The RWCJ rewrites COVID-19 origin history, etc.

[Lazaran]

To clarify:

• There is currently NO scientifically determined and agreed upon ORIGIN for COVID - 19.

• The “left “ NEVER stated CONCLUSIVELY that COVID - 19 had an ORIGIN in nature or in a lab.

• The “right” has been claiming all sorts of things, about the ORIGIN of COVID - 19 and jumping to all sorts of CONCLUSIONS. - (The “right” NOW selectively endorses / accepts the FBI’s and Bill Maher’s opinions on the origin of COVID -19, etc.)

Related to that ^:

• There is no study that PROVES masks are ineffective and that vaccines aren’t / weren’t effective in dealing with COVID 19. (The NYTimes OP -ED of a random study and other tripe notwithstanding)

Side note: Vaccines are intended to reduce the severity of infections, not prevent them. (Reduced severity = less hospitalizations, less long term health damage, Also, vaccinated people on average carry a lower viral load - See also:

“The mean relative log10 viral load for those vaccinated <6 months from the date of enrollment was 0.11 (95% CI, –0.48 to 0.71), which was significantly lower than the unvaccinated group (P = “ -

That ^ is a good thing. (Less premature death is also a good thing)

• The politicization of COVID 19 in the US and the misinformation involving it BEGAN with the ignorant corrupt orange traitor. China’s lack of transparency and openness to outside investigations could be considered “political” and “misinformation” - I guess. Though one has to “wonder” why China would be skeptical of US investigators with such a “pro-China” President like the ignorant, racist, corrupt orange traitor in charge.

• Finally: COVID isn’t over, and there WILL be other pandemics in the future: What we think and believe about virus origins and how to combat viruses NOW will have a huge impact on civilization going forward - If ANTHROPOGENIC climate change or nuclear annihilation doesn’t make the point moot.

Hope that ^ all helps.

RWCJ

.

Edit: THE FOX “NEWS” SCANDAL is still the biggest news of the day.

RWCJ

 

[Dribble]

Ever wonder why the Department of Energy was asked to do that report? Then you realize....this is the department in charge of nuclear devices...and any other experimental weapons...that we are not allowed to have. Every major country plays in biowarfare. It is a fact. Everyone knows it...even though it is illegal.

Anyway, the DOE could only have one of three results to the question asked:
1) A low probability
2) a medium probability
3) a high probability

You cannot have a zero probability. That is statistics. So the report found a low probability. What does that mean?

I can walk outside right now and there is a low probability I will be struck by lightning. This is an undeniable fact. Now...what if someone finds me dead outside my door? Is the first thing the coroner looks at was I struck by lightning? No. Because the probability of having a heart attack....or being shot by a Republican...is much greater.

Every scientist has always said there was a low probability of an escape from a lab. But that isn't what happened. Because unless one of two things are possible...there is no evidence of it.

What would these possibilities be?
1) we had Americans working in the lab...this is a fact. Was this virus something we gave them? To help study MERS or SARS? Then yea...we eould know they had a viruses of a specific genotype

2) the Chinese are able to manipulate viruses in a manner that do not leave genotypic fingerprints...something Americans can not do.

This was a naturally occurring virus that escaped control because every country in the World fucked up handling it EXCEPT for New Zealand.

 

[Lazaran]

Ever wonder why the Department of Energy was asked to do that report? Then you realize....this is the department in charge of nuclear devices...and any other experimental weapons...that we are not allowed to have. Every major country plays in biowarfare. It is a fact. Everyone knows it...even though it is illegal.

Anyway, the DOE could only have one of three results to the question asked:
1) A low probability
2) a medium probability
3) a high probability

You cannot have a zero probability. That is statistics. So the report found a low probability. What does that mean?

I can walk outside right now and there is a low probability I will be struck by lightning. This is an undeniable fact. Now...what if someone finds me dead outside my door? Is the first thing the coroner looks at was I struck by lightning? No. Because the probability of having a heart attack....or being shot by a Republican...is much greater.

Every scientist has always said there was a low probability of an escape from a lab. But that isn't what happened. Because unless one of two things are possible...there is no evidence of it.

What would these possibilities be?
1) we had Americans working in the lab...this is a fact. Was this virus something we gave them? To help study MERS or SARS? Then yea...we eould know they had a viruses of a specific genotype

2) the Chinese are able to manipulate viruses in a manner that do not leave genotypic fingerprints...something Americans can not do.

This was a naturally occurring virus that escaped control because every country in the World fucked up handling it EXCEPT for New Zealand.

I am definitely leaning towards a natural origin, though at this moment in time, it is impossible to know CONCLUSIVELY.

I thought this article went a long way towards explaining EVERYTHING about all sides of the debate, and the cautious manner in which things like this should be investigated and published:

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/fu...-lab-leak-sars-cov-2-washburne-wuhan-virology

Hope that helps ^.

 

[icanhelp1]

https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/

The origin of covid-19 is still in coverup mode:

"From early on, public and media perceptions were shaped in favor of the natural emergence scenario by strong statements from two scientific groups. These statements were not at first examined as critically as they should have been."

The genesis THAT SHAPED media and public opinion began with incomplete data sets;

“We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin,” a group of virologists and others wrote in the Lancet on February 19, 2020, when it was really far too soon for anyone to be sure what had happened. Scientists “overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife,” they said, with a stirring rallying call for readers to stand with Chinese colleagues on the frontline of fighting the disease.
"A defining mark of good scientists is that they go to great pains to distinguish between what they know and what they don’t know. By this criterion, the signatories of the Lancet letter were behaving as poor scientists: they were assuring the public of facts they could not know for sure were true."

reasons for skepticism:

"It later turned out that the Lancet letter had been organized and drafted by Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York. Daszak’s organization funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. If the SARS2 virus had indeed escaped from research he funded, Daszak would be potentially culpable. This acute conflict of interest was not declared to the Lancet’s readers. To the contrary, the letter concluded, “We declare no competing interests.”

 

[Lazaran]

The origin of covid-19 is still in coverup mode:

"From early on, public and media perceptions were shaped in favor of the natural emergence scenario by strong statements from two scientific groups. These statements were not at first examined as critically as they should have been."

The genesis THAT SHAPED media and public opinion began with incomplete data sets;

“We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin,” a group of virologists and others wrote in the Lancet on February 19, 2020, when it was really far too soon for anyone to be sure what had happened. Scientists “overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife,” they said, with a stirring rallying call for readers to stand with Chinese colleagues on the frontline of fighting the disease.
"A defining mark of good scientists is that they go to great pains to distinguish between what they know and what they don’t know. By this criterion, the signatories of the Lancet letter were behaving as poor scientists: they were assuring the public of facts they could not know for sure were true."

reasons for skepticism:

"It later turned out that the Lancet letter had been organized and drafted by Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York. Daszak’s organization funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. If the SARS2 virus had indeed escaped from research he funded, Daszak would be potentially culpable. This acute conflict of interest was not declared to the Lancet’s readers. To the contrary, the letter concluded, “We declare no competing interests.”

Quoted for posterity AND stupidity.

ineedhelp1 obviously missed the part about the letter being a RESPONSE to EXISTING conspiracy theories about the origin of Covid-19.

I guess the real scandal was/ is the lab leak / bioengineered Covid origin conspiracy theorist’s attempted “coverup” of the POSSIBLE natural origin theory.

ineedhelp1

 

[icanhelp1]

https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/

A second paper that help shape public opinion which was also based on conjecture and not fact:

A second statement that had enormous influence in shaping public attitudes was a letter (in other words an opinion piece, not a scientific article) published on 17 March 2020 in the journal Nature Medicine. Its authors were a group of virologists led by Kristian G. Andersen of the Scripps Research Institute. “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus,” the five virologists declared in the second paragraph of their letter.

The discussion part of their letter begins, “It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus.” But wait, didn’t the lead say the virus had clearly not been manipulated? The authors’ degree of certainty seemed to slip several notches when it came to laying out their reasoning.

The reason for the slippage is clear once the technical language has been penetrated. The two reasons the authors give for supposing manipulation to be improbable are decidedly inconclusive.

First, they say that the spike protein of SARS2 binds very well to its target, the human ACE2 receptor, but does so in a different way from that which physical calculations suggest would be the best fit. Therefore the virus must have arisen by natural selection, not manipulation.

"If this argument seems hard to grasp, it’s because it’s so strained. The authors’ basic assumption, not spelt out, is that anyone trying to make a bat virus bind to human cells could do so in only one way. First they would calculate the strongest possible fit between the human ACE2 receptor and the spike protein with which the virus latches onto it. They would then design the spike protein accordingly (by selecting the right string of amino acid units that compose it). Since the SARS2 spike protein is not of this calculated best design, the Andersen paper says, therefore it can’t have been manipulated."

 

[icanhelp1]

https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the...people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/; continued

"But this ignores the way that virologists do in fact get spike proteins to bind to chosen targets, which is not by calculation but by splicing in spike protein genes from other viruses or by serial passage. With serial passage, each time the virus’s progeny are transferred to new cell cultures or animals, the more successful are selected until one emerges that makes a really tight bind to human cells. Natural selection has done all the heavy lifting. The Andersen paper’s speculation about designing a viral spike protein through calculation has no bearing on whether or not the virus was manipulated by one of the other two methods."

The authors’ second argument against manipulation is even more contrived. Although most living things use DNA as their hereditary material, a number of viruses use RNA, DNA’s close chemical cousin.

" But RNA is difficult to manipulate, so researchers working on coronaviruses, which are RNA-based, will first convert the RNA genome to DNA. They manipulate the DNA version, whether by adding or altering genes, and then arrange for the manipulated DNA genome to be converted back into infectious RNA."
Only a certain number of these DNA backbones have been described in the scientific literature. Anyone manipulating the SARS2 virus “would probably” have used one of these known backbones, the Andersen group writes, and since SARS2 is not derived from any of them, therefore it was not manipulated.

But the argument is conspicuously inconclusive. DNA backbones are quite easy to make, so it’s obviously possible that SARS2 was manipulated using an unpublished DNA backbone.

 

[Lazaran]

ineedhelp runs from the stupidity of their initial post.

ineedhelp1

 

[Lazaran]

ineedhelp1 also seems surprised that *gasp* scientists pushed back against the speculation that was being promulgated by various individuals and groups with various agendas.

ineedhelp1

 

[phrodeau]

After government expert A says something, right-wingers all look asquint and say it doesn’t prove anything. Then government expert B says the opposite, and right-wingers claim it’s proof positive.

Oh, and by the way, expert A was from the Trump admin, and B is from Biden’s.

 

[Lazaran]

After government expert A says something, right-wingers all look asquint and say it doesn’t prove anything. Then government expert B says the opposite, and right-wingers claim it’s proof positive.

Oh, and by the way, expert A was from the Trump admin, and B is from Biden’s.

It’s whatever they “think” supports their CURRENT” narrative.

That ^ is why the RWCJ constantly comes across as ridiculous, brainless hypocrites.

RWCJ

 

[Dribble]

I am definitely leaning towards a natural origin, though at this moment in time, it is impossible to know CONCLUSIVELY.

I thought this article went a long way towards explaining EVERYTHING about all sides of the debate, and the cautious manner in which things like this should be investigated and published:

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/fu...-lab-leak-sars-cov-2-washburne-wuhan-virology

Hope that helps ^.

Exactly...we can never say conclusively say unless we find genetic fingerprints on the virus.

Look...places that work with viruses...have a protocol in place for the most extreme virus they have...not the least. They have one set of protocols that are followed for every virus...by every lab...in the entire facility. Think on that a moment...this is ingrained. Why? Because if something bad escapes...we die. And yes...we have some pretty bad viruses that makes anything covid like look like sniffles. It isn't that it can't happen...but the probability is very small.

Now...this is critical...we do not play with viruses. We store them. In very cold freezers. So they don't mutate. They remain genetically intact. Anything we play with...we remove the part of the RNA via enzymes...specifically called restriction enzymes...and we insert that fragment using ligation enzymes...into a vector...typically a bacteriophage...so that we can "play" with it to our heart's content without it mutating. Anyway, both the restriction and ligation process leaves very specific RNA sequences that readily identify that genome as being manipulated. You can spot it by genotyping the virus RNA. How many times has Covid been genotyped? They all exist in a database. Go ahead...download the database and BLAST search the genotyped sequences for identifiable restriction and ligation fragments. Now...there are a lot of possibilities...but still...any laptop can run the search in...half a day...maybe 10 hours.

 

[icanhelp1]

https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/

Manufactured virus that can affect human cells by replacing spike protein:

Shi then teamed up with Ralph S. Baric, an eminent coronavirus researcher at the University of North Carolina. Their work focused on enhancing the ability of bat viruses to attack humans so as to “examine the emergence potential (that is, the potential to infect humans) of circulating bat CoVs [coronaviruses].” In pursuit of this aim, in November 2015 they created a novel virus by taking the backbone of the SARS1 virus and replacing its spike protein with one from a bat virus (known as SHC014-CoV). This manufactured virus was able to infect the cells of the human airway, at least when tested against a lab culture of such cells.

 

[Lazaran]

Exactly...we can never say conclusively say unless we find genetic fingerprints on the virus.

Look...places that work with viruses...have a protocol in place for the most extreme virus they have...not the least. They have one set of protocols that are followed for every virus...by every lab...in the entire facility. Think on that a moment...this is ingrained. Why? Because if something bad escapes...we die. And yes...we have some pretty bad viruses that makes anything covid like look like sniffles. It isn't that it can't happen...but the probability is very small.

Now...this is critical...we do not play with viruses. We store them. In very cold freezers. So they don't mutate. They remain genetically intact. Anything we play with...we remove the part of the RNA via enzymes...specifically called restriction enzymes...and we insert that fragment using ligation enzymes...into a vector...typically a bacteriophage...so that we can "play" with it to our heart's content without it mutating. Anyway, both the restriction and ligation process leaves very specific RNA sequences that readily identify that genome as being manipulated. You can spot it by genotyping the virus RNA. How many times has Covid been genotyped? They all exist in a database. Go ahead...download the database and BLAST search the genotyped sequences for identifiable restriction and ligation fragments. Now...there are a lot of possibilities...but still...any laptop can run the search in...half a day...maybe 10 hours.

That ^ is why I currently lean natural origin outside of a lab. - Plus the current mapping of the initial spread from the wet market (lacking any other/ more complete mapping)

If the FBI and the energy department have additional evidence, then let’s see it.

 

[icanhelp1]

https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/

The methodical approach was designed to find the best combination of coronavirus backbone and spike protein for infecting human cells. The approach could have generated SARS2-like viruses, and indeed may have created the SARS2 virus itself with the right combination of virus backbone and spike protein.

It cannot yet be stated that Shi did or did not generate SARS2 in her lab because her records have been sealed, but it seems she was certainly on the right track to have done so. “It is clear that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was systematically constructing novel chimeric coronaviruses and was assessing their ability to infect human cells and human-ACE2-expressing mice,” says Richard H. Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University and leading expert on biosafety.

“It is also clear,” Ebright said, “that, depending on the constant genomic contexts chosen for analysis, this work could have produced SARS-CoV-2 or a proximal progenitor of SARS-CoV-2.” “Genomic context” refers to the particular viral backbone used as the testbed for the spike protein.

The lab escape scenario for the origin of the SARS2 virus, as should by now be evident, is not mere hand-waving in the direction of the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It is a detailed proposal, based on the specific project being funded there by the NIAID.

Even if the grant required the work plan described above, how can we be sure that the plan was in fact carried out? For that we can rely on the word of Daszak, who has been much protesting for the last 15 months that lab escape was a ludicrous conspiracy theory invented by China-bashers.

On December 9, 2019, before the outbreak of the pandemic became generally known, Daszak gave an interview in which he talked in glowing terms of how researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology had been reprogramming the spike protein and generating chimeric coronaviruses capable of infecting humanized mice.

“And we have now found, you know, after 6 or 7 years of doing this, over 100 new SARS-related coronaviruses, very close to SARS,” Daszak says around minute 28 of the interview. “Some of them get into human cells in the lab, some of them can cause SARS disease in humanized mice models and are untreatable with therapeutic monoclonals and you can’t vaccinate against them with a vaccine. So, these are a clear and present danger….

“Interviewer: You say these are diverse coronaviruses and you can’t vaccinate against them, and no anti-virals — so what do we do?

“Daszak: Well I think…coronaviruses — you can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily. Spike protein drives a lot of what happen with coronavirus, in zoonotic risk. So you can get the sequence, you can build the protein, and we work a lot with Ralph Baric at UNC to do this. Insert into the backbone of another virus and do some work in the lab. So you can get more predictive when you find a sequence. You’ve got this diversity. Now the logical progression for vaccines is, if you are going to develop a vaccine for SARS, people are going to use pandemic SARS, but let’s insert some of these other things and get a better vaccine.” The insertions he referred to perhaps included an element called the furin cleavage site, discussed below, which greatly increases viral infectivity for human cells.

In disjointed style, Daszak is referring to the fact that once you have generated a novel coronavirus that can attack human cells, you can take the spike protein and make it the basis for a vaccine.

https://thebulletin.org/2023/02/pri...se-a-pandemic-risk-heres-what-to-do-about-it/

 

[Lazaran]

And ineedhelp1 is STILL running from the stupidity in their initial post.

ineedhelp1

 

[ll74]

https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/

The methodical approach was designed to find the best combination of coronavirus backbone and spike protein for infecting human cells. The approach could have generated SARS2-like viruses, and indeed may have created the SARS2 virus itself with the right combination of virus backbone and spike protein.

It cannot yet be stated that Shi did or did not generate SARS2 in her lab because her records have been sealed, but it seems she was certainly on the right track to have done so. “It is clear that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was systematically constructing novel chimeric coronaviruses and was assessing their ability to infect human cells and human-ACE2-expressing mice,” says Richard H. Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University and leading expert on biosafety.

“It is also clear,” Ebright said, “that, depending on the constant genomic contexts chosen for analysis, this work could have produced SARS-CoV-2 or a proximal progenitor of SARS-CoV-2.” “Genomic context” refers to the particular viral backbone used as the testbed for the spike protein.

The lab escape scenario for the origin of the SARS2 virus, as should by now be evident, is not mere hand-waving in the direction of the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It is a detailed proposal, based on the specific project being funded there by the NIAID.

Even if the grant required the work plan described above, how can we be sure that the plan was in fact carried out? For that we can rely on the word of Daszak, who has been much protesting for the last 15 months that lab escape was a ludicrous conspiracy theory invented by China-bashers.

On December 9, 2019, before the outbreak of the pandemic became generally known, Daszak gave an interview in which he talked in glowing terms of how researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology had been reprogramming the spike protein and generating chimeric coronaviruses capable of infecting humanized mice.

“And we have now found, you know, after 6 or 7 years of doing this, over 100 new SARS-related coronaviruses, very close to SARS,” Daszak says around minute 28 of the interview. “Some of them get into human cells in the lab, some of them can cause SARS disease in humanized mice models and are untreatable with therapeutic monoclonals and you can’t vaccinate against them with a vaccine. So, these are a clear and present danger….

“Interviewer: You say these are diverse coronaviruses and you can’t vaccinate against them, and no anti-virals — so what do we do?

“Daszak: Well I think…coronaviruses — you can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily. Spike protein drives a lot of what happen with coronavirus, in zoonotic risk. So you can get the sequence, you can build the protein, and we work a lot with Ralph Baric at UNC to do this. Insert into the backbone of another virus and do some work in the lab. So you can get more predictive when you find a sequence. You’ve got this diversity. Now the logical progression for vaccines is, if you are going to develop a vaccine for SARS, people are going to use pandemic SARS, but let’s insert some of these other things and get a better vaccine.” The insertions he referred to perhaps included an element called the furin cleavage site, discussed below, which greatly increases viral infectivity for human cells.

In disjointed style, Daszak is referring to the fact that once you have generated a novel coronavirus that can attack human cells, you can take the spike protein and make it the basis for a vaccine.

https://thebulletin.org/2023/02/pri...se-a-pandemic-risk-heres-what-to-do-about-it/

Jfc, read the fucking forum rules. Stop copy pasta-ing

We get it, you believe they created the virus in a lab.

 

[Lazaran]

And stop spamming the thread with C&P. ineedhelp1.

JFC

SAD!!!

 

[icanhelp1]

Jfc, read the fucking forum rules. Stop copy pasta-ing

We get it, you believe they created the virus in a lab.

The subject matter is so convoluted that I thought quoting a science journalist would help. I extrapolate key points from his investigation in chronological order to present a case of how early reporting of Covid got so fucked up. Difunctional media has, from the beginning, laid out information that was incomplete or non factual, creating a cult like belief founded on inaccuracies. I thought lit members interested in the subject matter would appreciate a boiled down version. I guess that’s not the case. The subject matter cannot be explained away in three sentences. What I laid out is only scratching the surface. It’s not a red / blue issue, it’s an issue that misled the American people and has caused irrefutable damage to our medical institutions. IMHO

 

[ll74]

The subject matter is so convoluted that I thought quoting a science journalist would help. I extrapolate key points from his investigation in chronological order to present a case of how early reporting of Covid got so fucked up. Difunctional media has, from the beginning, laid out information that was incomplete or non factual, creating a cult like belief founded on inaccuracies. I thought lit members interested in the subject matter would appreciate a boiled down version. I guess that’s not the case. The subject matter cannot be explained away in three sentences. What I laid out is only scratching the surface. It’s not a red / blue issue, it’s an issue that misled the American people and has caused irrefutable damage to our medical institutions. IMHO

Yes, you broke forum rules by fully quoting articles and made little actual assertions.

Your opinion should've been spelled out and sources supplied for additional information. There's no need to completely post multiple articles.

Yes, scientific institutions continue to grapple with properly restricting and regulating scientific research of pathogens and have been more hehgitened and prioritize due to the pandemic. This was the case prior to the pandemic. Having public awareness is good for political pressure, though complete backlash is not productive.

 

[icanhelp1]

Yes, you broke forum rules by fully quoting articles and made little actual assertions.

Your opinion should've been spelled out and sources supplied for additional information. There's no need to completely post multiple articles.

Yes, scientific institutions continue to grapple with properly restricting and regulating scientific research of pathogens and have been more hehgitened and prioritize due to the pandemic. This was the case prior to the pandemic. Having public awareness is good for political pressure, though complete backlash is not productive.

It’s not about my opinion. I posted the words exactly as to insure the nuances of Nicholas Wade’s reporting were accurately demonstrated in the narrative. I did it this way to shed light on the subject matter accurately, not to irritate anyone. The subject is so convoluted it’s impossible to express it in one’s own words without losing important key factors and nuances.

Having accurate accounting is most important for public awareness. In this case media propagandized one side and suppressed other scientific opinions. Even highly respected medical journals such as Lancet and the Anderson group misled the American people by omitting information, literally doubled talking.

I found it to be an interesting read and I’ll leave it at that.

The political environment that exists today is a big part of the problem.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

Sounds like LWCJ butt hurt and CYA revisionism for their initial ignorant panic based on politics instead of Science.

 

[ll74]

It’s not about my opinion. I posted the words exactly as to insure the nuances of Nicholas Wade’s reporting were accurately demonstrated in the narrative. I did it this way to shed light on the subject matter accurately, not to irritate anyone. The subject is so convoluted it’s impossible to express it in one’s own words without losing important key factors and nuances.

Having accurate accounting is most important for public awareness. In this case media propagandized one side and suppressed other scientific opinions. Even highly respected medical journals such as Lancet and the Anderson group misled the American people by omitting information, literally doubled talking.

I found it to be an interesting read and I’ll leave it at that.

The political environment that exists today is a big part of the problem.

It's a political forum. Of course it's about your opinion.

And yes, the political environment is part of the problem...armchair medical "pros" reading partial studies provided out of context with narrative and ignoring actual medical professionals is a huge part of what went down.

Scientists have struggled for years to deal with viruses that are known to possibly overcome current medical protections to the public. Having backlash only makes it worse.....the studies indicating that "masks don't work" truly shows it....they don't work because people aren't wearing them. That's literally what the study says and yet multiple posts in this very forum distort that information for their own narratives.

The best way to understand risk to your health is to talk to your primary care physician about your concerns. They are the ONLY person whose job it is, is to keep your healthy and safe and are the only ones who will advocate for YOU.

And we should all be discussing this with our government representatives to lobby our position on government regulations and guardrails. That's their job to represent us. Protest if you don't feel you're being heard.

 

[JohnnySavage]

The GoogleFu is strong in this thread.

 

[Dribble]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/08/world/permafrost-virus-risk-climate-scn/index.html