling block. Though you want to try and claim Fauci wasn't convinced by the "science" (though it should be noted that multiple scientific voices supporting lab leak existed), but there's nothing to suggest he wasn't just covering his behind since we now he and his group was involved in the Wuhan lab research. Why should I believe the former was his motive and not the latter and that Kristian Andersen was just being a good obedient researcher and covering for his scientific superior?

You can claim Fauci had a conflict of interest as a separate argument, though it's going to be a pretty sketchy one. But his view of the natural jump from animals to humans as the likelier scenario is perfectly defensible. There are plenty of reputable scientists who agree with him.

[seanD]

You can claim Fauci had a conflict of interest as a separate argument, though it's going to be a pretty sketchy one. But his view of the natural jump from animals to humans as the likelier scenario is perfectly defensible. There are plenty of reputable scientists who agree with him.

There is a conflict of interest if the virus came from the lab you were funding. Are you denying Fauci has links to the Wuhan lab? He already admitted this, and admitted he collaborated with the chinese at that lab. Though he denied it was gain of function, we'll see how that goes down and whether he keeps denying it when he faces the next congressional hearing. Why would he readily propose the lab theory when it would have come from the lab he was funding? That's absurd. Why should I not believe Kristian Anderson, who initially proposed the possibility it was engineered and didn't look naturally evolved, wasn't just covering for his superior when he finally wrote his paper? You're suggesting I ignore the obvious conflict of interest here? If you're going to shill, at least make it somewhat convincing.

[Stoic]

There is a conflict of interest if the virus came from the lab you were funding. Are you denying Fauci has links to the Wuhan lab? He already admitted this, and admitted he collaborated with the chinese at that lab.

You're being redundant. Fauci's links to the Wuhan lab, and the subgrant from EcoHealth Alliance to the Wuhan lab, and Fauci's collaboration with the Wuhan lab, are all different ways of saying the same thing.

Yes, Fauci is head of the NIAID, and the NIAID made a grant to EcoHealth Alliance for coronavirus research, and EcoHealth Alliance made a subgrant to WIV for specimen collection.

Though he denied it was gain of function, we'll see how that goes down and whether he keeps denying it when he faces the next congressional hearing. Why would he readily propose the lab theory when it would have come from the lab he was funding? That's absurd. Why should I not believe Kristian Anderson, who initially proposed the possibility it was engineered and didn't look naturally evolved, wasn't just covering for his superior when he finally wrote his paper? You're suggesting I ignore the obvious conflict of interest here? If you're going to shill, at least make it somewhat convincing.

If there was any evidence that the WIV was using the grant money for gain-of-function research, and that Fauci knew about it, then you could argue that Fauci had a conflict of interest.

But you are treating Fauci as if he's guilty until proven innocent.

Or if there was any kind of a scientific consensus that a lab leak was at all likely as the cause of the pandemic, you could claim that Fauci isn't being honest in his assessment. But there is no reason to believe that he isn't being scrupulously honest when he talks about the possible origin of the virus.

[seanD]

You're being redundant. Fauci's links to the Wuhan lab, and the subgrant from EcoHealth Alliance to the Wuhan lab, and Fauci's collaboration with the Wuhan lab, are all different ways of saying the same thing.

Yes, Fauci is head of the NIAID, and the NIAID made a grant to EcoHealth Alliance for coronavirus research, and EcoHealth Alliance made a subgrant to WIV for specimen collection.


If there was any evidence that the WIV was using the grant money for gain-of-function research, and that Fauci knew about it, then you could argue that Fauci had a conflict of interest.

But you are treating Fauci as if he's guilty until proven innocent.

Or if there was any kind of a scientific consensus that a lab leak was at all likely as the cause of the pandemic, you could claim that Fauci isn't being honest in his assessment. But there is no reason to believe that he isn't being scrupulously honest when he talks about the possible origin of the virus.

I'm not trying to be redundant. I'm trying to point out that there is a conflict of interest, and that it's so obvious, it's laughable you keep trying to downplay it. It's simple. Fauci had two choices: promote the lab leak theory, or promote the evolution theory. The evolution theory cleared him and his group of any culpability. It doesn't matter whether it was gain of function or not (we'll hopefully find out the truth of that as this continues to unravel), just the fact he was involved in the Wuhan lab would have made him susceptible to unwanted inquiries and bad press. I don't know of any "consensus" stating one theory over the other. There were scientists stating the possibility of the lab theory (the ones that got censored or shunned), including Kristian Anderson, and scientists promoting the official theory, namely Andersen, who switched positions when he wrote his paper after contacting Fauci via email. And of course the Lancet "declaration" lambasting the lab theory led by Peter Daszak -- part of Fauci's group -- head of the Wuhan funding.

[EvoUK]

I get the impression that those who think Fauci's emails reveal something bad about Fauci are afraid that discussing the emails themselves would prove counterproductive.

ncanexqfa1471.jpg

[Roy]

One would think that you came into this thread after MMs post #577 about the emails and the subsequent discussion since you keep saying the emails are not being discussed. It took me all of 3 minutes to find MMs post and look at the following posts to see that they did indeed discuss the contents of the emails. The truth is that the only one who has not discussed the contents of the emails is you, Stoic go back to Post #577 and read the subsequent discussion tell us where those who have discussed them are wrong. stop accusing them of not discussing said content.

Having just looked at the thread, I went back to post #577 (actually #578) and read all the subsequent posts, and this is the entirety of Fauci's e-mail words quoted therein:

Fauci: "Ok. Stay tuned."

[Mountain Man]

It's not so much a conspiracy theory as it is a fact that Fauci the Fraud was aware that "gain of function" research was ongoing at the Wuhan lab, even admitting at one point that such research was dangerous but considered it "important work"; that he was aware the China flu appeared to be engineered rather than occurring naturally; that he was aware early in the pandemic that the China flu was likely released from the Wuhan lab, either accidentally or deliberately; and that his colleagues thanked him for using his high profile public influence to suppress inquiries into the "lab leak" theory.

And there's this bit of humor:

A book by Anthony Fauci called “Expect the Unexpected: Ten Lessons on Truth, Service, and the Way Forward,” due for release on Nov. 2, has magically disappeared from major booksellers’ preorder sites, leading many to speculate that it’s backlash from FOIA’d emails that proved not all coming from the good doctor’s mouth about the coronavirus in recent months was actually, well, truthful.

Call this delicious irony. These bookselling sites are simply following the science.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...d-emails-expo/

[Mountain Man]

One might think that, because MM was on my ignore list, due to his behavior in another thread.

I imagine you do find it much easier to ignore me than to answer my arguments.

[rogue06]

Call this delicious irony. These bookselling sites are simply following the science.

point-and-laugh.gif

[Stoic]

It's not so much a conspiracy theory as it is a fact that Fauci the Fraud was aware that "gain of function" research was ongoing at the Wuhan lab, even admitting at one point that such research was dangerous but considered it "important work"; that he was aware the China flu appeared to be engineered rather than occurring naturally; that he was aware early in the pandemic that the China flu was likely released from the Wuhan lab, either accidentally or deliberately; and that his colleagues thanked him for using his high profile public influence to suppress inquiries into the "lab leak" theory.

First, Fauci wasn't aware that the virus was likely released from the Wuhan lab. He was aware that it was possibly released from the Wuhan lab. And he never said otherwise.

Second, there is no evidence that Fauci ever suppressed inquiries into the "lab leak" hypothesis.