The coronavirus
Options
Comments
-
1. of course. I guess I mean debatable in terms of what he said vs the article. it was almost as if Paul wrote the arti-, hey.....lolmrussel1 said:
1. I don't think any of us understand virology to the point where we could say it isn't debatable.HughFreakingDillon said:
i read the entire article that ledbetterman posted. everything Rand Paul said in that exchange is correct or at least very debatable.tbergs said:Another gotcha moment that simpletons can latch on to without actually listening and doing their own research on the topic. Soundbytes are a shit way to gain information. Thankfully they've been mostly replaced by Tweets
2. Even the article admits that there is no real proof of either theory of the origin.
3. Fauci doesn't argue that the NIH didn't provide funding, but says that what grant specified is not Gain of Function, whereas the author states that it is. I have no clue who is right.
2. correct, but the facts and odds it bears out sure leans heavily towards lab origin
3. me neither. but this is the most damning thing I've seen that is even remotely credible that the right has been saying all along.Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall0 -
The right has been saying it's just a flu, it's not dangerous, it started early in 2019, masks don't work, the vax is a tracking device, it kills youi, and anything else that could splat against the wall. But no one on the left has said that China definitely did not manufacture said virus. And if China did, does that change a thing about how the pandemic should be managed? Should we have not worn masks, or not got the vaccine? If China truly manufactured this, it will come out and will be a major foreign policy issue for us and the rest of the world. But what does that have to do with the right wing at teh end of the day?HughFreakingDillon said:
1. of course. I guess I mean debatable in terms of what he said vs the article. it was almost as if Paul wrote the arti-, hey.....lolmrussel1 said:
1. I don't think any of us understand virology to the point where we could say it isn't debatable.HughFreakingDillon said:
i read the entire article that ledbetterman posted. everything Rand Paul said in that exchange is correct or at least very debatable.tbergs said:Another gotcha moment that simpletons can latch on to without actually listening and doing their own research on the topic. Soundbytes are a shit way to gain information. Thankfully they've been mostly replaced by Tweets
2. Even the article admits that there is no real proof of either theory of the origin.
3. Fauci doesn't argue that the NIH didn't provide funding, but says that what grant specified is not Gain of Function, whereas the author states that it is. I have no clue who is right.
2. correct, but the facts and odds it bears out sure leans heavily towards lab origin
3. me neither. but this is the most damning thing I've seen that is even remotely credible that the right has been saying all along.0 -
It seems pretty clear to me that Dr. FAUCI worked closely with the lab in Wuhan to create the virus that would inevitably steal the 2020 presidential election from God's Gift.
0 -
no, not specifically about the dangers of covid or how it was managed. about how it was created in a lab and Fauci was somehow involved.mrussel1 said:
The right has been saying it's just a flu, it's not dangerous, it started early in 2019, masks don't work, the vax is a tracking device, it kills youi, and anything else that could splat against the wall. But no one on the left has said that China definitely did not manufacture said virus. And if China did, does that change a thing about how the pandemic should be managed? Should we have not worn masks, or not got the vaccine? If China truly manufactured this, it will come out and will be a major foreign policy issue for us and the rest of the world. But what does that have to do with the right wing at teh end of the day?HughFreakingDillon said:
1. of course. I guess I mean debatable in terms of what he said vs the article. it was almost as if Paul wrote the arti-, hey.....lolmrussel1 said:
1. I don't think any of us understand virology to the point where we could say it isn't debatable.HughFreakingDillon said:
i read the entire article that ledbetterman posted. everything Rand Paul said in that exchange is correct or at least very debatable.tbergs said:Another gotcha moment that simpletons can latch on to without actually listening and doing their own research on the topic. Soundbytes are a shit way to gain information. Thankfully they've been mostly replaced by Tweets
2. Even the article admits that there is no real proof of either theory of the origin.
3. Fauci doesn't argue that the NIH didn't provide funding, but says that what grant specified is not Gain of Function, whereas the author states that it is. I have no clue who is right.
2. correct, but the facts and odds it bears out sure leans heavily towards lab origin
3. me neither. but this is the most damning thing I've seen that is even remotely credible that the right has been saying all along.Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall0 -
You know we had observers in that lab and they were called home late in 19. If Fauci created it, then Trump was derelict in his duty. The doctor and the NIH worked for him.HughFreakingDillon said:
no, not specifically about the dangers of covid or how it was managed. about how it was created in a lab and Fauci was somehow involved.mrussel1 said:
The right has been saying it's just a flu, it's not dangerous, it started early in 2019, masks don't work, the vax is a tracking device, it kills youi, and anything else that could splat against the wall. But no one on the left has said that China definitely did not manufacture said virus. And if China did, does that change a thing about how the pandemic should be managed? Should we have not worn masks, or not got the vaccine? If China truly manufactured this, it will come out and will be a major foreign policy issue for us and the rest of the world. But what does that have to do with the right wing at teh end of the day?HughFreakingDillon said:
1. of course. I guess I mean debatable in terms of what he said vs the article. it was almost as if Paul wrote the arti-, hey.....lolmrussel1 said:
1. I don't think any of us understand virology to the point where we could say it isn't debatable.HughFreakingDillon said:
i read the entire article that ledbetterman posted. everything Rand Paul said in that exchange is correct or at least very debatable.tbergs said:Another gotcha moment that simpletons can latch on to without actually listening and doing their own research on the topic. Soundbytes are a shit way to gain information. Thankfully they've been mostly replaced by Tweets
2. Even the article admits that there is no real proof of either theory of the origin.
3. Fauci doesn't argue that the NIH didn't provide funding, but says that what grant specified is not Gain of Function, whereas the author states that it is. I have no clue who is right.
2. correct, but the facts and odds it bears out sure leans heavily towards lab origin
3. me neither. but this is the most damning thing I've seen that is even remotely credible that the right has been saying all along.0 -
what's starting to really fucking bother me is how Trump's "fake news" is really starting to look legitimate. I mean, if that article is true, and so many like it that I've read from reputable sources over the last few years, there are many things the "liberal" media simply do not touch because it makes goes against the "conservative bad" narrative.mrussel1 said:
You know we had observers in that lab and they were called home late in 19. If Fauci created it, then Trump was derelict in his duty. The doctor and the NIH worked for him.HughFreakingDillon said:
no, not specifically about the dangers of covid or how it was managed. about how it was created in a lab and Fauci was somehow involved.mrussel1 said:
The right has been saying it's just a flu, it's not dangerous, it started early in 2019, masks don't work, the vax is a tracking device, it kills youi, and anything else that could splat against the wall. But no one on the left has said that China definitely did not manufacture said virus. And if China did, does that change a thing about how the pandemic should be managed? Should we have not worn masks, or not got the vaccine? If China truly manufactured this, it will come out and will be a major foreign policy issue for us and the rest of the world. But what does that have to do with the right wing at teh end of the day?HughFreakingDillon said:
1. of course. I guess I mean debatable in terms of what he said vs the article. it was almost as if Paul wrote the arti-, hey.....lolmrussel1 said:
1. I don't think any of us understand virology to the point where we could say it isn't debatable.HughFreakingDillon said:
i read the entire article that ledbetterman posted. everything Rand Paul said in that exchange is correct or at least very debatable.tbergs said:Another gotcha moment that simpletons can latch on to without actually listening and doing their own research on the topic. Soundbytes are a shit way to gain information. Thankfully they've been mostly replaced by Tweets
2. Even the article admits that there is no real proof of either theory of the origin.
3. Fauci doesn't argue that the NIH didn't provide funding, but says that what grant specified is not Gain of Function, whereas the author states that it is. I have no clue who is right.
2. correct, but the facts and odds it bears out sure leans heavily towards lab origin
3. me neither. but this is the most damning thing I've seen that is even remotely credible that the right has been saying all along.
and no, I'm not talking about how they never spoke good about him. I mean how there is so much they don't report on.
not to mention the potential corruption/enabling in the scientific community.Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall0 -
Pretty sad for sure.HughFreakingDillon said:
what's starting to really fucking bother me is how Trump's "fake news" is really starting to look legitimate. I mean, if that article is true, and so many like it that I've read from reputable sources over the last few years, there are many things the "liberal" media simply do not touch because it makes goes against the "conservative bad" narrative.mrussel1 said:
You know we had observers in that lab and they were called home late in 19. If Fauci created it, then Trump was derelict in his duty. The doctor and the NIH worked for him.HughFreakingDillon said:
no, not specifically about the dangers of covid or how it was managed. about how it was created in a lab and Fauci was somehow involved.mrussel1 said:
The right has been saying it's just a flu, it's not dangerous, it started early in 2019, masks don't work, the vax is a tracking device, it kills youi, and anything else that could splat against the wall. But no one on the left has said that China definitely did not manufacture said virus. And if China did, does that change a thing about how the pandemic should be managed? Should we have not worn masks, or not got the vaccine? If China truly manufactured this, it will come out and will be a major foreign policy issue for us and the rest of the world. But what does that have to do with the right wing at teh end of the day?HughFreakingDillon said:
1. of course. I guess I mean debatable in terms of what he said vs the article. it was almost as if Paul wrote the arti-, hey.....lolmrussel1 said:
1. I don't think any of us understand virology to the point where we could say it isn't debatable.HughFreakingDillon said:
i read the entire article that ledbetterman posted. everything Rand Paul said in that exchange is correct or at least very debatable.tbergs said:Another gotcha moment that simpletons can latch on to without actually listening and doing their own research on the topic. Soundbytes are a shit way to gain information. Thankfully they've been mostly replaced by Tweets
2. Even the article admits that there is no real proof of either theory of the origin.
3. Fauci doesn't argue that the NIH didn't provide funding, but says that what grant specified is not Gain of Function, whereas the author states that it is. I have no clue who is right.
2. correct, but the facts and odds it bears out sure leans heavily towards lab origin
3. me neither. but this is the most damning thing I've seen that is even remotely credible that the right has been saying all along.
and no, I'm not talking about how they never spoke good about him. I mean how there is so much they don't report on.
not to mention the potential corruption/enabling in the scientific community.0 -
If you were coming from a stance that liberal media is the bastion of non partisan news, then that's a mistake on your part. Conservative media focuses on what makes democrats look bad and vice versa. That's not 'fake. Lying outright is fake. Don't take this the wrong way, but if reading an article reshapes your belief structure, then it wasn't very firm to start.HughFreakingDillon said:
what's starting to really fucking bother me is how Trump's "fake news" is really starting to look legitimate. I mean, if that article is true, and so many like it that I've read from reputable sources over the last few years, there are many things the "liberal" media simply do not touch because it makes goes against the "conservative bad" narrative.mrussel1 said:
You know we had observers in that lab and they were called home late in 19. If Fauci created it, then Trump was derelict in his duty. The doctor and the NIH worked for him.HughFreakingDillon said:
no, not specifically about the dangers of covid or how it was managed. about how it was created in a lab and Fauci was somehow involved.mrussel1 said:
The right has been saying it's just a flu, it's not dangerous, it started early in 2019, masks don't work, the vax is a tracking device, it kills youi, and anything else that could splat against the wall. But no one on the left has said that China definitely did not manufacture said virus. And if China did, does that change a thing about how the pandemic should be managed? Should we have not worn masks, or not got the vaccine? If China truly manufactured this, it will come out and will be a major foreign policy issue for us and the rest of the world. But what does that have to do with the right wing at teh end of the day?HughFreakingDillon said:
1. of course. I guess I mean debatable in terms of what he said vs the article. it was almost as if Paul wrote the arti-, hey.....lolmrussel1 said:
1. I don't think any of us understand virology to the point where we could say it isn't debatable.HughFreakingDillon said:
i read the entire article that ledbetterman posted. everything Rand Paul said in that exchange is correct or at least very debatable.tbergs said:Another gotcha moment that simpletons can latch on to without actually listening and doing their own research on the topic. Soundbytes are a shit way to gain information. Thankfully they've been mostly replaced by Tweets
2. Even the article admits that there is no real proof of either theory of the origin.
3. Fauci doesn't argue that the NIH didn't provide funding, but says that what grant specified is not Gain of Function, whereas the author states that it is. I have no clue who is right.
2. correct, but the facts and odds it bears out sure leans heavily towards lab origin
3. me neither. but this is the most damning thing I've seen that is even remotely credible that the right has been saying all along.
and no, I'm not talking about how they never spoke good about him. I mean how there is so much they don't report on.
not to mention the potential corruption/enabling in the scientific community.
Trump's angle was to call anything that reflected poorly on him as fake.
I'm not sure exactly what you read or watched that led you to the statement you made. Did NBC say no way was the virus created in a lab? Not to my knowledge. Did they say that the NIH never provided funding to any work in Wuhan? Certainly not. We had observers there for a reason. So what was fake?
0 -
HughFreakingDillon said:
what's starting to really fucking bother me is how Trump's "fake news" is really starting to look legitimate. I mean, if that article is true, and so many like it that I've read from reputable sources over the last few years, there are many things the "liberal" media simply do not touch because it makes goes against the "conservative bad" narrative.mrussel1 said:
You know we had observers in that lab and they were called home late in 19. If Fauci created it, then Trump was derelict in his duty. The doctor and the NIH worked for him.HughFreakingDillon said:
no, not specifically about the dangers of covid or how it was managed. about how it was created in a lab and Fauci was somehow involved.mrussel1 said:
The right has been saying it's just a flu, it's not dangerous, it started early in 2019, masks don't work, the vax is a tracking device, it kills youi, and anything else that could splat against the wall. But no one on the left has said that China definitely did not manufacture said virus. And if China did, does that change a thing about how the pandemic should be managed? Should we have not worn masks, or not got the vaccine? If China truly manufactured this, it will come out and will be a major foreign policy issue for us and the rest of the world. But what does that have to do with the right wing at teh end of the day?HughFreakingDillon said:
1. of course. I guess I mean debatable in terms of what he said vs the article. it was almost as if Paul wrote the arti-, hey.....lolmrussel1 said:
1. I don't think any of us understand virology to the point where we could say it isn't debatable.HughFreakingDillon said:
i read the entire article that ledbetterman posted. everything Rand Paul said in that exchange is correct or at least very debatable.tbergs said:Another gotcha moment that simpletons can latch on to without actually listening and doing their own research on the topic. Soundbytes are a shit way to gain information. Thankfully they've been mostly replaced by Tweets
2. Even the article admits that there is no real proof of either theory of the origin.
3. Fauci doesn't argue that the NIH didn't provide funding, but says that what grant specified is not Gain of Function, whereas the author states that it is. I have no clue who is right.
2. correct, but the facts and odds it bears out sure leans heavily towards lab origin
3. me neither. but this is the most damning thing I've seen that is even remotely credible that the right has been saying all along.
and no, I'm not talking about how they never spoke good about him. I mean how there is so much they don't report on.
not to mention the potential corruption/enabling in the scientific community.doesnt mean the news that is presented is fake. it means the editorial staff like tv producers have an eye on the bottom line that click bait can bring._____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
Worst of all is how often over the last year, to even suggest the virus might be from the lab in Wuhan has been quickly dismissed as crazy conspiracy bullshit, or whoever said it would be decried as a bigot for speaking ill of China. Like everyone should just shut up and listen to what they’re told.HughFreakingDillon said:
what's starting to really fucking bother me is how Trump's "fake news" is really starting to look legitimate. I mean, if that article is true, and so many like it that I've read from reputable sources over the last few years, there are many things the "liberal" media simply do not touch because it makes goes against the "conservative bad" narrative.mrussel1 said:
You know we had observers in that lab and they were called home late in 19. If Fauci created it, then Trump was derelict in his duty. The doctor and the NIH worked for him.HughFreakingDillon said:
no, not specifically about the dangers of covid or how it was managed. about how it was created in a lab and Fauci was somehow involved.mrussel1 said:
The right has been saying it's just a flu, it's not dangerous, it started early in 2019, masks don't work, the vax is a tracking device, it kills youi, and anything else that could splat against the wall. But no one on the left has said that China definitely did not manufacture said virus. And if China did, does that change a thing about how the pandemic should be managed? Should we have not worn masks, or not got the vaccine? If China truly manufactured this, it will come out and will be a major foreign policy issue for us and the rest of the world. But what does that have to do with the right wing at teh end of the day?HughFreakingDillon said:
1. of course. I guess I mean debatable in terms of what he said vs the article. it was almost as if Paul wrote the arti-, hey.....lolmrussel1 said:
1. I don't think any of us understand virology to the point where we could say it isn't debatable.HughFreakingDillon said:
i read the entire article that ledbetterman posted. everything Rand Paul said in that exchange is correct or at least very debatable.tbergs said:Another gotcha moment that simpletons can latch on to without actually listening and doing their own research on the topic. Soundbytes are a shit way to gain information. Thankfully they've been mostly replaced by Tweets
2. Even the article admits that there is no real proof of either theory of the origin.
3. Fauci doesn't argue that the NIH didn't provide funding, but says that what grant specified is not Gain of Function, whereas the author states that it is. I have no clue who is right.
2. correct, but the facts and odds it bears out sure leans heavily towards lab origin
3. me neither. but this is the most damning thing I've seen that is even remotely credible that the right has been saying all along.
and no, I'm not talking about how they never spoke good about him. I mean how there is so much they don't report on.
not to mention the potential corruption/enabling in the scientific community.Like really, a worldwide, super-contagious virus. Which is it’s most likely origin? Lab-experiments that got out of hand, or a bunch of animals in a wet market shitting and bleeding on each other?2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com0 -
HughFreakingDillon said:I'll admit....I don't know who to believe now.
https://youtu.be/hn3XHdqyaxw
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
mrussel1 said:
If you were coming from a stance that liberal media is the bastion of non partisan news, then that's a mistake on your part. Conservative media focuses on what makes democrats look bad and vice versa. That's not 'fake. Lying outright is fake. Don't take this the wrong way, but if reading an article reshapes your belief structure, then it wasn't very firm to start.HughFreakingDillon said:
what's starting to really fucking bother me is how Trump's "fake news" is really starting to look legitimate. I mean, if that article is true, and so many like it that I've read from reputable sources over the last few years, there are many things the "liberal" media simply do not touch because it makes goes against the "conservative bad" narrative.mrussel1 said:
You know we had observers in that lab and they were called home late in 19. If Fauci created it, then Trump was derelict in his duty. The doctor and the NIH worked for him.HughFreakingDillon said:
no, not specifically about the dangers of covid or how it was managed. about how it was created in a lab and Fauci was somehow involved.mrussel1 said:
The right has been saying it's just a flu, it's not dangerous, it started early in 2019, masks don't work, the vax is a tracking device, it kills youi, and anything else that could splat against the wall. But no one on the left has said that China definitely did not manufacture said virus. And if China did, does that change a thing about how the pandemic should be managed? Should we have not worn masks, or not got the vaccine? If China truly manufactured this, it will come out and will be a major foreign policy issue for us and the rest of the world. But what does that have to do with the right wing at teh end of the day?HughFreakingDillon said:
1. of course. I guess I mean debatable in terms of what he said vs the article. it was almost as if Paul wrote the arti-, hey.....lolmrussel1 said:
1. I don't think any of us understand virology to the point where we could say it isn't debatable.HughFreakingDillon said:
i read the entire article that ledbetterman posted. everything Rand Paul said in that exchange is correct or at least very debatable.tbergs said:Another gotcha moment that simpletons can latch on to without actually listening and doing their own research on the topic. Soundbytes are a shit way to gain information. Thankfully they've been mostly replaced by Tweets
2. Even the article admits that there is no real proof of either theory of the origin.
3. Fauci doesn't argue that the NIH didn't provide funding, but says that what grant specified is not Gain of Function, whereas the author states that it is. I have no clue who is right.
2. correct, but the facts and odds it bears out sure leans heavily towards lab origin
3. me neither. but this is the most damning thing I've seen that is even remotely credible that the right has been saying all along.
and no, I'm not talking about how they never spoke good about him. I mean how there is so much they don't report on.
not to mention the potential corruption/enabling in the scientific community.
Trump's angle was to call anything that reflected poorly on him as fake.
I'm not sure exactly what you read or watched that led you to the statement you made. Did NBC say no way was the virus created in a lab? Not to my knowledge. Did they say that the NIH never provided funding to any work in Wuhan? Certainly not. We had observers there for a reason. So what was fake?There was a piece on 60 minutes a month or so ago that detailed the investigation into the Wuhan lab. From the bits I saw it appears there are still many questions to be answered and the access they were granted was not typical.Edit to include link:Post edited by FiveBelow on0 -
There's no question that the Chinese lack transparency. Even Fauci said today that he cannot say if it was created in a lab and released or not.FiveBelow said:mrussel1 said:
If you were coming from a stance that liberal media is the bastion of non partisan news, then that's a mistake on your part. Conservative media focuses on what makes democrats look bad and vice versa. That's not 'fake. Lying outright is fake. Don't take this the wrong way, but if reading an article reshapes your belief structure, then it wasn't very firm to start.HughFreakingDillon said:
what's starting to really fucking bother me is how Trump's "fake news" is really starting to look legitimate. I mean, if that article is true, and so many like it that I've read from reputable sources over the last few years, there are many things the "liberal" media simply do not touch because it makes goes against the "conservative bad" narrative.mrussel1 said:
You know we had observers in that lab and they were called home late in 19. If Fauci created it, then Trump was derelict in his duty. The doctor and the NIH worked for him.HughFreakingDillon said:
no, not specifically about the dangers of covid or how it was managed. about how it was created in a lab and Fauci was somehow involved.mrussel1 said:
The right has been saying it's just a flu, it's not dangerous, it started early in 2019, masks don't work, the vax is a tracking device, it kills youi, and anything else that could splat against the wall. But no one on the left has said that China definitely did not manufacture said virus. And if China did, does that change a thing about how the pandemic should be managed? Should we have not worn masks, or not got the vaccine? If China truly manufactured this, it will come out and will be a major foreign policy issue for us and the rest of the world. But what does that have to do with the right wing at teh end of the day?HughFreakingDillon said:
1. of course. I guess I mean debatable in terms of what he said vs the article. it was almost as if Paul wrote the arti-, hey.....lolmrussel1 said:
1. I don't think any of us understand virology to the point where we could say it isn't debatable.HughFreakingDillon said:
i read the entire article that ledbetterman posted. everything Rand Paul said in that exchange is correct or at least very debatable.tbergs said:Another gotcha moment that simpletons can latch on to without actually listening and doing their own research on the topic. Soundbytes are a shit way to gain information. Thankfully they've been mostly replaced by Tweets
2. Even the article admits that there is no real proof of either theory of the origin.
3. Fauci doesn't argue that the NIH didn't provide funding, but says that what grant specified is not Gain of Function, whereas the author states that it is. I have no clue who is right.
2. correct, but the facts and odds it bears out sure leans heavily towards lab origin
3. me neither. but this is the most damning thing I've seen that is even remotely credible that the right has been saying all along.
and no, I'm not talking about how they never spoke good about him. I mean how there is so much they don't report on.
not to mention the potential corruption/enabling in the scientific community.
Trump's angle was to call anything that reflected poorly on him as fake.
I'm not sure exactly what you read or watched that led you to the statement you made. Did NBC say no way was the virus created in a lab? Not to my knowledge. Did they say that the NIH never provided funding to any work in Wuhan? Certainly not. We had observers there for a reason. So what was fake?There was a piece on 60 minutes a month or so ago that detailed the investigation into the Wuhan lab. From the bits I saw it appears there are still many questions to be answered and the access they were granted was not typical.Edit to include link:0 -
The crazy conspiracy theory is that it was developed and released in order to tank Trump's campaign, not that such a thing could never happen. The bigotry is blaming people of Chinese origin for the virus.Ledbetterman10 said:
Worst of all is how often over the last year, to even suggest the virus might be from the lab in Wuhan has been quickly dismissed as crazy conspiracy bullshit, or whoever said it would be decried as a bigot for speaking ill of China. Like everyone should just shut up and listen to what they’re told.HughFreakingDillon said:
what's starting to really fucking bother me is how Trump's "fake news" is really starting to look legitimate. I mean, if that article is true, and so many like it that I've read from reputable sources over the last few years, there are many things the "liberal" media simply do not touch because it makes goes against the "conservative bad" narrative.mrussel1 said:
You know we had observers in that lab and they were called home late in 19. If Fauci created it, then Trump was derelict in his duty. The doctor and the NIH worked for him.HughFreakingDillon said:
no, not specifically about the dangers of covid or how it was managed. about how it was created in a lab and Fauci was somehow involved.mrussel1 said:
The right has been saying it's just a flu, it's not dangerous, it started early in 2019, masks don't work, the vax is a tracking device, it kills youi, and anything else that could splat against the wall. But no one on the left has said that China definitely did not manufacture said virus. And if China did, does that change a thing about how the pandemic should be managed? Should we have not worn masks, or not got the vaccine? If China truly manufactured this, it will come out and will be a major foreign policy issue for us and the rest of the world. But what does that have to do with the right wing at teh end of the day?HughFreakingDillon said:
1. of course. I guess I mean debatable in terms of what he said vs the article. it was almost as if Paul wrote the arti-, hey.....lolmrussel1 said:
1. I don't think any of us understand virology to the point where we could say it isn't debatable.HughFreakingDillon said:
i read the entire article that ledbetterman posted. everything Rand Paul said in that exchange is correct or at least very debatable.tbergs said:Another gotcha moment that simpletons can latch on to without actually listening and doing their own research on the topic. Soundbytes are a shit way to gain information. Thankfully they've been mostly replaced by Tweets
2. Even the article admits that there is no real proof of either theory of the origin.
3. Fauci doesn't argue that the NIH didn't provide funding, but says that what grant specified is not Gain of Function, whereas the author states that it is. I have no clue who is right.
2. correct, but the facts and odds it bears out sure leans heavily towards lab origin
3. me neither. but this is the most damning thing I've seen that is even remotely credible that the right has been saying all along.
and no, I'm not talking about how they never spoke good about him. I mean how there is so much they don't report on.
not to mention the potential corruption/enabling in the scientific community.Like really, a worldwide, super-contagious virus. Which is it’s most likely origin? Lab-experiments that got out of hand, or a bunch of animals in a wet market shitting and bleeding on each other?0 -
Are people in the US still call it "The China virus" or whatever Trump made sure to call it? Or did that die out when he went away?"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0
-
I often don't explain myself properly, which leads to issues, but I'll try again.mrussel1 said:
If you were coming from a stance that liberal media is the bastion of non partisan news, then that's a mistake on your part. Conservative media focuses on what makes democrats look bad and vice versa. That's not 'fake. Lying outright is fake. Don't take this the wrong way, but if reading an article reshapes your belief structure, then it wasn't very firm to start.HughFreakingDillon said:
what's starting to really fucking bother me is how Trump's "fake news" is really starting to look legitimate. I mean, if that article is true, and so many like it that I've read from reputable sources over the last few years, there are many things the "liberal" media simply do not touch because it makes goes against the "conservative bad" narrative.mrussel1 said:
You know we had observers in that lab and they were called home late in 19. If Fauci created it, then Trump was derelict in his duty. The doctor and the NIH worked for him.HughFreakingDillon said:
no, not specifically about the dangers of covid or how it was managed. about how it was created in a lab and Fauci was somehow involved.mrussel1 said:
The right has been saying it's just a flu, it's not dangerous, it started early in 2019, masks don't work, the vax is a tracking device, it kills youi, and anything else that could splat against the wall. But no one on the left has said that China definitely did not manufacture said virus. And if China did, does that change a thing about how the pandemic should be managed? Should we have not worn masks, or not got the vaccine? If China truly manufactured this, it will come out and will be a major foreign policy issue for us and the rest of the world. But what does that have to do with the right wing at teh end of the day?HughFreakingDillon said:
1. of course. I guess I mean debatable in terms of what he said vs the article. it was almost as if Paul wrote the arti-, hey.....lolmrussel1 said:
1. I don't think any of us understand virology to the point where we could say it isn't debatable.HughFreakingDillon said:
i read the entire article that ledbetterman posted. everything Rand Paul said in that exchange is correct or at least very debatable.tbergs said:Another gotcha moment that simpletons can latch on to without actually listening and doing their own research on the topic. Soundbytes are a shit way to gain information. Thankfully they've been mostly replaced by Tweets
2. Even the article admits that there is no real proof of either theory of the origin.
3. Fauci doesn't argue that the NIH didn't provide funding, but says that what grant specified is not Gain of Function, whereas the author states that it is. I have no clue who is right.
2. correct, but the facts and odds it bears out sure leans heavily towards lab origin
3. me neither. but this is the most damning thing I've seen that is even remotely credible that the right has been saying all along.
and no, I'm not talking about how they never spoke good about him. I mean how there is so much they don't report on.
not to mention the potential corruption/enabling in the scientific community.
Trump's angle was to call anything that reflected poorly on him as fake.
I'm not sure exactly what you read or watched that led you to the statement you made. Did NBC say no way was the virus created in a lab? Not to my knowledge. Did they say that the NIH never provided funding to any work in Wuhan? Certainly not. We had observers there for a reason. So what was fake?
no, I don't think CNN and NBC et al are fake news, or the bastion of non partisan news. I mentioned at the beginning of trump's term how I couldn't watch CNN anymore (or anything that leans left) as it was just so sensational it was like watching a fucking soap opera. the sky was always falling. I just mean that his assertion as such and the constant beatings over the head we've all been taking from Trumpkins about "fake news", coupled with the drama in the media, has really kind of opened my eyes that the news is more partisan than I thought it was.
did I obviously know that MSM generally leans left? Yes. Was I aware just HOW left? Maybe not.
as I did state before, yes, everything trump called fake was simply because of his own ego. we all know that.
was anyone's belief structure about Fauci or any other "covid celebrities" very firm from the start? I wouldn't say it was. I would say I gave him and the rest the benefit of the doubt. I generally hold scientists and researches in fairly high esteem.
I still don't think Fauci had anything to do with the virus. He seems very transparent, and is more than willing to withstand hours upon hours of Republican theatrics without so much as a quiver.
I just meant after a year and almost a half of this shit, I would have expected more to come out via virologists/scientists in the know, if in fact there are. And I'm pretty sure there are, and not just in China.Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall0 -
I remember people getting crap for even suggesting maybe it came from a lab.mrussel1 said:
The crazy conspiracy theory is that it was developed and released in order to tank Trump's campaign, not that such a thing could never happen. The bigotry is blaming people of Chinese origin for the virus.Ledbetterman10 said:
Worst of all is how often over the last year, to even suggest the virus might be from the lab in Wuhan has been quickly dismissed as crazy conspiracy bullshit, or whoever said it would be decried as a bigot for speaking ill of China. Like everyone should just shut up and listen to what they’re told.HughFreakingDillon said:
what's starting to really fucking bother me is how Trump's "fake news" is really starting to look legitimate. I mean, if that article is true, and so many like it that I've read from reputable sources over the last few years, there are many things the "liberal" media simply do not touch because it makes goes against the "conservative bad" narrative.mrussel1 said:
You know we had observers in that lab and they were called home late in 19. If Fauci created it, then Trump was derelict in his duty. The doctor and the NIH worked for him.HughFreakingDillon said:
no, not specifically about the dangers of covid or how it was managed. about how it was created in a lab and Fauci was somehow involved.mrussel1 said:
The right has been saying it's just a flu, it's not dangerous, it started early in 2019, masks don't work, the vax is a tracking device, it kills youi, and anything else that could splat against the wall. But no one on the left has said that China definitely did not manufacture said virus. And if China did, does that change a thing about how the pandemic should be managed? Should we have not worn masks, or not got the vaccine? If China truly manufactured this, it will come out and will be a major foreign policy issue for us and the rest of the world. But what does that have to do with the right wing at teh end of the day?HughFreakingDillon said:
1. of course. I guess I mean debatable in terms of what he said vs the article. it was almost as if Paul wrote the arti-, hey.....lolmrussel1 said:
1. I don't think any of us understand virology to the point where we could say it isn't debatable.HughFreakingDillon said:
i read the entire article that ledbetterman posted. everything Rand Paul said in that exchange is correct or at least very debatable.tbergs said:Another gotcha moment that simpletons can latch on to without actually listening and doing their own research on the topic. Soundbytes are a shit way to gain information. Thankfully they've been mostly replaced by Tweets
2. Even the article admits that there is no real proof of either theory of the origin.
3. Fauci doesn't argue that the NIH didn't provide funding, but says that what grant specified is not Gain of Function, whereas the author states that it is. I have no clue who is right.
2. correct, but the facts and odds it bears out sure leans heavily towards lab origin
3. me neither. but this is the most damning thing I've seen that is even remotely credible that the right has been saying all along.
and no, I'm not talking about how they never spoke good about him. I mean how there is so much they don't report on.
not to mention the potential corruption/enabling in the scientific community.Like really, a worldwide, super-contagious virus. Which is it’s most likely origin? Lab-experiments that got out of hand, or a bunch of animals in a wet market shitting and bleeding on each other?0 -
Yes I agree...animal, laboratory - even if the aliens brought it we still have to vaccinate to move forward.mrussel1 said:
The right has been saying it's just a flu, it's not dangerous, it started early in 2019, masks don't work, the vax is a tracking device, it kills youi, and anything else that could splat against the wall. But no one on the left has said that China definitely did not manufacture said virus. And if China did, does that change a thing about how the pandemic should be managed? Should we have not worn masks, or not got the vaccine? If China truly manufactured this, it will come out and will be a major foreign policy issue for us and the rest of the world. But what does that have to do with the right wing at teh end of the day?HughFreakingDillon said:
1. of course. I guess I mean debatable in terms of what he said vs the article. it was almost as if Paul wrote the arti-, hey.....lolmrussel1 said:
1. I don't think any of us understand virology to the point where we could say it isn't debatable.HughFreakingDillon said:
i read the entire article that ledbetterman posted. everything Rand Paul said in that exchange is correct or at least very debatable.tbergs said:Another gotcha moment that simpletons can latch on to without actually listening and doing their own research on the topic. Soundbytes are a shit way to gain information. Thankfully they've been mostly replaced by Tweets
2. Even the article admits that there is no real proof of either theory of the origin.
3. Fauci doesn't argue that the NIH didn't provide funding, but says that what grant specified is not Gain of Function, whereas the author states that it is. I have no clue who is right.
2. correct, but the facts and odds it bears out sure leans heavily towards lab origin
3. me neither. but this is the most damning thing I've seen that is even remotely credible that the right has been saying all along.0 -
TOUR - ON
2010: Cleveland
2012: Atlanta
2013: London ONT / Wrigley Field / Pittsburgh / Buffalo / San Diego / Los Angeles I / Los Angeles II
2014: Cincinnati / St. Louis / Tulsa / Lincoln / Detroit / Denver
2015: New York City
2016: Ft. Lauderdale / Miami / Jacksonville / Greenville / Hampton / Columbia / Lexington / Philly II / New York City II / Toronto II / Bonnaroo / Telluride / Fenway I / Wrigley I / Wrigley - II / TOTD - Philadelphia, San Francisco
2017: Ohana Fest (EV)
2018: Amsterdam I / Amsterdam II / Seattle I / Seattle II / Boston I / Boston II
2021: Asbury Park / Ohana Encore 1 / Ohana Encore 2
2022: Phoenix / LA I / LA II / Quebec City / Ottawa / New York City / Camden / Nashville / St. Louis / Denver
2023: St. Paul II
2024: Las Vegas I / Las Vegas II / New York City I / New York City II / Philly I / Philly II / Baltimore0 -
I recalled a story from earlier in the pandemic that my city, Winnipeg, had a strange connection to all of this that many seemed suspect.
There were two Japanese virologists that work in a BSL4 lab here in Winnipeg, really close to my house actually, that made multiple trips to and from Wuhan, and shortly after the pandemic began, it was reported they were dismissed in July 2019 after one of them shipped samples of Ebola and Henipah viruses to Wuhan and everything involved in that is still hush hush.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/phac-wuhan-capacity-1.6022149
Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help