zlacker

[parent] [thread] 12 comments
1. sjwalt+(OP)[view] [source] 2021-09-24 23:35:36
This whole narrative was revealed ages ago by internet reporters, particularly by Dr. Chris Martenson of peakprosperity.com.

What's not being reported even in this Intercept article is that Fauci and the Eco Health Alliance are heavily involved with each other. One week before Daszak et al released their ridiculous "lab leak is a conspiracy theory" Lancet article, as revealed in Fauci's emails (which supposedly revealed nothing), Fauci had a conference call with Daszak and other Eco Health folks, after discussing the fact that the lab leak hypothesis was gaining traction.

They have a big conference call, the Lancet article is posted a week later.

Here's all the details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNxoVFZwMYw

I know "Bro, just watch this youtube video" is lame-ass evidence in general, but Dr. Martenson has been incredibly data-driven and level-headed throughout the pandemic, is a pro-masker, and his views have evolved over time with new data.

replies(2): >>brendo+56 >>throwa+5h
2. brendo+56[view] [source] 2021-09-25 00:41:46
>>sjwalt+(OP)
I've never heard of peakprosperity.com, but it seems to be a site geared towards preppers/libertarians/those who are already predisposed to a lack of institutional trust. You can claim he's data driven and level headed, but the context that he's operating in--and the audience that he's speaking to--tells me that he's probably not being unbiased in his analysis.
replies(2): >>thedud+k7 >>sjwalt+S7
◧◩
3. thedud+k7[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-09-25 00:57:11
>>brendo+56
please send me some good sites which produce unbiased analysis, thanks.
replies(1): >>brendo+F7
◧◩◪
4. brendo+F7[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-09-25 01:02:28
>>thedud+k7
That's not my job, sorry.
replies(2): >>abnry+ca >>teh_kl+nb
◧◩
5. sjwalt+S7[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-09-25 01:06:02
>>brendo+56
Eh, regardless of what you think of the source, it's backed by hard, verifiable evidence.

Peak Prosperity was not about prepping much at all until Covid, as far as I know. Dr. Martenson started pushing home gardening and stocking up when covid hit--in fact, he started saying such things in like February 2020--pretty prescient.

◧◩◪◨
6. abnry+ca[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-09-25 01:28:31
>>brendo+F7
It's easy to be a critic.
replies(1): >>dylan6+6d
◧◩◪◨
7. teh_kl+nb[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-09-25 01:42:17
>>brendo+F7
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You can't hide behind the "go and look it up" response as is often uttered by science deniers.
replies(1): >>brendo+Bb
◧◩◪◨⬒
8. brendo+Bb[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-09-25 01:43:53
>>teh_kl+nb
The extraordinary claim is that the virus was man-made.

Edit to say: I don't think saying the virus came from nature requires any additional proof. The claim that requires extraordinary, indisputable proof is the claim that it was man-made. And I have yet to see it, from this or any source. Just a big compilation of weak, circumstantial evidence.

replies(1): >>willup+tm
◧◩◪◨⬒
9. dylan6+6d[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-09-25 02:00:32
>>abnry+ca
Sometimes, an issue needs to be called out even if you don't have the solution.
10. throwa+5h[view] [source] 2021-09-25 02:47:31
>>sjwalt+(OP)
Also the state department knew of dangerous research taking place in unsafe conditions at 1-2 years before: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/03/08/josh-rogin...
replies(1): >>fsh+or
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
11. willup+tm[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-09-25 03:53:55
>>brendo+Bb
It's no longer an extraordinary circumstantial claim. It might never have been because this kind of research that very well could cause a COVID pandemic was being concealed by the very people that decided very early that there was no question the origin was natural. They were performing risky and highly similar research and they made huge contradictory statements that conflict with this leaked evidence, and they are very well connected to each other. You are going to need extraordinary reasons why these people don't deserve an investigation into what they had been doing and what they did know that wasn't being shared.
◧◩
12. fsh+or[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-09-25 04:57:51
>>throwa+5h
The original cable was published in the meantime [1]. I don't see any mention of "dangerous research taking place in unsafe conditions". Why don't you read it for yourself? It's only three pages.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/read-the-state-depart...

replies(1): >>throwa+dC
◧◩◪
13. throwa+dC[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-09-25 07:48:44
>>fsh+or
To my eyes, this cable confirms what the Politico article said. It says there is a "serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to safely operate this high-containment laboratory". This is on Page 2, in the last paragraph. As for what's dangerous, Page 3 specifically mentions research undertaken with funding from NIH/NIAID studying SARS-like coronaviruses that can interact with ACE2 (transmittable to humans). Handling such viruses, particularly ones whose infectiousness has been increased (gain of function), in a lab without properly trained staff, seems pretty alarming to me.
[go to top]