Posted on 05/16/2021 6:32:27 PM PDT by RandFan
Rand Paul, not Ron Paul. Sorry.
FROM YOUR LINK:
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.
“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.
Contrary to the letter writers’ assertion, the idea that the virus might have escaped from a lab invoked accident, not conspiracy. It surely needed to be explored, not rejected out of hand. 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.
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.”
4. The US role in funding the Wuhan Institute of Virology. From June 2014 to May 2019, Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance had a grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health, to do gain-of-function research with coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Whether or not SARS2 is the product of that research, it seems a questionable policy to farm out high-risk research to unsafe foreign labs using minimal safety precautions. And if the SARS2 virus did indeed escape from the Wuhan institute, then the NIH will find itself in the terrible position of having funded a disastrous experiment that led to death of more than 3 million worldwide, including more than half a million of its own citizens.
The responsibility of the NIAID and NIH is even more acute because for the first three years of the grant to EcoHealth Alliance, there was a moratorium on funding gain-of-function research. Why didn’t the two agencies therefore halt the federal funding, as apparently required to do so by law? Because someone wrote a loophole into the moratorium.
The moratorium specifically barred funding any gain-of-function research that increased the pathogenicity of the flu, MERS, or SARS viruses. But then a footnote on page 2 of the moratorium document states that “[a]n exception from the research pause may be obtained if the head of the USG funding agency determines that the research is urgently necessary to protect the public health or national security.”
This seems to mean that either the director of the NIAID, Anthony Fauci, or the director of the NIH, Francis Collins, or maybe both, would have invoked the footnote in order to keep the money flowing to Shi’s gain-of-function research.
This seems to mean that either the director of the NIAID, Anthony Fauci, or the director of the NIH, Francis Collins, or maybe both, would have invoked the footnote in order to keep the money flowing to Shi’s gain-of-function research.>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is the crux of the matter and Senator Rand Paul should be focused on it, finding out exactly who signed off on the funding, who the influencers were ( maybe a couple of Red Chinese ‘helpers’ like Swallwell had?), and whether there was any persona; reward invold or pecuniary interest in patenting the finding.
Remember, no CORONAVIRUS has ever been isolated. There may be good reason for that fact. Once it is isolated, an examination may prove that it was manufactured ,proving it was not a naturally evolved virus.
The people involved in the signing of the loophole funding are the lowest kind of human beings on the face of this earth, They need to be apprehended and held responsible by a jury of their peers.
Someone needs to e mail this line of investigation to Senator Rand Paul, to make sure he has it.
Unless Senator Paul’s colleagues and Supreme Court Justices and state election officials take responsibility, too, it seems impossible.
Here she is:
https://gab.com/AmericanAFMindy/posts/106246732869807404
She’s the one who rubber stamps exceptions to normal drug and vaccine testing...
Dr. Christine Grady, fauci’s wife signed off on the loophole
to prohibited GOF research?
If so, there really is something up. There must be a numbered Swiss bank account or a numbered account for the Faucis in China.
Rand Paul and Den=von Nunes need to be all over this.
Maybe. The scuttlebutt is they own three houses in different locations, and their current address has been on the market since February.
I imagine the ‘Right’ people would be aware of this, if true.
And to top it all off, we are going to get a ‘morality pill’
It’s enough to make you want to throw up.
‘Morality pills’ may be the US’s best shot at ending the coronavirus pandemic, according to one ethicist
August 10, 2020 10.07pm AEST
COVID-19 is a collective risk. It threatens everyone, and we all must cooperate to lower the chance that the coronavirus harms any one individual. Among other things, that means keeping safe social distances and wearing masks. But many people choose not to do these things, making spread of infection more likely.
When someone chooses not to follow public health guidelines around the coronavirus, they’re defecting from the public good. It’s the moral equivalent of the tragedy of the commons: If everyone shares the same pasture for their individual flocks, some people are going to graze their animals longer, or let them eat more than their fair share, ruining the commons in the process. Selfish and self-defeating behavior undermines the pursuit of something from which everyone can benefit.
Democratically enacted enforceable rules – mandating things like mask wearing and social distancing – might work, if defectors could be coerced into adhering to them. But not all states have opted to pass them or to enforce the rules that are in place.
My research in bioethics focuses on questions like how to induce those who are noncooperative to get on board with doing what’s best for the public good. To me, it seems the problem of coronavirus defectors could be solved by moral enhancement: like receiving a vaccine to beef up your immune system, people could take a substance to boost their cooperative, pro-social behavior. Could a psychoactive pill be the solution to the pandemic?
.......their current address has been on the market since February.>>>>>>>>
Getting ready to retire, only to re-appear behind the bamboo curtain to go to seed in the Uighur camps where virus research may be conducted along with vivisection.This is the moral place where all genocidal maniacs bureaucrats can end their dyas doing the lords work to create a superhuman human being?
Such people like Fauci and wife would end up experimenting with the only captive ethnic group in the world that is enslaved and genetically altered at the hands of their totalitarian masters.
This is straight our of James Bond /Goldfinger.
Who is cheering for Team Wuhan? Joe Biden? Why? Ultimate Social control and the death of the Bill of Rights?
It’s all for the good of humanity!
I bet Mengele had the same motivation. In his view he conducted fatal experiments to practice his healing talents.
When I hear the word “ethics” from these creeps it makes my skin crawl.
Author Parker Crutchfield, Western Michigan University.
https://med.wmich.resoapps.com/RA102662-Parker_Crutchfield/bibliography/index.hml
Enjoy this from a previous article of his:
BioethicsVolume 33, Issue 1, January 2019, Pages 112-121
Compulsory moral bioenhancement should be covert(Article)(Open Access)
Abstract
Some theorists argue that moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory. I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement. My argument for this is that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration is a matter of public health, and for this reason should be governed by public health ethics. I argue that the covert administration of a compulsory moral bioenhancement program better conforms to public health ethics than does an overt compulsory program. In particular, a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality, and autonomy better than an overt program does. Thus, a covert compulsory moral bioenhancement program is morally preferable to an overt moral bioenhancement program. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Now we know how the National Socialist Partei (NAZI) justified their medical experiments on their captives.
Yes. The blame game, the we did not so it game, started early in 2020. Was fed by the CDC-WHO-NIH media whores parroting the unlikely but democrat-serving national press corpse.
Was that your question, your thoughts?
Or echo of what the CDC-NIH-Fauci a re “thinking” and hoping to produce? For the public’s good of course!
Thanks RACPE.
It’s the final statement in the material to which I posted the link:
“Could a psychoactive pill be the solution to the pandemic?”
COVERTLY!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.