The Breitbart article was not an “opinion piece,” and calling it that is misleading. It is a news article that accurately reports on both the contents of the Intercept piece and on Ebright’s statements in his Twitter feed.
You've got an incredible legal mind.
I call 'em like I see 'em. I don't trust Breitbart's reporting either. But that doesn't mean I ignore everything they report. I check it.
I have no idea whether Ebright is right or wrong about the new materials. He certainly was in a tiny minority (or was the entire tiny minority) of experts that accused Fauci and the NIH of lying before the release of the two grant proposals. So, I'm certainly not going to take his word on that subject until other experts weigh in and he explains the specific things in the new materials that he says involve gain of function. But the 900 pages are new evidence and should be considered. And I'd like to hear an explanation about why it took so long to provide them and why we are hearing about the US funding coronavirus research at a second lab this far into the pandemic. There may be perfectly acceptable explanations for both. We'll see.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
I call 'em like I see 'em. I don't trust Breitbart's reporting either. But that doesn't mean I ignore everything they report. I check it.
I think you'd be pretty good at defending either side of an issue without your mind being clouded by personal bias.
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
I hate the “Fauci Lied” headlines. The argument that he lied is a difficult or impossible one to win. It is a loser claim meant to fire up one side. It erodes the credibility for arguments that are more relevant like - Fauci has a conflict of interest, or many conflicts. Conflicts are not just a private vs public conflict. In this case, he holds multiple public positions that are in massive conflict. So eff that guy.
It also diverts attention away from China. If this virus escaped due to sloppy or dangerous research practices, it's likely to happen again. In a country like the United States, there would be an investigation and additional safety regulations put in place. China though, is likely to stay the wild west of biometrical research.
I hate the “Fauci Lied” headlines. The argument that he lied is a difficult or impossible one to win. It is a loser claim meant to fire up one side. It erodes the credibility for arguments that are more relevant like - Fauci has a conflict of interest, or many conflicts. Conflicts are not just a private vs public conflict. In this case, he holds multiple public positions that are in massive conflict. So eff that guy.
It also diverts attention away from China. If this virus escaped due to sloppy or dangerous research practices, it's likely to happen again. In a country like the United States, there would be an investigation and additional safety regulations put in place. China though, is likely to stay the wild west of biometrical research.
I very seriously doubt that Cultellus has anything to support his claim that Dr. Fauci has any conflicts of interest that would damage his credibility other than his flat assertion that it is so.
No precept or claim is more suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
It also diverts attention away from China. If this virus escaped due to sloppy or dangerous research practices, it's likely to happen again. In a country like the United States, there would be an investigation and additional safety regulations put in place. China though, is likely to stay the wild west of biometrical research.
I very seriously doubt that Cultellus has anything to support his claim that Dr. Fauci has any conflicts of interest that would damage his credibility other than his flat assertion that it is so.
I've only watched the Rand Paul questioning video. It seems Fauci may have not been completely upfront about some of the money going to prohibited research. Although the amount of that money seems extremely small, which Fauci pointed out during the questioning. Fauci's demeanor during questioning is unfortunately very defiant, almost hostile. When he really should have set a calm reasoned tone like he had at the beginning. I know its hard to keep that in the face of misinformation, but I think Fauci's demeanor alone was enough to convince many right-wing people he might be hiding something.
In any case it seems like it's not the major issue we should be focusing on and is just a political sideshow.
I very seriously doubt that Cultellus has anything to support his claim that Dr. Fauci has any conflicts of interest that would damage his credibility other than his flat assertion that it is so.
I've only watched the Rand Paul questioning video. It seems Fauci may have not been completely upfront about some of the money going to prohibited research. Although the amount of that money seems extremely small, which Fauci pointed out during the questioning. Fauci's demeanor during questioning is unfortunately very defiant, almost hostile. When he really should have set a calm reasoned tone like he had at the beginning. I know its hard to keep that in the face of misinformation, but I think Fauci's demeanor alone was enough to convince many right-wing people he might be hiding something.
In any case it seems like it's not the major issue we should be focusing on and is just a political sideshow.
I think Fauci was upset at the notion that he was being accused of approving funding for experiments that created COVID-19. I'd be upset, too. Part of the problem is that "gain of function" is a very imprecise term. In this case, it's also potentially misleading. It's really aimed at experiments that, by design, increase the transmissibility and/or virulence of an organism. But it could also technically be applied to experiments that have the potential to increase transmissibility and/or virulence.
One of the two studies in the newly released documents is designed to help determine the risks that corona viruses can jump from animals to humans. The design of the study doesn't include increasing transmissibility or virulence. But it does involve testing the ways bat coronaviruses can mutate, so maybe it's possible that the study could end up with increased transmissibility and/or virulence. But the dispute appears to be over whether that kind of experiment qualifies as a gain of function study. It looks to me like a fairly narrow dispute, and does not support a claim that the US funded the intentional creation of what would essentially be a bioweapon.
The use of the other lab doesn't sound like an issue. It's where animals to be used in the study were kept.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
