Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 29 reply threads

  • Author

    Posts

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 2573

      Something everyone here should find interesting. It stems from a disagreement with Spartan over whether a quote existed where someone was claiming that the virus was INTENTIONALLY leaked as a weapon

      I already provided the quote (from social media, see below) but here is a FASCINATING and comprehensive MEDIA CRITIQUE they has even been covered by the NYT. The conclusion is that the media is partially to blame for the “weapon” story … FIRST SUGGESTED (note word “suggested”) by Sen Tom Cotton. The fascinating part of it is that he doesn’t make the claim directly, he just suggests it but then when the story makes it to the Sunday news shows and THEN TO TWITTER…. he doesn’t shoot it down or correct it (even though it’s attributed to him), he simply attacks China (because he’s a China hawk)

      https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-medias-lab-leak-fiasco

      So, a combination of his REPUTATION FOR PUSHING FALSE STORIES and his failure to knock it down (likely because the speculation brings him attention) leads the media to almost completely ignore the accidental
      Leak hypothesis because it’s focused on knocking down Cotton’s conspiracy theory … even though he only suggested it as ONE possibility, s as lipstick as a throw away line.

      So, it’s really the “suggestion” becoming a “claim” and then the debunking becoming the story. THIS IS THE PERIL OF MODERN MEDIA because:

      1) even though the “weapon” suggestion is debunked, it makes its way to social media and that gives it real legs in some groups. Illustrating the risk/role of mis/disinformation

      2) the non-story becomes the story to the detriment of the actual story (source unknown) because, in part, the media is racing to debunk a non-story under headlines that suggest a nefarious act by China.

      3) the perils of supremely self-interested politicians pushing stories for attention. In this instance, Cotton can actually kill the claim, but he doesn’t because the suggestion increases his visibility

      4) the perils of media “groupthink” as the author describes it. The race to shit down “fake news” almost creates a different sort of “fake news.” If you read the article you will see the very experienced science reporters trying to bring the coverage back in line, but they are not a big enough voice in today’s media

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 2573

      The entire article is worth the read, but here the key sequence

      1. Cotton makes malice-based comment about lab

      2. MSM reports as a conspiracy theory

      3. Face the Nation confronts Chinese Ambasador with splashy headline. He says it’s absurd and says the same claim about US

      4. Cottons push back to an inaccurate tweet by face The Nation is the missed op to shut it down

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 2573

      at this point, Cui’s official position is that we don’t know where the virus came from, but it was probably an animal. And Cotton’s position is that we don’t know where the virus came from, but it might have been the lab. Cui says it is irresponsible to speculate about the lab, while Cotton says the speculation is good. Cotton is not, I think, saying the virus was Chinese biowarfare — he is saying the PRC is not trustworthy. The PRC ambassador’s position, obviously, is that he is in fact trustworthy.

      But whoever writes up the exchange for the Face The Nation Twitter account goes with Cui “dismisses #coronavirus conspiracy theories pushed by @SenTomCotton that it’s being used as biological warfare as ‘absolutely crazy.’”

      It seems to me that Cotton did not say the virus was being used as biological warfare.

      But Cotton’s Twitter account fired back.

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 2573

      So, Cotton and Face The Nation both give legs to the story for the same reasons: attention and $$

    • spartan

      Participant
      Post count: 1039

      I already provided the quote

      Where? Maybe I missed it so if you could repeat please.

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6204

      Occam’s razor

    • spartan

      Participant
      Post count: 1039

      My take on the article is as follows;

      1. Cotton said something that was perfectly legitimate and true. There may be a discussion on the politics of what he said, but it was a perfectly legitimate statement.

      2. The press and other commentaries totally distorted what he said and made it into something he did not say.

      3. The press and other commentaries then debunked the claim they had just made up.

      4. Future references to Cottons comments were then debunked based on the debunking of the comments he never said.

      5. The scientific consensus has never been as solid as people have been making out as some folks were afraid that if they spoke out they would be destroyed/vilified.

      The “malice” and “deliberate malfeasannce” part in my interpretation is that the Chinese lab was engaged in deliberately changing the virus as part of real research. See the article I posted the other day about the valley thing etc. Whether that research was wise or not …. Both articles address that partially.

      When the virus got out the Chinese Govt deliberately and maliciously covered it up to cover their butts.

      I am not a virologist, obviously, and all sources are keen to point out that the point of origination is not known for sure, but the evidence is beginning to stack up.

      In conclusion, it’s important because I feel that if the Chinese Govt had been forthright from the get go and let experts in, they could have seen the research documentation and he actual research. This would have enabled them to develop a vaccine/treatment a lot faster than we actually did; savings potentially hundreds of thousands of lives.

      Now this is personal opinion; As things got worse and the Chinese saw how it was impacting the economies of the West far more than their own, I wouldn’t put it past them to drag it a bit more for their own benefit.

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 2573

      Well, at least I agree with part of that so there progress!

      Cotton and Face the Nation have same motivation. They hype the claim for their interview. Cotton doesn’t shoot it down (even though he’d seem to love the “fake news” angle

    • TheChronicHotAir

      Participant
      Post count: 5469

      Fauci playing damage control for 15 months– probably covering up the true origin of of Virus leak (the 1st people to “get sick” worked in the Lab, Nov 2019).

      Union Carbide fgtFauci

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 2573

      Definitely disagree with this for many reasons

      conclusion, it’s important because I feel that if the Chinese Govt had been forthright from the get go and let experts in, they could have seen the research documentation and he actual research. This would have enabled them to develop a vaccine/treatment a lot faster than we actually did; savings potentially hundreds of thousands of lives.

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 2573

      Fauci playing damage control for 15 months– probably covering up the true origin of of Virus leak (the 1st people to “get sick” worked in the Lab, Nov 2019).

      Union Carbide fgtFauci

      Lmao

    • spartan

      Participant
      Post count: 1039

      Definitely disagree with this for many reasons

      conclusion, it’s important because I feel that if the Chinese Govt had been forthright from the get go and let experts in, they could have seen the research documentation and he actual research. This would have enabled them to develop a vaccine/treatment a lot faster than we actually did; savings potentially hundreds of thousands of lives.

      My logic is the first part of the vaccine process was (presumably) to understand the structure and behavior of the virus. After that they then move on to the prevent/block/cure phase. The first part of this process would surely have been unnecessary if access was permitted to initial research.

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 2573

      Spartan, not sure you understand that the two sources are not mutually exclusive.

      Coronavirus has been around before. SARS and MERS

      Both linked to transitional animals that helped it jump species

      This specific virus was discovered in animals … bats in a cave, as far back as 2012 I think

      It’s possible that the lab was working on the animal virus. This is why it’s critical to get PAST the conspiracy theory that the virus was “created” in the lab (your Tucker Carlson claim of “gain of function”)

      But the part that conflict with your theory is that the specific vaccine for this virus was accelerated because of 50 plus Tess if coronavirus research (mentioned above) and advances is genome sequencing. The “code” fir this specific virus was available within days of discovery:

      “ Dr. Yager said that thanks to advances in genomic sequencing, researchers successfully uncovered the viral sequence of SARS-CoV-2 in January 2020 — roughly 10 days after the first reported pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China. The ability to fast-track research and clinical trials was a direct result of this worldwide cooperation.”

      You can read the history here:

      https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/how-did-we-develop-a-covid-19-vaccine-so-quickly

      We had many more people due BECAUSE OF THE RESPONSE, not because of slowed vaccine development. In fact, it was historically fast

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 2573

      The first part of this process would surely have been unnecessary if access was permitted to initial research.

      This is just not correct per the above

      That’s why I said (and the author of the article I linked today said) the precise source doesn’t make much difference UNLESS you’re suggesting some kind of effort to weaponize went wrong because that would be a natl security risk

    • TheChronicHotAir

      Participant
      Post count: 5469

      Virgil_Catfish admitting he’s a Wet Market Hoaxer.

      #sciencedenier

    • spartan

      Participant
      Post count: 1039

      It’s possible that the lab was working on the animal virus. This is why it’s critical to get PAST the conspiracy theory that the virus was “created” in the lab (your Tucker Carlson claim of “gain of function”)

      This is what the US Govt was paying for, so if they WEREN’T doing gain of function …..

    • spartan

      Participant
      Post count: 1039

      “ Dr. Yager said that thanks to advances in genomic sequencing, researchers successfully uncovered the viral sequence of SARS-CoV-2 in January 2020 — roughly 10 days after the first reported pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China. The ability to fast-track research and clinical trials was a direct result of this worldwide cooperation.”

      Let’s be honest and admit that in the context of this conversation neither one of us knows what this means in terms of the ability to understand how it impacted the creation of the vaccine. It could be a procedure that normally takes 12 months or 3 weeks. 10 days being a great improvement but empirically means nothing without context.

      To me it’s like making the Lego Millenium Falcon. Yea, you will figure it out eventually but it’s a dang lot easier with the instructions.

      If you find anything else I will be more than happy to take it on board, but right now I still think that having access to the research would have been highly beneficial on a number of fronts.

      Just so it’s clear this is me talking outside of the political arena. Based on the information that is currently available it strikes me a whole lot of deaths could have been avoided if China had been more upfront and open.

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 2573

      “ Dr. Yager said that thanks to advances in genomic sequencing, researchers successfully uncovered the viral sequence of SARS-CoV-2 in January 2020 — roughly 10 days after the first reported pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China. The ability to fast-track research and clinical trials was a direct result of this worldwide cooperation.”

      Let’s be honest and admit that in the context of this conversation neither one of us knows what this means in terms of the ability to understand how it impacted the creation of the vaccine. It could be a procedure that normally takes 12 months or 3 weeks. 10 days being a great improvement but empirically means nothing without context.

      To me it’s like making the Lego Millenium Falcon. Yea, you will figure it out eventually but it’s a dang lot easier with the instructions.

      If you find anything else I will be more than happy to take it on board, but right now I still think that having access to the research would have been highly beneficial on a number of fronts.

      Just so it’s clear this is me talking outside of the political arena. Based on the information that is currently available it strikes me a whole lot of deaths could have been avoided if China had been more upfront and open.

      Spartan – the story of why this virus was developed so quickly is well covered. Just look for yourself

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 2573

      Here’s the production side

      “ mRNA Vaccines Are New, But Not Unknown
      Researchers have been studying and working with mRNA vaccines for decades. Interest has grown in these vaccines because they can be developed in a laboratory using readily available materials. This means the process can be standardized and scaled up, making vaccine development faster than traditional methods of making vaccines.”

      THE POINT – not a delay in development by delayed disclosure issue

    • spartan

      Participant
      Post count: 1039

      We have known about SARS and coronavirus’s for years, yet the speed in which this vaccine was developed was still unprecedented. Despite normal vaccine development still taking several years, even for the above.

      The truth is I don’t know. Until someone comes out and says it is categorically one way or another, what we say is opinion and/or speculation. I have formed the opinion the Chinese could have done more had they been more open; You appear to be on the other side of the fence. That’s fine, let’s see how things pan out. What the last couple of weeks have demonstrated is that what was once taken as solid gold fact, no longer is. This could end up in a number of different corners.

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 2573

      We have known about SARS and coronavirus’s for years, yet the speed in which this vaccine was developed was still unprecedented.

      No offense, but maybe take a moment and actually read? I just posted that the PRODUCTION of this vaccine was so fast because it was a new mRNA vaccine, like a synthetic (sort of) so scalable. The “code” comes from all the prior research.

      This isn’t me saying this, it’s medical journals

      Anyway, suit yuu I resent but the info is actually in the thread

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 2573

      @Sosttsn hopefully even if you don’t admit it here you can see in your pen posts the problem

      You started with your belief that China’s delay cost lives because it interferes with development if the vaccine

      I posted two medical articles that undercut that premise. In fact, the truth is the opposite

      You – “I don’t know, it’s my opinion still ….”

      😁

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 2573

      he “malice” and “deliberate malfeasannce” part in my interpretation is that the Chinese lab was engaged in deliberately changing the virus as part of real research. See the article I posted the other day about the valley thing etc. Whether that research was wise or not …. Both articles address that partially.



      @Spartan

      would you mind directing me to these articles? I thought you posted them in this thread, but you didn’t. There are many threads, so I cant seem to find them. maybe just the title of the thread, if you recall?

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 2573

      I am gong to reverse my position on one thing

      In one of these virus threads, I argued, essentially, what difference does it make to know the origin (so long as it was not weaponized)? My point was that the bad outcome in the US had to do with the US handling, not the origin. That’s still true and I still disagree with the theory that the vaccine could’ve been developed even quicker, but I think Spartan was on to something with the “gain of function” questions. (@Spartan, this is why I am trying to find the articles you posted).

      I wasn’t aware of the controversy surrounding “gain of function” experiments until recently. We definitely want to get to the bottom of the origin issue

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 2573

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 2573

      I am gong to reverse my position on one thing

      In one of these virus threads, I argued, essentially, what difference does it make to know the origin (so long as it was not weaponized)? My point was that the bad outcome in the US had to do with the US handling, not the origin. That’s still true and I still disagree with the theory that the vaccine could’ve been developed even quicker, but I think Spartan was on to something with the “gain of function” questions. (@Spartan, this is why I am trying to find the articles you posted).

      I wasn’t aware of the controversy surrounding “gain of function” experiments until recently. We definitely want to get to the bottom of the origin issue

      because of this

    • spartan

      Participant
      Post count: 1039

      he “malice” and “deliberate malfeasannce” part in my interpretation is that the Chinese lab was engaged in deliberately changing the virus as part of real research. See the article I posted the other day about the valley thing etc. Whether that research was wise or not …. Both articles address that partially.




      @Spartan

      would you mind directing me to these articles? I thought you posted them in this thread, but you didn’t. There are many threads, so I cant seem to find them. maybe just the title of the thread, if you recall?

      I did, but I will find it again if the board let’s me :)

    • spartan

      Participant
      Post count: 1039

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 2573

      Thanks!

    • KarmaPolice

      Participant
      Post count: 2573

      I did not realize that a) there are legitimate, non-weaponization reasons to conduct “gain of function” research AND b) that the Obama put brakes on the research here BECAUSE OF THE RISK following two release incidents. Those two facts make it entirely possible that the virus escaped from an “offshore” lab (Wuhan instead of US) and even that it was their for legitimate but risky “gain of function” research

      That’s significant to know because it goes to whether the US and other countries should even engage in this kind of research, the very reason they formed a board to weigh the alleged benefit versus the risk.

      China OBVIOUSLY would not want it to get out that its lab had an error that killed millions. Still very speculative but definitely worth getting to the bottom of.

Viewing 29 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.