Step #1: BREAKING: Dr. Peter Daszak Removed from Covid-19 Commission

[L.K.Eder]

I asked this earlier and it didn't get answered. Fauci had said that the research was worth the risk of a pandemic.

If you're going to quote Fauci ...do so. Otherwise it's just you saying he said something

“In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?” he wrote at the time.

“Many ask reasonable questions: given the possibility of such a scenario – however remote – should the initial experiments have been performed and/or published in the first place, and what were the processes involved in this decision? Scientists working in this field might say – as indeed I have said – that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks.”

Fauci once argued for risky viral experiments — even if they can lead to pandemic

Now back to my question........not that you will answer this time either. Was it worth the pandemic? A pandemic that killed millions and cost the world trillions. Was it worth it?

needs context. like quoting from the actual article and not from the yellow press.

...
Scientists working in this field might say—as indeed I have said—that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks. It is more likely that a pandemic would occur in nature, and the need to stay ahead of such a threat is a primary reason for performing an experiment that might appear to be risky. However, we must respect that there are genuine and legitimate concerns about this type of research, both domestically and globally. We cannot expect those who have these concerns to simply take us, the scientific community, at our word that the benefits of this work outweigh the risks, nor can we ignore their calls for greater transparency, their concerns about conflicts of interest, and their efforts to engage in a dialog about whether these experiments should have been performed in the first place. Those of us in the scientific community who believe in the merits of this work have the responsibility to address these concerns thoughtfully and respectfully.

..

...
The game has changed for influenza virus scientists and the agencies that support them. As researchers, we must realize that we are critical players in the process of policy and decision making related to DURC, but we are not the only players. Before embarking on certain types of research, we must ask ourselves critical questions about whether there are alternative ways to answer the research questions at hand. When no reasonable alternatives exist, we must take the scientific approach to making the argument for conducting such experiments before they are performed. The voluntary moratorium on the controversial issue of gain-of-function research related to the transmissibility of highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza virus is providing us the time and space we all need to work together and get this right, and it should be continued until we do so

So he says there are concerns. So what? He still came to the conclusion that the research was worth the risk.

Once again, was it? Was it worth millions dead?

dude, i thought you were better than that. in the linked article he comes to a completely different conclusion.

No he does NOT. He said that there are legitimate concerns that must be addressed. That does NOT contradict his statement that the research was worth the risk.

his article is in favor of the voluntary moratorium. in 2012. I even posted the conclusion. this is some lame shit.

 

[pknopp]

I asked this earlier and it didn't get answered. Fauci had said that the research was worth the risk of a pandemic.

If you're going to quote Fauci ...do so. Otherwise it's just you saying he said something

“In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?” he wrote at the time.

“Many ask reasonable questions: given the possibility of such a scenario – however remote – should the initial experiments have been performed and/or published in the first place, and what were the processes involved in this decision? Scientists working in this field might say – as indeed I have said – that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks.”

Fauci once argued for risky viral experiments — even if they can lead to pandemic

Now back to my question........not that you will answer this time either. Was it worth the pandemic? A pandemic that killed millions and cost the world trillions. Was it worth it?

needs context. like quoting from the actual article and not from the yellow press.

...
Scientists working in this field might say—as indeed I have said—that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks. It is more likely that a pandemic would occur in nature, and the need to stay ahead of such a threat is a primary reason for performing an experiment that might appear to be risky. However, we must respect that there are genuine and legitimate concerns about this type of research, both domestically and globally. We cannot expect those who have these concerns to simply take us, the scientific community, at our word that the benefits of this work outweigh the risks, nor can we ignore their calls for greater transparency, their concerns about conflicts of interest, and their efforts to engage in a dialog about whether these experiments should have been performed in the first place. Those of us in the scientific community who believe in the merits of this work have the responsibility to address these concerns thoughtfully and respectfully.

..

...
The game has changed for influenza virus scientists and the agencies that support them. As researchers, we must realize that we are critical players in the process of policy and decision making related to DURC, but we are not the only players. Before embarking on certain types of research, we must ask ourselves critical questions about whether there are alternative ways to answer the research questions at hand. When no reasonable alternatives exist, we must take the scientific approach to making the argument for conducting such experiments before they are performed. The voluntary moratorium on the controversial issue of gain-of-function research related to the transmissibility of highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza virus is providing us the time and space we all need to work together and get this right, and it should be continued until we do so

So he says there are concerns. So what? He still came to the conclusion that the research was worth the risk.

Once again, was it? Was it worth millions dead?

dude, i thought you were better than that. in the linked article he comes to a completely different conclusion.

No he does NOT. He said that there are legitimate concerns that must be addressed. That does NOT contradict his statement that the research was worth the risk.

his article is in favor of the voluntary moratorium. in 2012. I even posted the conclusion. this is some lame shit.

He said there were concerns BUT that does not mean he didn't say what he said or change his mind or assist in further research after that.

Was it worth it?

 

[Lesh]

I didn't say a company did. I said Trump would allow it. His rollbacks allowed more waste into the environment.

so just say you misspoke and move along.

I didn't say what you claimed I said.

sure you said it, again:

"allow the manufacturer to start" name one that started? dude, if that's not what you meant, say it wasn't and move along.

A. You're trolling.

B. You're engaging in intentional thread drift/distraction and will be reported

 

[jc456]

I posted a link to regulations to protect the environment that he rolled back.

and again, so what, you said it would allow, name a company that started dumping in the river. The absence of one means the list actually doesn't allow. so just admit you were wrong and move on.

 

[Lesh]

I didn't say a company did. I said Trump would allow it. His rollbacks allowed more waste into the environment.

so just say you misspoke and move along.

I didn't say what you claimed I said.

sure you said it, again:

"allow the manufacturer to start" name one that started? dude, if that's not what you meant, say it wasn't and move along.

A. You're trolling.

B. You're engaging in intentional thread drift/distraction and will be reported

Done

 

[Nostra]

I didn't say a company did. I said Trump would allow it. His rollbacks allowed more waste into the environment.

so just say you misspoke and move along.

I didn't say what you claimed I said.

sure you said it, again:

"allow the manufacturer to start" name one that started? dude, if that's not what you meant, say it wasn't and move along.

You can quote him verbatim, and he will deny he said it.

 

[pknopp]

I didn't say a company did. I said Trump would allow it. His rollbacks allowed more waste into the environment.

so just say you misspoke and move along.

I didn't say what you claimed I said.

sure you said it, again:

"allow the manufacturer to start" name one that started? dude, if that's not what you meant, say it wasn't and move along.

You can quote him verbatim, and he will deny he said it.

I provided a link to back up what I said.

 

[Lesh]

Was it worth it?

That assumes 2 things

That he supported GoF research and was part of it

That GoF research caused the pandemic

Neither is accurate

 

[pknopp]

Was it worth it?

That assumes 2 things

That he supported GoF research and was part of it

That GoF research caused the pandemic

Neither is accurate

We can NOT say that at this time. The evidence is clearly pointing in the direction that it is.

 

[Nostra]

I didn't say a company did. I said Trump would allow it. His rollbacks allowed more waste into the environment.

so just say you misspoke and move along.

I didn't say what you claimed I said.

sure you said it, again:

"allow the manufacturer to start" name one that started? dude, if that's not what you meant, say it wasn't and move along.

You can quote him verbatim, and he will deny he said it.

I provided a link to back up what I said.

If you had, you wouldn't be claiming you didn't say what you said.

 

[pknopp]

I didn't say a company did. I said Trump would allow it. His rollbacks allowed more waste into the environment.

so just say you misspoke and move along.

I didn't say what you claimed I said.

sure you said it, again:

"allow the manufacturer to start" name one that started? dude, if that's not what you meant, say it wasn't and move along.

You can quote him verbatim, and he will deny he said it.

I provided a link to back up what I said.

If you had, you wouldn't be claiming you didn't say what you said.

I never claimed I didn't say what I said. I said I didn't say the made up statement about what I said.

 

[22lcidw]

I didn't wear a mask and I'm not getting the vaccine.

Then why are you whining and placing blame for something you don't consider important?

Once again, was it? Was it worth millions dead?

That assumes that GoF is responsible for this. Do you think you might be a bit premature?

You stupid loons blamed Trump at every point on this hoax. Even though Fauci was put in charge over it.

Ah, so Trump wasn't in charge of anything during the pandemic.

Fauci changed his turn to many times. An expert in fields knows the order of what happens. Germ warfare is a dangerous game. And this man is dirty .

 

[Lesh]

We can NOT say that at this time. The evidence is clearly pointing in the direction that it is.

For your very inflammatory accusations to have merit, both things need to be true and neither are ...at least not at this point. You even admit that.

So what evidence do you have that the pandemic was caused by a Wuhan lab leak? Evidence...not allegations and supposition.

Please post it

 

[pknopp]

We can NOT say that at this time. The evidence is clearly pointing in the direction that it is.

For your very inflammatory accusations to have merit, both things need to be true and neither are ...at least not at this point. You even admit that.

So what evidence do you have that the pandemic was caused by a Wuhan lab leak? Evidence...not allegations and supposition.

Please post it

Inflammatory? I quoted Fauci's own words. Now granted, I consider those words pretty bad but they are his words.

Fauci: U.S. must ‘keep on investigating’ COVID-19 lab leak theory

 

[iamwhatiseem]

He was (rightly) recused because of the potential appearance of a conflict of interest.

They are investigating how the virus originated. Since the lab was working with strains similar to that which began this pandemic, of course it needs to be looked at.

And if they find that it was developed in the lab and escaped, that will point out the dangers of doing work with pathogens as deadly as this.

Outside the QAnon looney right, there is NO real consideration that IF there was a release from this lab, that it was intentional

Strawman much?
Avoid the real concern and try to deflect to something else much?

The deal is there is an outstanding chance this virus, that killed nearlly 4,000,000 people, leaked from a laboratory in China.
And China lied to the world and was more interested in covering their ass than informing the world what happened, and the details of what the virus is.
4,000,000 died. And a large percentage of those could have been averted if China would have done what was right.

And you want to deflect to qanon.

For Fucks sake

 

[bendog]

He was (rightly) recused because of the potential appearance of a conflict of interest.

They are investigating how the virus originated. Since the lab was working with strains similar to that which began this pandemic, of course it needs to be looked at.

And if they find that it was developed in the lab and escaped, that will point out the dangers of doing work with pathogens as deadly as this.

Outside the QAnon looney right, there is NO real consideration that IF there was a release from this lab, that it was intentional

not a new story

How can Peter Daszak be part of WHO's virus origin investigation team?

British scientist Peter Daszak's organisation channelled cash to Wuhan scientists at the centre of growing concerns over a cover-up.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[jc456]

I didn't say a company did. I said Trump would allow it. His rollbacks allowed more waste into the environment.

so just say you misspoke and move along.

I didn't say what you claimed I said.

sure you said it, again:

"allow the manufacturer to start" name one that started? dude, if that's not what you meant say it wasn't and move along.

I posted a link to regulations to protect the environment that he rolled back.

did any company dump waste as a result of those rollbacks?

 

[Lesh]

Inflammatory? I quoted Fauci's own words. Now granted, I consider those words pretty bad but they are his words.

You quoted PART of what he said and ignored the fuller statement.

Please stop acting like a Trump Humper

 

[pknopp]

I didn't say a company did. I said Trump would allow it. His rollbacks allowed more waste into the environment.

so just say you misspoke and move along.

I didn't say what you claimed I said.

sure you said it, again:

"allow the manufacturer to start" name one that started? dude, if that's not what you meant say it wasn't and move along.

I posted a link to regulations to protect the environment that he rolled back.

did any company dump waste as a result of those rollbacks?

I'm not an inspector and whether or not they did, they can.

Why Trump just killed a rule restricting coal companies from dumping waste in streams

 

[Lesh]

The deal is there is an outstanding chance this virus, that killed nearlly 4,000,000 people, leaked from a laboratory in China.

Actually not. I have repeatedly asked to see this evidence and been given nothing.

What there is, are a lot of allegations that are to this point unsupported regarding the Wuhan lab .

That's in NO WAY excusing the actions of the Chinese government after the infection began.