Vaccines and Therapeutics 2.0 & 3.0 Merge

[Jersey Girl]

delete

[Res Ipsa]

Francis Collins to resign. GTFO!

Lawsuits comin.

The dude is 71 and has been a public servant for how long now? Get a grip, man!

[Xenophon]

Francis Collins to resign. GTFO!

Lawsuits comin.

At first glance I'm inclined to agree with RI, especially looking at his public statements up to this time. Cultellus, care to elaborate on what you see or are expecting here?

[Xenophon]

So when one mod says ye agrees with the other mod and asks for some clarification there is only one correct answer, right boys?

Neither of us was acting as a mod in the posts you quoted. And the reason I asked for clarification was to better understand your position and the meaning behind your post. This is supposed to be a discussion board after all.

If it helps, I'm mostly interested in why you think his retirement merits a "GTFO" and what lawsuits you see coming from it and why.

[Res Ipsa]

I’ll give a golf clap for the well poisoning. But only a golf clap because you got it wrong.

“It depends on who you ask” is a poor rubric for getting to the truth. One can find people who claim facts counter to overwhelming evidence. What you’ve offered is a lazy excuse to avoid grappling with the evidence.

So, what is the evidence that COVID-19 was created in and escaped from a lab? With citations, please?

[Lem]

Neither of us was acting as a mod in the posts you quoted. And the reason I asked for clarification was to better understand your position and the meaning behind your post. This is supposed to be a discussion board after all.

If it helps, I'm mostly interested in why you think his retirement merits a "GTFO" and what lawsuits you see coming from it and why.

Why GTFO? Because he led an organization that was not adequately transparent and betrayed the public. The pandemic was the result of a virus that appears to have been developed and released by a partner of the NIH. Simple as that. Is that proven? Depends who you ask. Were the grants and investments made with foreign labs and sovereignties transparent? No. The lack of disclosure included the periods leading up to the pandemic and during the pandemic. So he needs to GTFO. Also simple as also that. If we do not have the answers and he is not offering enough information, including covering for his guys except for the ones that were terminated, he should go.

Now - this is where you guys come in and say that I am a bad person and that my logic is flawed and that this is not what the thread is about and that transparency is not an issue and if I think transparency is an issue it must be because I would have stormed the capital if I was not at home listening to Rush Limbaugh which slowed my Google Maps app with the Insurrection Instructions. Or, you could just call me an accomplice to murder for having an opinion about the head of the NIH who provided billions of dollars to develop corona viruses, that is another option here.

Now - this is the point where I do not give a damn about how these fetch and reject conversations go on this board. Sorry Xeno. Ya know, just calling it like it is. That part about the discussion board is true but not helpful, or however we say that as Mormons.

Now - thanks for asking. Yes, this is supposed to a discussion board. But let's not be damned delusional about that here in Paradise/Prison/Outer Darkness. Cool? (I have, for the most part, honored my commitment to avoid everything upstairs in the holier ground.) Remember, this is a board where dissent, questions or different conclusions make the poster an accessory to homicide or manslaughter. It is reasonable to conclude that the suggestion that this is actually a discussion is a joke. That is not a joke. Not personal either, and not murderous, just not a joke.

The lawsuits will relate to these grants and any companies that benefited from the research. There will be FOIA information, though it will likely be loaded with redactions and omissions and deliberate squirrelly distractions. But, there are enough bird dogs out there sniffing around, and the stakes are high enough, that Billy McBride will probably find something to latch onto.

Wow. Before you replace this with Gorilla, or maybe a type of Elephant, it would be interesting to know where the overreaction comes from.

[Res Ipsa]

I’ll give a golf clap for the well poisoning. But only a golf clap because you got it wrong.

“It depends on who you ask” is a poor rubric for getting to the truth. One can find people who claim facts counter to overwhelming evidence. What you’ve offered is a lazy excuse to avoid grappling with the evidence.

So, what is the evidence that COVID-19 was created in and escaped from a lab? With citations, please?

Yeah, that is fair. No wonder lawyers are such awful people doing such awful things. If they disagree or arrive at a different conclusion, it is because they are either liars or representing liars. Otherwise, there would be no difference depending on who one asked. If one lawyer says his client was wrongfully convicted, and another lawyers says that so-called client was correctly convicted - which one is claiming facts counter to overwhelming evidence? And, why do we tolerate a system where people can arrive at a different conclusion if a conclusion is counter to overwhelming facts that we like, do not like?

Nice dodge. Are you afraid to grapple with the evidence?

[Xenophon]

Believe it or not Cultellus, I appreciate you taking the time to elaborate. I might totally disagree with your conclusions but I at least better understand where you are coming from.

The lawsuits will relate to these grants and any companies that benefited from the research. There will be FOIA information, though it will likely be loaded with redactions and omissions and deliberate squirrelly distractions. But, there are enough bird dogs out there sniffing around, and the stakes are high enough, that Billy McBride will probably find something to latch onto.

I suppose for me I just haven't seen that there is anything to it. Perhaps you're right and some FOIA revelation will totally rock my world but I kind of doubt it.

As to all your aside stuff all I can point out is that I am my own poster here. I rarely attack, if ever, and my language is generally quite mild. I suspect I may be a tad frustrating to some with that behavior. When I ask questions it is mostly just to understand better. I have no delusions that I'll change anyone's mind here about their positions but that doesn't stop me from learning more about what people are thinking and what makes them tick. And sometimes there really is something to engage and when that happens I'm happy to do so. That said, everyone is obviously free to ignore my questions.

[canpakes]

[Or, you could just call me an accomplice to murder for having an opinion about the head of the NIH who provided billions of dollars to develop corona viruses, that is another option.

(emphasis mine)

Your credibility gap is showing, again.

“(NIH) did give money to an organisation that collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

That organisation - the US-based EcoHealth Alliance - was awarded a grant in 2014 to look into possible coronaviruses from bats.

EcoHealth received $3.7m from the NIH, $600,000 of which was given to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

In 2019, its project was renewed for another five years, but then pulled by the Trump administration in April 2020 following the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic.”

That bit comes from the evil BBC, but you are free to provide your own source on those billions that you’re claiming.

https://www.bbc.com/news/57932699

[Res Ipsa]

Nice dodge. Are you afraid to grapple with the evidence?

No. I have no fear of facts and evidence. None whatsoever. I am not dodging. Are you afraid to grapple with the idea that getting to the truth could be affected by who one asks? If, for example, my source were I to play your fetch/reject game were not to your liking, would that matter? If you were to play the fetcher role here, and find the information and sources, would it matter who you asked?

Any evaluation of evidence necessarily includes evaluation of the source of the evidence. I’m not sure why you think I would be afraid of that.

I don’t understand your aversion to presenting evidence that backs up a claim you make.