The Covid lies and shenanigans are coming to light

[UnseenParticipant]

Key Scientist in Covid Origin Controversy Misled Congress

The debate over the origin of the novel coronavirus has also evolved into a meta-debate over how the narrative supporting a natural emergence was initially crafted in the winter and spring of 2020. That inquiry focuses on a group of scientists who spoke confidentially with Collins and Fauci — then the heads of the National Institutes for Health and its sub-agency National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, respectively — in February and quickly began writing a paper that would set the tone for public understanding of the virus’s origin for a year or more. On the call, the scientists suggested they leaned toward a lab escape as the most likely scenario, but they made a U-turn later that day when they began drafting it. The paper eventually ran in Nature Medicine under the headline “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.” Fauci and Collins were kept in the loop on the preparation of the paper, and Fauci highlighted it to the public in order to dismiss the notion of a lab escape.

Guess who Dr. Fauci specifically excluded from that conference call. He certainly wasn’t excluded due to lack of expertise. That would be Dr. Robert Redfield who is the former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). He led the CDC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic from the start. Dr. Redfield believes that the coronavirus originally escaped from a lab in Wuhan, China. Dr. Fauci clearly wanted a certain message to get out—that America had no involvement in the Wuhan Lab or gain of function research and wanted no ambiguity whatsoever. Fauci has tried to depict people who felt the lab leak theory had legs as conspiracy theorists or Chinaphobes. But Redfield is hardly alone in thinking the lab leak theory is the most likely one.

Why the push to promote the “natural” origin theory? Because we shouldn’t be doing gain of function research. Why do it in China (and also Ukraine, it seems)? Because it’s illegal to do inside the United States.

But, hey…there are always workarounds, right?

• This topic was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by  Unseen.

[PopeBeanieModerator]

In the video at 2:05, he says “Even given the information  that surfaced the three years since the covid-19 pandemic began, some have contended that there’s really no point in investigating the origin of this virus.” Oh really? Only idiots would say that, like some probably in his audience.

While the more serious problems are the idiots that say only lab leaks matter, or only zoological origins matter, when in fact the world needs to be vigilant in monitoring, preventing, and preparing for both. More pandemics are certainly on the way, at least from zoological origins — especially via wet markets, and possibly also from labs, even clandestine labs. While there’s not doubt that zoological origins of diseases has been with us for ages.

It must take fifty times longer to debunk bullshit than it does to spread it. It’s often just a trolling/clickbait opportunity for people who don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about, but they know who’ll buy it.

DJ Trump, more competent at swindling and appointing “Trump-loyal”, incompetent cabinet heads and other cult members than at managing the pandemic, appointed Dr. Redfield. Trumpism is about tearing down the government, especially the “deep state”, which can be useful at times when trying to fix government, but he doubles down on making incompetence work toward his self-serving, political favor. Even if it kills a million Americans. (I know, not all his fault.)

Unseen wrote:

Why do it in China (and also Ukraine, it seems)? Because it’s illegal to do inside the United States.

No it’s not. There were moratoriums.

Known benefits of gain of function research: vaccine development; drug discovery; understanding disease mechanisms; emerging pathogen surveillance; host-pathogen interactions; public health preparedness.

There are known risks. The research is highly regulated, and largely funded by CDC so they can maintain oversight. Nothing serious has occurred yet, unless covid-19 can actually be proven to be from a lab leak; I’m not saying that it’s known fact that it did not come from a lab leak. But no one yet has enough evidence to prove one cause or the other. The perpetual blame games don’t do shit to enlighten us in forward thinking, reasonable solutions.

I’ll suggest some videos from scientists, without political motives or youtube outrage machine incentives. If you can learn from even just 10% of the following, I’ll commend you for sincerely trying. I’ve been listening to these TWiV and other microbe.tv podcasts weekly, for years before covid hit.

TWiV 1017: From Nature, not a lab
(About 8 minutes into this video, Vincent mentions his gain of function research, and to be clear, it was related to polio vaccine research.)

TWiV 1019: Eddie Holmes on SARS-CoV-2 origins

Put this into google search to see a couple hundred possible gain of function discussions:
site:microbe.tv/twiv/ “gain of function”

Put this into google search to see a couple hundred possible origins discussions:
site:microbe.tv/twiv/ “origins”

Add a word, like covid or ebola (without quotes) to lesson the results to just covid or ebola.

TWiV host, Vincent Racaniello’s new virology blog.

@unseen … An example blog post, on gain of function.

[_Robert_Participant]

Yale Study:

We estimate substantially higher excess death rates for registered Republicans when compared to registered Democrats, with almost all of the difference concentrated in the period after vaccines were widely available in our study states. Overall, the excess death rate for Republicans was 5.4 percentage points (pp), or 76%, higher than the excess death rate for Democrats. Post- vaccines, the excess death rate gap between Republicans and Democrats widened from 1.6 pp (22% of the Democrat excess death rate) to 10.4 pp (153% of the Democrat excess death rate). The gap in excess death rates between Republicans and Democrats is concentrated in counties with low vaccination rates and only materializes after vaccines became widely available.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w30512

No kidding. Everyone I know who died or was very ill in the hospital was/is a Trumpest. The websites dedicated to the individual plights of these suckers, seemed cruel to some. However I think they saved lives. For example:

https://www.sorryantivaxxer.com/

They start out like this:

And well, too bad, she didn’t even make it to 2024, or 2023, or 2022:

 

And yet those who caused this damage still go unprosecuted.

[UnseenParticipant]

PopeBeanie wrote:

In the video at 2:05, he says “Even given the information  that surfaced the three years since the covid-19 pandemic began, some have contended that there’s really no point in investigating the origin of this virus.” Oh really? Only idiots would say that, like some probably in his audience.

Are you familiar with the old bumper sticker, “I may be slow, but I’m ahead of you.” He’s the guy who was Fauci before Fauci was Fauci, a former head of the CDC. He’s not an idiot.

Are you accurately characterizing his position? Is he saying that there’s no knowledge to be gained from gain of function research or that the risks outweigh the potential benefits?

Lab leaks happen, and the Wuhan lab has the reputation of being a fairly leaky one to start with. I suppose the goal of gain of function research is to come up with particularly nasty viruses in order to plan to counter them, but…lab leaks happen. Dr. Redfield thinks the risks outweigh the benefits. You disagree and think risking the accidental leak of a pandemic far worse than Covid is worth the potential knowledge gained?

The Lancet is one of the top two or three medical journals in the world, and a committee they assembled to try to figure out Covid’s origin concluded that the evidence showed it almost certainly came from lab work, not nature.

The Lab Leak Theory Is Looking Stronger By The Day

And you haven’t addressed the rather suspicious U-turn taken by two researchers who favored the lab leak theory once they received what appear to be suspiciously hastily-arranged research grants administered by Fauci.

Remember, Fauci has shown that he can be very, let’s say, pragmatic when it comes to dispensing the truth. The glaring example was when early on when he said masks were of little benefit. It turns out he believed that to be false but said it because he knew there was developing a mask shortage and that masks were more urgently needed by health care providers and first responders, so he lied rather than level with the public.

[UnseenParticipant]

@ Robert

An attempted “proof by meme”?

This researcher found that the more vaccines one has had (any kind) the greater the likelihood of getting Covid. He also questions vaccine mandates with vaccines that haven’t gone through the normal process: “The idea that the FDA can arbitrarily choose which types of vaccines go out and not determine whether they’re effective and I don’t understand why anyone would force someone to get a vaccine that wasn’t shown to be effective.” (starts around 6:00 in the viddy)

 

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Here is an article from today’s NYT magazine. It is a long read. I have shared it as a “gift article” from my account so it should open without any paywall request.

[UnseenParticipant]

Is this how science should work?

[UnseenParticipant]

Do we want public health officials to report facts and uncertainties transparently? Or do we want them to shape information to influence the public to take specific actions (“manufacturing consent” being another expression for that)?

The Noble Lies of Covid-19

The role of government and its agencies is to serve the public, not play it like a violin.

[_Robert_Participant]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

Here is an article from today’s NYT magazine. It is a long read. I have shared it as a “gift article” from my account so it should open without any paywall request.

This sums up the whole idiotic conspiracy movement perfectly. It’s that movie with Costner.

The seeds of distrust have been growing in America’s civic garden, and the world’s, for a long time. More than 60 percent of Americans, according to polling within the past several years, still decline to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, killed John F. Kennedy. Is that because people have read the Warren Commission report, found it unpersuasive and minutely scrutinized the “magic bullet” theory? No, it’s because they have learned to be distrustful, and because a conspiracy theory of any big event is more dramatic and satisfying than a small, stupid explanation, like the notion that a feckless loser could kill a president by hitting two out of three shots with a $13 rifle.

Non-technical people especially have problems trusting the expert consensus because the analysis and logic is beyond them. So much easier to believe in a talking head that seems to make sense to them.

[_Robert_Participant]

_Robert_ wrote:

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

Here is an article from today’s NYT magazine. It is a long read. I have shared it as a “gift article” from my account so it should open without any paywall request.

This sums up the whole idiotic conspiracy movement perfectly. It’s that movie with Costner.

The seeds of distrust have been growing in America’s civic garden, and the world’s, for a long time. More than 60 percent of Americans, according to polling within the past several years, still decline to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, killed John F. Kennedy. Is that because people have read the Warren Commission report, found it unpersuasive and minutely scrutinized the “magic bullet” theory? No, it’s because they have learned to be distrustful, and because a conspiracy theory of any big event is more dramatic and satisfying than a small, stupid explanation, like the notion that a feckless loser could kill a president by hitting two out of three shots with a $13 rifle.

Non-technical people especially have problems trusting the expert consensus because the analysis and logic is beyond them. So much easier to believe in a talking head that seems to make sense to them.

Oh, and let’s not forget virtually the entire population is indoctrinated to believe the biggest conspiracy of them all. Fertile ground for all sorts of bullshit. The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that the study of biology IS essentially the study of evolution. But half of John Q Public thinks it’s a scientific scam, LOL.

[UnseenParticipant]

@ Robert

First off, let’s remember that “conspiracy” has gotten something of a bad name in the news, but it’s simply a legal term covering when two people act in concert for a criminal goal. It could be just two people acting on their own or it could be two people acting as agents of something or someone else.

That Oswald acted alone in the JFK assassination isn’t a conspiracy theory because it fits the facts better than the “acted alone” theory. There are serious problems with the single shooter theory (see toward the end below) as well as verifiable suspicious activities elsewhere in the crime scene.

It is a conspiracy theory when one wraps it up as “the CIA did it” or “the Mafia did it” or “the Russians did it.”

Still, if Oswald didn’t act alone isn’t exactly like believing in the flat or hollow Earth, that means there’s room for asking whom he might have worked with. His all-too-convenient assassination shortly after being apprehended sure looks like a “cleaner” making sure the truth couldn’t have been wrested out of him in intense interrogations.

Despite Biden’s “final” release of documents related to the assassination, there are still 4,000+ documents still withheld or, while released, are highly redacted. Unfortunately, this leaves room for speculation and speculation isn’t always conspiracy theorizing, and sometimes conspiracies turn out to be true.

And the government does lie in order to manufacture consent by distorting the truth, revealing partial truths, mixing fiction with facts, and outright lying:

Here is testimony of a highly-credible researcher who used to buy the one shooter theory but believes he was wrong based on further thought and experimental evidence using the same sort of rifle. He’s concluded that there’s no way in hell a marksman using the same Carcano rifle and a scope could get two shots off a second apart. He concludes that if Oswald didn’t act alone, one has to believe in a conspiracy.

 

 

[UnseenParticipant]

Does the government lie to us? OF COURSE! But at the same time not everything they tell us is a lie. If it were, they couldn’t use lies to manufacture consent. Here are cases where suspicions, once dismissed as wacky conspiracy theories, turned out to be true:

1. The US Department of the Treasury poisoned alcohol during Prohibition — and people died.

2. The US Public Health Service lied about treating black men with syphilis for more than 40 years.

3. More than 100 million Americans received a polio vaccine contaminated with a potentially cancer-causing virus.

4. Parts of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, which led to US intervention in Vietnam, never happened.

5. Military leaders reportedly planned terrorist attacks in the US to drum up support for a war against Cuba.

6. The government tested the effects of LSD on unwitting US and Canadian citizens.

7. In 1974, the CIA secretly resurfaced a sunken Soviet submarine with three nuclear-armed ballistic missiles.

Source for the above.

That the Federal Government lies to us is not a crazy conspiracy theory. That they don’t is the useful idiot view of things.

[AutumnParticipant]

If people want the government to stop lying to them, the first step is to cultivate a society that doesn’t demand being lied to. I am not saying that to absolve government, but at the same time, there is likely a selection bias in political viability toward being rather selective with the truth (if not outright lying).

Covid, at the outset was impractical for our economic system. Right then and there the virus becomes immediately political despite the fact that a virus plainly does not give a shit about our economics.

Why was it impractical? With all the unknowns, limiting transmission vectors was the most sensible course of action. Problematically, we didn’t know exactly what that meant in practical terms, so we pulled from what we do know about epidemiology and the limited data available on this virus. Which meant a) the lockdowns for b) unknown efficacy. It’s a bad combo and it’s inherently unfair because many people could not weather the lockdowns for any protracted period of time. Our economic systems are built somewhat arbitrarily on performative work standards that favour showing up in person to a place of employment if you like eating and having a roof over your head. It doesn’t matter that much of the work doesn’t need to be done for the sake of food and shelter availability. We’re locked onto this paradigm and are too inflexible with it even in times of crisis.

No one wants to hear they have to sacrifice for a ‘maybe’ even if it’s the best maybe we’ve got. So any government that wants to retain public confidence is going to speak with a certain degree of certitude that is unrealistic. Because they want to appear confident and authoritative, they want the public to be calm, and in light of those aims, they want to keep the message simple. To that end, I don’t think they’re wrong about the public. We don’t deal well with complexity and uncertainty. As a result vaccines will carry huge political currency because you want to be the government that secured a solution, not the government that suffered an election when people were frustrated, confused, struggling and generally upset. But because vaccines are not only political currency, but potentially a good cash grab from an already reviled pharmaceutical industry, vaccines almost instantly become about more than just vaccines.

I can keep going at length, but the point isn’t that sophisticated: taking the most prudent path forward based on best available evidence was always going to be waylaid by extraneous factors such as unrealistic expectations and and a society structured such that it couldn’t adequately handle something like a pandemic with out stepping on the little guy.

Now we’re in a place where we can’t easily have an objective post mortem on peak pandemic performance and vaccine rollouts because the conversation is almost always steeped in other highly charged and politicized topics. For instance, if someone was losing their shit over masks as an intrusion on their liberty and an affront to their human rights, they could be both right that the efficacy of masks was low and unreasonably wrong that the insistence on masks was warranted given what was know at the time. But the two ideas have become inextricably enmeshed, so it’s incredibly difficult for anyone to back down on any of it or else the whole damn Jenga tower collapses.

[UnseenParticipant]

Autumn wrote:

If people want the government to stop lying to them, the first step is to cultivate a society that doesn’t demand being lied to. I am not saying that to absolve government, but at the same time, there is likely a selection bias in political viability toward being rather selective with the truth (if not outright lying).

For years I’ve been saying basically the same thing, but much more succinctly: The public is lied to because it doesn’t want to hear the truth. Sen. Mondale famously once said “Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won’t tell you. I just did,” and he lost the election. Reagan DID raise taxes despite insisting he wouldn’t during the run up to the vote.

But we’re talking about something else here. That government lies in order to manufacture consent. Lies got us into both Vietnam and Iraq because the military-industrial complex saw a moneymaking opportunity. Fauci lied to us about masks early on in the pandemic, not because he didn’t believe in masks but because he didn’t trust the public to do the right thing and hold off until the doctors, nurses, and paramedics had an adequate supply.

We were lied to about a Trump/Russia collusion. Oh, Russia did interfere but there has never been any convincing evidence that Trump and Putin conspired. Ditto for the “pee tape” that never materialized and Hunter’s laptop, which the NY Times belatedly admits, was a “thing” after all. They just didn’t want to come clean before the election for fear of affecting it, even though in doing so they may have done exactly that.

Manufacturing consent by mixing lies that affect opinions and action in an intended way with actual truths is SOP. We know they do this, and when they do do it, it’s not conspiracy theory to say so.

Anyway, the CDC spread its share of misinformation and the public knows it, and if trust for the CDC has gone down, a great deal of it is because the CDC hasn’t owned up to its mistakes and done a full mea culpa. But why would they want to? Walter Mondale would probably say they’re better off lying to us.

Catch-22 anyone?

[PopeBeanieModerator]

I started a long response to a back and forth between Unseen and I, and haven’t finished it. Real life gets in the way. Like Reg’s recommended article!

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

Here is an article from today’s NYT magazine. It is a long read.

Wow, that was the most comprehensive and well written overview I’ve seen on zoonotic vs lab leak origins. (@Unseen, I hope it wasn’t too long for you to read?) Looking more into the author, David Quammen, he’s also written what looks like an epic a book Breathless on it after interviewing 95 scientists. It’s nothing like the amatuer opinionated outrage machine clickbait that’s ruining civilized, fact based discussions.

There’s a great interview of him on an October 2022 This Week in Virology episode. It’s over an hour long, so hoping to make it worth your time, see below for some timestamps I’ve added, to get an idea of what the interview’s about if you can’t watch the whole thing like I did. I’ve bolded my recommendations. (If you have any questions on virology, I can probably answer you!)

22:35 When he decided to write the book
31:51 Choosing all the scientists to interview
33:30 Delivering accuracy to readers, not the scientists’ precision
35:38 The most surprising response from an interviewee (Fauci)
37:41 Research on MRNA vaccines started years before covid
41:16 On his earlier book [zoonotic] Spillover (before he got savvy about biology, e.g. “do viruses evolve?”)
46:04 Zoonotic vs lab leak origin biases; be respectful to people on all sides! (umm, except Trump, of course)
52:12 Research for book Spillover (wet markets) in 2009
58:01 Lab Leak story isn’t more plausible, but more popular now; amateurs making claims without evidence
63:10 British journalism org asking Vincent to be on their documentary about zoonotic vs lab leak controversy

[Author]

Posts