I presume that we will get to the bottom of whether it was a lab thing or a nature thing. The jury is still out, as they say. In any case, how do we go from a possible accidental lab leak to Classen's "the vaccine could be a bioweapon"?
Simply, if COVID-19 was created in a lab then it means that someone wanted to deliberately create a highly contagious virus for some purpose. Would you trust a group of people wanting to make a highly contagious virus as implicitly good people? I wouldn't. Even if we don't know why they created it, that they would want to create it destroys all trust.
NIH was funding the lab. Why would the NIH fund a lab which was creating bioweapons? Merely an accident?
Is this your personal qualified expert virology analysis that altering a virus or other bio chemical pathogen to see what therapies or vaccines need to be created to combat a potential eventuality of a pandemic? That all research in this space, with this methodology, is carried out by untrustful people?
It is risky, for sure. And apparently quite controversial because of the safety concerns. Hence the Obama administration put a pause on US gain-of-function research back in 2014 until our research bodies could figure out exactly how to handle it.
And if it's found that covid was a product of gain-of-function research and accidentally escaped the Wuhan lab, then, well, that will probably put a nail in the coffin for GofF research. And maybe that's the right answer. I have no idea as I am not qualified to make that judgment call. Just as you are not.
As for funding the lab, GofF research wasn't the only thing going on in the lab. But again, we'll find out just how complicit the US was if in fact it was a virus that got out of the lab. We just don't know at the moment.
Lastly, the bioweapon bit is really neither here nor there. And your Dr Classen's bit about the vaccine being a bioweapon is just stupid. He might as well say the vaccine communicates with 5G towers, magnetizes you, and fills you with nano-bots. I mean seriously, what would be the benefit to any government, entity, whatever, to kill people with a vaccine? If the vaccine kills people and that's its intended purpose, who is going to be left to prop up the world consumer economy? Who is going to be around to buy shit at Walmart, Alibaba, and Amazon? Who's gonna be around to buy more drugs from big pharma? The vaccine as bioweapon is the dumbest thing I've heard.
Sen. Paul says that Fauci's leaked emails show that he knew about the Gain-of-Function research at the Wuhan Lab. Fauci lying about that destroys trust.
Do the emails show that? I think the real question is not whether Wuhan was doing GofF research as they can do whatever they want. The question is whether the US knowingly funded GofF research even though there was that Obama 2014 pause on it. And obviously the biggest question is where did Covid come from, nature or lab accident? We don't know the answer to any of these questions at the moment. But I do understand it's fun to speculate. But before you start running around and calling people liars, you may want to gather the facts first.
If we can't trust our highest health authorities, it means we can't trust them to do good with the vaccine either.
We can either trust them to do good, or not. And the level of involvement in this Coronavirus lab scandal destroys the trust.
Again, who says people were not doing good and what's the evidence for that? What level of involvement? Again, what are the facts?
This is an "Opinion" piece, as noted at the top of the article. I prefer facts over opinions.
An opinion of scientists consulting the WSJ, yes.
Why is that different than the scientists and Drs that are consulted for other publications that say Classen's "research" is at a minimum, wanting?
So all of your tfes wiki references to Wikipedia are of low value? I never said they were all untrue. I was asking you, since you claim it doesn't matter if they are true or not, what is your deciding criteria to include Wikipedia references if they are of low quality and perhaps untrue? As you seemed to disparage my use of of an "anonymous" Wikipedia article and you reference "anonymous" Wikipedia articles as well throughout your wiki. Why is my use not acceptable, but your's is?
I told you why I quote it. Wikipedia is decent at showing the RE groupthink on a topic, and the groupthink on a subject in general. That matters in a way other than truth. RE and heliocentric proponents maintain their own resources, and that is one of them. If you are a RE and have a differing position to the specific Wikipedia topic quoted in the FE Wiki it means that your own side is against you and you are actually in the minority with a belief that RE science may not even support.
You cherry pick a lot of Wikipedia references in support of FE groupthink, not as representative of RE groupthink. Again, as you seemed to disparage my use of of an "anonymous" Wikipedia article which spoke to Dr Classen's anti-vax stance and dubious research and you reference "anonymous" Wikipedia articles as well throughout your wiki. Why is my use not acceptable, but your's is?