- 15,571
- 8,317
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
Not sure how it’s a “conspiracy” when Fauci himself has discussed it.
But yeah, that crowd is definitely who has paid the most attention to what it actually is.
Senior Biden officials finding that Covid lab leak theory as credible as natural origins explanation
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by BIG LEEMELONE,
- Start date
Not sure how it’s a “conspiracy” when Fauci himself has discussed it.
But yeah, that crowd is definitely who has paid the most attention to what it actually is.
- 44,809
- 66,515
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2001
Scientists who have studied the genetics of the virus, and the patterns by which it spread, say the most likely cause is that the virus jumped from live mammals to humans — a phenomenon known as “zoonotic spillover” — at the Huanan market, where the first cases of Covid-19 emerged in late 2019.
But other scientists say circumstantial evidence points to the virus having escaped from a lab, possibly the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which had deep expertise in researching coronaviruses. Lab mistakes do happen: In 2014, after accidents involving bird flu and anthrax, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tightened its biosafety practices.
...
But apart from the politics, experts say that understanding what caused a public health crisis that has killed nearly seven million people could help researchers and governments prevent the next one.
Why is it hard to know for certain how the pandemic started?
It is often difficult to find the origins of viruses, but China has compounded that problem by making it very difficult to gather evidence.
By the time Chinese researchers arrived to collect samples from the Huanan market, it had been closed down and disinfected because a number of people linked to it had become sick with what would later be recognized as Covid. No live animals were left.
Some scientists also believe that China has provided an incomplete picture of early Covid cases. And they worry that a directive to hospitals early in the outbreak to report illnesses specifically linked to the market may have led doctors to overlook other cases with no such ties, creating a biased snapshot of the spread.
...
Some of those scientists have studied maps of where investigators found the virus in the Huanan market, including walls, floors and other surfaces, and found that those samples clustered in an area of the market where live animals were sold. The raccoon dog DNA came from one of those stalls.
And genetic analyses from the very early stages of the pandemic, some scientists have said, suggest that the virus spilled over into people working or shopping at the market on at least two separate occasions.
Other scientists have disputed that studies like those can indicate a market origin with much confidence. They believe, for example, that the evidence for two separate spillovers at the market could also be evidence of the virus evolving as it spread from person to person.
Some researchers have also argued that for all the attention being paid to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, not enough has been paid to a different research site in the city, the Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention. That center is much closer to the Huanan market.
www.nytimes.com
But other scientists say circumstantial evidence points to the virus having escaped from a lab, possibly the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which had deep expertise in researching coronaviruses. Lab mistakes do happen: In 2014, after accidents involving bird flu and anthrax, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tightened its biosafety practices.
...
But apart from the politics, experts say that understanding what caused a public health crisis that has killed nearly seven million people could help researchers and governments prevent the next one.
Why is it hard to know for certain how the pandemic started?
It is often difficult to find the origins of viruses, but China has compounded that problem by making it very difficult to gather evidence.
By the time Chinese researchers arrived to collect samples from the Huanan market, it had been closed down and disinfected because a number of people linked to it had become sick with what would later be recognized as Covid. No live animals were left.
Some scientists also believe that China has provided an incomplete picture of early Covid cases. And they worry that a directive to hospitals early in the outbreak to report illnesses specifically linked to the market may have led doctors to overlook other cases with no such ties, creating a biased snapshot of the spread.
...
Some of those scientists have studied maps of where investigators found the virus in the Huanan market, including walls, floors and other surfaces, and found that those samples clustered in an area of the market where live animals were sold. The raccoon dog DNA came from one of those stalls.
And genetic analyses from the very early stages of the pandemic, some scientists have said, suggest that the virus spilled over into people working or shopping at the market on at least two separate occasions.
Other scientists have disputed that studies like those can indicate a market origin with much confidence. They believe, for example, that the evidence for two separate spillovers at the market could also be evidence of the virus evolving as it spread from person to person.
Some researchers have also argued that for all the attention being paid to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, not enough has been paid to a different research site in the city, the Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention. That center is much closer to the Huanan market.
The Origins of the Covid Pandemic: What We Know and Don’t Know
Scientists and spy agencies have tried for years to determine where the coronavirus originated. Conclusive evidence is hard to come by, and the nation’s intelligence officials are split.
- 44,809
- 66,515
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2001
A research paper which suggests Covid-19 originated in raccoon dogs held in cages at a market in Wuhan has been criticized after it emerged the data originated from Chinese scientists who've now withdrawn it.
Samples taken from the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan were used for the new study which comes just weeks after US authorities doubled down on their belief the virus leaked from a nearby lab in Wuhan.
But the very same samples - which have never been shared with the international community - have previously been studied by scientists in China who concluded the virus didn't come from animals at the market.
On Friday morning, the World Health Organization also said the research 'doesn't give us the answers of how the pandemic began' and was critical of how the data surfaced.
The data was unexpectedly uploaded to an international research database called GISAID last week and downloaded by international researchers who stumbled across it while looking for other information. Within hours of processing this new data, the team discovered traces of the Covid-19 virus in samples that also contained animal genetic material that matched the raccoon dog.
The team contacted the Chinese researchers who'd uploaded the files offering to collaborate on the research - before the data was mysteriously deleted from GISAID.
The new paper has also not been published or peer reviewed, casting further doubts about its reliability. The data used came from Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
Details of the research were first published in The Atlantic, which made the hefty claim that the study 'may offer some of the clearest and most compelling evidence that the world will ever get in support of an animal origin'.
Angela Rasmussen, a virologist involved in the research, said: 'This is a really strong indication that animals at the market were infected. There's really no other explanation that makes any sense.'
But Dr Stephen Quay, a pharmaceutical CEO who has studied the origins of covid, likened publishing research that relies on data that's no longer available to using evidence that doesn't exist 'in a court of law'.
'You
can't say, 'I have seen evidence of the origin but I am not going to show it to you. Just take my word for it',' he told DailyMail.com.
'Especially when these people have previously been untruthful not once but multiple times. I need to see the data, probe it for fabrication which I know I will find, and then publish why it is a lie.'
Dr Richard Ebright, a microbiologist at Rutgers University in New Jersey, told DailyMail.com the new research 'adds little to the discussion' about Covid's origin and necessitates 'extreme caution'.
He said: 'The claim is being made by scientists who... almost exactly a one year ago, peddled the widely hyped, but subsequently withdrawn, false claim that they had "dispositive evidence" SARS-CoV-2 had emerged from the wildlife trade with Huanan Seafood Market as "unambiguous" epicenter.
'Their track record of past false claims on the subject warrants extreme caution about their new claims on the subject, especially claims for which the data are not presented.'
Dr Steven Salzberg, a Professor of Biomedical Engineering at Johns Hopkins University, told DailyMail.com it was 'highly unusual' for the data to be deleted after it was uploaded. He said that it's not possible to make conclusions about the study until the paper is available and 'preferably after its been peer reviewed'.
Dr Li-Meng Yan, who gained famed for her divisive research supporting the lab leak theory, claimed the new data had come from the Chinese Communist Party as an attempt to conceal the leak.
The WHO's technical lead on Covid, Maria Van Kerkhove, said on Friday: 'Unfortunately this doesn't give us the answer of how the pandemic began, but it does give us more clues.'
www.dailymail.co.uk
Samples taken from the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan were used for the new study which comes just weeks after US authorities doubled down on their belief the virus leaked from a nearby lab in Wuhan.
But the very same samples - which have never been shared with the international community - have previously been studied by scientists in China who concluded the virus didn't come from animals at the market.
On Friday morning, the World Health Organization also said the research 'doesn't give us the answers of how the pandemic began' and was critical of how the data surfaced.
The data was unexpectedly uploaded to an international research database called GISAID last week and downloaded by international researchers who stumbled across it while looking for other information. Within hours of processing this new data, the team discovered traces of the Covid-19 virus in samples that also contained animal genetic material that matched the raccoon dog.
The team contacted the Chinese researchers who'd uploaded the files offering to collaborate on the research - before the data was mysteriously deleted from GISAID.
The new paper has also not been published or peer reviewed, casting further doubts about its reliability. The data used came from Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
Details of the research were first published in The Atlantic, which made the hefty claim that the study 'may offer some of the clearest and most compelling evidence that the world will ever get in support of an animal origin'.
Angela Rasmussen, a virologist involved in the research, said: 'This is a really strong indication that animals at the market were infected. There's really no other explanation that makes any sense.'
But Dr Stephen Quay, a pharmaceutical CEO who has studied the origins of covid, likened publishing research that relies on data that's no longer available to using evidence that doesn't exist 'in a court of law'.
'You
can't say, 'I have seen evidence of the origin but I am not going to show it to you. Just take my word for it',' he told DailyMail.com.
'Especially when these people have previously been untruthful not once but multiple times. I need to see the data, probe it for fabrication which I know I will find, and then publish why it is a lie.'
Dr Richard Ebright, a microbiologist at Rutgers University in New Jersey, told DailyMail.com the new research 'adds little to the discussion' about Covid's origin and necessitates 'extreme caution'.
He said: 'The claim is being made by scientists who... almost exactly a one year ago, peddled the widely hyped, but subsequently withdrawn, false claim that they had "dispositive evidence" SARS-CoV-2 had emerged from the wildlife trade with Huanan Seafood Market as "unambiguous" epicenter.
'Their track record of past false claims on the subject warrants extreme caution about their new claims on the subject, especially claims for which the data are not presented.'
Dr Steven Salzberg, a Professor of Biomedical Engineering at Johns Hopkins University, told DailyMail.com it was 'highly unusual' for the data to be deleted after it was uploaded. He said that it's not possible to make conclusions about the study until the paper is available and 'preferably after its been peer reviewed'.
Dr Li-Meng Yan, who gained famed for her divisive research supporting the lab leak theory, claimed the new data had come from the Chinese Communist Party as an attempt to conceal the leak.
The WHO's technical lead on Covid, Maria Van Kerkhove, said on Friday: 'Unfortunately this doesn't give us the answer of how the pandemic began, but it does give us more clues.'
Experts trash Chinese data hinting RACCOON DOGS were origin of COVID
A study which suggests Covid-19 originated in raccoon dogs at a market in Wuhan has been criticized after it emerged the data originated from Chinese scientists who've now withdrawn it.
- 35,400
- 77,873
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
Maybe it escaped from a lab, to a mammal, to humans.
Then everyone can be happy.
Then everyone can be happy.
- 44,809
- 66,515
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2001
I don't know why people get defensive or take this subject as some kind of personal attack or pissing contest. I think we all just want the truth at the end of the day
computersputin
formerly arrowcollarman
- 3,919
- 4,075
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2014
Irony.
- 21,537
- 12,360
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2005
- 15,448
- 16,778
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2006
- 24,774
- 21,572
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
I read that the raccoon dog got it from a horseshoe bat.
- 7,637
- 10,469
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2012
I keep reading the title as "Señor Biden"......
Then "Senior Biden"......... cuz he old.
Then "Senior Biden"......... cuz he old.
- 16,166
- 32,658
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2013
Arrriba! Mi gente 
- 44,809
- 66,515
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2001
Throughout my career, I have written 390 peer-reviewed papers and reports. Normally, the process involves sending in a paper to be reviewed by journal editors and expert scholars. The paper is then reviewed; it is heavily criticized in a back-and-forth process, and in most cases, it is then published. My papers are always better because of this peer review system.
But in 2020, both myself and colleagues who were saying similar things were sending out papers to be peer-reviewed, but getting rejected without any review of the merits of the data and by who knows whom at the journals. In these cases, there were never comments or scientific criticism offered, they just said effectively: "We're busy, we can't be bothered to send it for peer review."
While my papers have since started to get peer-reviewed, at that stage, it felt like they were refusing to engage with this type of research, and then in public were saying: "Well there's no peer-reviewed data that shows SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab."
In my opinion, they were gatekeeping that information in a very immoral fashion.
There is a form of scientific debate that involves what is called: '"The argument from authority." It consists of first reciting one's credentials of degrees, titles, and academic positions, and then giving a conclusion about something scientific. For example, someone saying: "I believe the earth is flat, and because I have a Nobel Prize, it must be so." Well, I think that way of thinking is silly.
Despite the fact I was issued a patent on a method to treat coronavirus infections in 2015, I got a lot of comments about not being a working coronavirus expert, from critics who did not want to engage with the evidence I was presenting.
I do not feel vindicated about this research. We have lost millions because of this virus; in my opinion, these gatekeepers, and some people in positions of power, have not done their job in a moral way.
I also believe some of those who are lobbying for an investigation into the origins of SARS-CoV-2 are, in effect, virtue signaling, knowing China will not allow any investigation to take place. In my eyes, we should be saying: "We have a lot of evidence, let's sit down as reasonable scientists and lay people, look at the evidence and make a decision from the evidence about what the origin is."
www.newsweek.com
But in 2020, both myself and colleagues who were saying similar things were sending out papers to be peer-reviewed, but getting rejected without any review of the merits of the data and by who knows whom at the journals. In these cases, there were never comments or scientific criticism offered, they just said effectively: "We're busy, we can't be bothered to send it for peer review."
While my papers have since started to get peer-reviewed, at that stage, it felt like they were refusing to engage with this type of research, and then in public were saying: "Well there's no peer-reviewed data that shows SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab."
In my opinion, they were gatekeeping that information in a very immoral fashion.
There is a form of scientific debate that involves what is called: '"The argument from authority." It consists of first reciting one's credentials of degrees, titles, and academic positions, and then giving a conclusion about something scientific. For example, someone saying: "I believe the earth is flat, and because I have a Nobel Prize, it must be so." Well, I think that way of thinking is silly.
Despite the fact I was issued a patent on a method to treat coronavirus infections in 2015, I got a lot of comments about not being a working coronavirus expert, from critics who did not want to engage with the evidence I was presenting.
I do not feel vindicated about this research. We have lost millions because of this virus; in my opinion, these gatekeepers, and some people in positions of power, have not done their job in a moral way.
I also believe some of those who are lobbying for an investigation into the origins of SARS-CoV-2 are, in effect, virtue signaling, knowing China will not allow any investigation to take place. In my eyes, we should be saying: "We have a lot of evidence, let's sit down as reasonable scientists and lay people, look at the evidence and make a decision from the evidence about what the origin is."
"I suspected a China lab leak early on—but my research was rejected"
I don't feel the dangers of nuclear war are even close to the dangers of genetically modified viruses.
www.newsweek.com
- 44,809
- 66,515
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2001
Between 2014 and 2019, the NIH awarded a series of grants totaling approximately $3.7 million to the New York nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance, which funneled the funds to the Wuhan Institute of Virology to carry out experiments on bat coronaviruses.
The Wuhan research facility is located less than 10 miles from an animal slaughter market where the first series of human cases were clustered.
But Fauci told the PBS camera crew: 'The microbe [the WIV scientists] were working on not only was not SARS-CoV-2, it would be molecularly impossible for them to turn it into SARS-CoV-2.'
Questions about Fauci's involvement in the Covid origin story have intensified in recent weeks after it emerged he commissioned a paper denouncing the lab leak theory in the early days of America's Covid outbreak.
He then publicized the study at a White House news conference weeks later - without disclosing his involvement.
Meanwhile, Dr Fauci and other public health experts publicly denounced the lab leak theory as nonsense. The theory was initially dismissed as a symptom of pervasive anti-Asian racism and xenophobia.
In March 2020, over two dozen scientists condemned the lab leak theory, saying they 'stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.'
It was later revealed, though, that 26 of the 27 signatories had some link to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where the leak was suspected - calling into question their impartiality.
...
Below are listed some of his key blunders when the virus struck
Don't wear masks, do wear masks
As global concern for Covid was surfacing in March 2020, Fauci told Americans that there was 'no need' to wear a face mask.
He said they may only help people 'feel a little better', and 'might even block a droplet' — but would not provide good protection.
Less than a month later, he was forced into an embarrassing climbdown after it emerged the virus spread via droplets in the air.
Dr Fauci later insisted he advised people not to wear masks to ensure there were enough available for hospitals and healthcare centers.
Covid did not come from a lab
Dr Fauci has also repeatedly insisted that Covid did not leak from a lab in China.
He called the theory a 'shiny object that will go away', and brushed aside claims from other top experts as an 'opinion'.
Dr Fauci has now backpedalled, saying instead that he keeps an 'open mind' although insisting that it remains 'most likely' that the virus spilled over from animals to humans.
Two jabs will stop you catching Covid
When the Covid vaccine roll-out was in full swing, Dr Fauci said the immunity from shots made doubly-vaccinated people a 'dead end' for the virus, and even suggested they may no longer need to wear masks.
Schools shutdown
Schools were closed from March through to August 2020, something Dr Fauci later expressed regret about.
But he said last month that he 'should have realized' there would be 'deleterious collateral consequences'.
Children are now bearing the brunt of the US's tripledemic, after lockdowns left them without proper immune defense.
Funding Wuhan lab
In 2014, Dr Facui's agency issued a $3.7million grant to EcoHealth Alliance, which some allege was used to support gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
www.dailymail.co.uk
The Wuhan research facility is located less than 10 miles from an animal slaughter market where the first series of human cases were clustered.
But Fauci told the PBS camera crew: 'The microbe [the WIV scientists] were working on not only was not SARS-CoV-2, it would be molecularly impossible for them to turn it into SARS-CoV-2.'
Questions about Fauci's involvement in the Covid origin story have intensified in recent weeks after it emerged he commissioned a paper denouncing the lab leak theory in the early days of America's Covid outbreak.
He then publicized the study at a White House news conference weeks later - without disclosing his involvement.
Meanwhile, Dr Fauci and other public health experts publicly denounced the lab leak theory as nonsense. The theory was initially dismissed as a symptom of pervasive anti-Asian racism and xenophobia.
In March 2020, over two dozen scientists condemned the lab leak theory, saying they 'stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.'
It was later revealed, though, that 26 of the 27 signatories had some link to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where the leak was suspected - calling into question their impartiality.
...
What did Fauci get wrong? From telling people not to wear masks to claiming vaccines stopped infections
Dr Anthony Fauci is due to step down from his position as one of America's top infectious disease advisors at the end of this year.Below are listed some of his key blunders when the virus struck
Don't wear masks, do wear masks
As global concern for Covid was surfacing in March 2020, Fauci told Americans that there was 'no need' to wear a face mask.
He said they may only help people 'feel a little better', and 'might even block a droplet' — but would not provide good protection.
Less than a month later, he was forced into an embarrassing climbdown after it emerged the virus spread via droplets in the air.
Dr Fauci later insisted he advised people not to wear masks to ensure there were enough available for hospitals and healthcare centers.
Covid did not come from a lab
Dr Fauci has also repeatedly insisted that Covid did not leak from a lab in China.
He called the theory a 'shiny object that will go away', and brushed aside claims from other top experts as an 'opinion'.
Dr Fauci has now backpedalled, saying instead that he keeps an 'open mind' although insisting that it remains 'most likely' that the virus spilled over from animals to humans.
Two jabs will stop you catching Covid
When the Covid vaccine roll-out was in full swing, Dr Fauci said the immunity from shots made doubly-vaccinated people a 'dead end' for the virus, and even suggested they may no longer need to wear masks.
Schools shutdown
Schools were closed from March through to August 2020, something Dr Fauci later expressed regret about.
But he said last month that he 'should have realized' there would be 'deleterious collateral consequences'.
Children are now bearing the brunt of the US's tripledemic, after lockdowns left them without proper immune defense.
Funding Wuhan lab
In 2014, Dr Facui's agency issued a $3.7million grant to EcoHealth Alliance, which some allege was used to support gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
Grinning Fauci laughs off lab leak claims AGAIN in new documentary
Top infectious disease expert Dr Anthony Fauci brushed off allegations that he funded risky 'gain of function' research in Wuhan, which some allege gave rise to the Covid pandemic.
- 22,895
- 26,768
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2010
I honestly & truly believe that even if we do get the whole truth of covid & it's origins, we are a place in society where people will ignore it & just twist it into something to push their political agenda either way
- 42,245
- 44,072
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
If Covid was created in a lab…..what about the other acronyms?????
- 7,637
- 10,469
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2012
Just prove this **** came from Earth.....
- 44,809
- 66,515
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2001
Fauci insisted during multiple appearances before Congress that the research conducted in Wuhan did not match the NIH’s definition of “gain-of-function,” contradicting independent experts such as Dr. Richard Ebright, who have said the experiments being performed clearly qualify as gain-of-function research.
The Biden administration continues to support the practice despite widespread concerns in the scientific community that it may have contributed to the outbreak of Covid. National security council communications coordinator John Kirby explained in February that “[the president] believes that [the research is] important to help prevent future pandemics.”
Gain-of-function research continues to be probed by Congress due to the competing theories of the origins of the coronavirus: the lab-leak hypothesis and the natural-transmission hypothesis. The Energy Department joined the FBI in preferring the lab-leak hypothesis in February. Other agencies disagree.
Ratcliffe weighed into the debate on Tuesday.
“My informed assessment as a person with as much access as anyone during the initial year of the pandemic has been and continues to be that a lab leak is the only explanation credibly supported by our intelligence, by science, and by common sense,” he explained.
“From a view inside the [intelligence community] if our intelligence and evidence supporting a lab-leak theory was placed side by side with our intelligence and evidence pointing to a natural-origins or spillover theory, the lab leak side of the ledger would be long, convincing, and overwhelming, while the spillover side would be nearly empty and tenuous,” said Ratcliffe. “Were this a trial, a preponderance of circumstantial evidence compiled by our intelligence would compel a jury finding of guilty to an accusation that coronavirus research in the Wuhan labs was responsible for the pandemic.”
David Feith, former deputy assistant secretary of state for east Asian and Pacific affairs, who appeared alongside Ratcliffe Tuesday, revealed that some of his colleagues in the State Department warned against gain-of-function research early in the pandemic.
“By late 2020, colleagues flagged new U.S government information that underscored the plausibility of a lab leak,” Feith explained. “[That] Wuhan lab had a long record of secrecy about its coronavirus research and undisclosed ties with China’s military. Working with ODNI, we at State worked to make this information public. Some of our colleagues warned us not to. They said not to highlight China’s gain-of-function research lest we draw attention to the U.S. government’s own role in such research and open a Pandora’s box.”
Feith also offered his view on various agencies in the intelligence community staking a position between the two competing theories.
“We don’t need a running intelligence community straw poll as much as we need a transparent whole-of-government campaign to recognize the gravely high stakes of the lab leak possibility and pursue policy reforms,” Feith explained.
www.nationalreview.com
The Biden administration continues to support the practice despite widespread concerns in the scientific community that it may have contributed to the outbreak of Covid. National security council communications coordinator John Kirby explained in February that “[the president] believes that [the research is] important to help prevent future pandemics.”
Gain-of-function research continues to be probed by Congress due to the competing theories of the origins of the coronavirus: the lab-leak hypothesis and the natural-transmission hypothesis. The Energy Department joined the FBI in preferring the lab-leak hypothesis in February. Other agencies disagree.
Ratcliffe weighed into the debate on Tuesday.
“My informed assessment as a person with as much access as anyone during the initial year of the pandemic has been and continues to be that a lab leak is the only explanation credibly supported by our intelligence, by science, and by common sense,” he explained.
“From a view inside the [intelligence community] if our intelligence and evidence supporting a lab-leak theory was placed side by side with our intelligence and evidence pointing to a natural-origins or spillover theory, the lab leak side of the ledger would be long, convincing, and overwhelming, while the spillover side would be nearly empty and tenuous,” said Ratcliffe. “Were this a trial, a preponderance of circumstantial evidence compiled by our intelligence would compel a jury finding of guilty to an accusation that coronavirus research in the Wuhan labs was responsible for the pandemic.”
David Feith, former deputy assistant secretary of state for east Asian and Pacific affairs, who appeared alongside Ratcliffe Tuesday, revealed that some of his colleagues in the State Department warned against gain-of-function research early in the pandemic.
“By late 2020, colleagues flagged new U.S government information that underscored the plausibility of a lab leak,” Feith explained. “[That] Wuhan lab had a long record of secrecy about its coronavirus research and undisclosed ties with China’s military. Working with ODNI, we at State worked to make this information public. Some of our colleagues warned us not to. They said not to highlight China’s gain-of-function research lest we draw attention to the U.S. government’s own role in such research and open a Pandora’s box.”
Feith also offered his view on various agencies in the intelligence community staking a position between the two competing theories.
“We don’t need a running intelligence community straw poll as much as we need a transparent whole-of-government campaign to recognize the gravely high stakes of the lab leak possibility and pursue policy reforms,” Feith explained.
Fauci Testimony on Gain-of-Function Research Was ‘Inconsistent’ with Existing Intel, Says Ex-Director of National Intelligence | National Review
Fauci repeatedly insisted that the NIH had not funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan, despite the available evidence.
www.nationalreview.com
- 14,587
- 17,004
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
i think most people don’t care anymore. We live in a society where there’s no rear view mirrors and we drive faster in the slow lane
