zlacker

>>datafl+(OP)
“ 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.””

This is news to me. Wtf?

>>menset+mY
I read Josh Rogin earlier articles on the subject. He also recently implicated Fauchi for covertly funding gain of function research, and he is pushing for congressional oversight/investigation https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/cong...

>>AzzieE+0Z
> He also recently implicated Fauchi for covertly funding gain of function research

I'm sorry, that essay (which is an opinion piece, not a work of investigative journalism) says absolutely nothing of the sort. What's your source on that? That's a pretty ridiculous accusation if you don't have evidence.

>>newacc+WZ
Rogin covers this in his book “Chaos under heaven” and his earlier articles. Here is Rogan/Rogin snippet https://youtu.be/IqhKlkkc2Eo

>>AzzieE+H21
You're saying that Rogin reported that Anthony Fauci "covertly funded gain of function research", and that this fact (which constitutes an absolute blockbuster story) wasn't reported or corroborated anywhere in journalism, by an author who's everywhere in print and on TV but who somehow never said this in public, and the only linkable source is a podcast?

Yeah, this didn't happen.

>>newacc+cj1
this is fascinating. Rogin is making the claim right before your eyes and your conclusion is that he doesn't mean it because he never printed it?

>>AzzieE+Im1
He's literally not. I don't have the book, your other link is a podcast. And (this is the really important part) literally no one else, not even Breitbart or conservative link farms who would slurp this up like candy, is reporting that Rogin said it.

So I choose to believe that you're just wrong about what he said. Again, Fauci covertly directing funds to an area of research that the medical community has recognized as ethically problematic for decades would be huge news. And all you have is a podcast? Seriously?

>>newacc+Ns1
As claimed by Rogin, the medical research community is privately divided but largely unwilling to speak out publicly because they don’t want to be labeled conspiracy theorists, don’t want to be associated with supporting a position tangentially aligned with trump, and first and foremost don’t want to jeopardize their grants or careers.

According to Rogin, Fauci did not so much covertly direct funds, but rather, quietly reinstated gain a function research which was stopped by the Obama administration (without approval from the Trump administration). He also doubled down with new grants in the same area as a response to the pandemic.

I personally find none of this particularly difficult to believe given other positions the medical establishment has taken over the coarse of the pandemic and the extreme lack of curiosity in the press.

>>kansfa+jZ1
> the medical research community is privately divided but largely unwilling to speak out publicly because they don’t want to be labeled conspiracy theorists

So there's a hidden truth that happens to confirm the priors of a bunch of highly-on-the-internet people, but without any evidence in public. And the fact that the evidence doesn't exist is being cited as an argument that it must exist because of asserted suppression.

Well, for sure someone's going to be labelled as a conspiracy theorist. Seriously: it doesn't surprise you that the same folks that were so into Q a few months back are suddenly all aflutter with this omg-Fauci-created-covid nonsense?