Lifting Masks = Back to Getting Down With The Sickness

[CriticalGaming]

Turns out they WERE doing gain of function research on Corona Viruses and Fauci was lying the whole time.

NIH admits US funded gain-of-function in Wuhan — despite Fauci’s denials

The National Institute of Health has now stunningly admitted to funding gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at China’s Wuhan lab.

nypost.com

 

[Buyetyen]

Turns out they WERE doing gain of function research on Corona Viruses and Fauci was lying the whole time.

NIH admits US funded gain-of-function in Wuhan — despite Fauci’s denials

The National Institute of Health has now stunningly admitted to funding gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at China’s Wuhan lab.

nypost.com

And now the NY Post. I checked the article. Their citations are themselves (an article they already printed bashing Fauci but nowhere saying the NIH admitted to what they are being accused of) and a tweet that doesn't actually prove anything. There is literally nothing in that article that proves what they claim.

Do you read any actual journalism or do you just go out of your way to find the shit that tells you what you want to hear?

 

[CriticalGaming]

And now the NY Post. I checked the article. Their citations are themselves (an article they already printed bashing Fauci but nowhere saying the NIH admitted to what they are being accused of) and a tweet that doesn't actually prove anything. There is literally nothing in that article that proves what they claim.

Do you read any actual journalism or do you just go out of your way to find the shit that tells you what you want to hear?

I didnt even look for this. It was just on the news feed.

Ok how about this https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ni...-of-function-wuhan-lab-despite-faucis-denials

Oh no that wont work because fox news is automatically fake news.

https://news.yahoo.com/nih-admits-funding-gain-function-125103852.html

Yahoo?

No?

NIH ADMITS to funding gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses

The National Institutes of Health has finally admitted to funding gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses in it's Wuhan laboratory despite Dr. Fauci's constant denials to congress.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Daily mail uk?

Washington examiner? https://news.yahoo.com/fauci-critics-nih-letter-debunks-144200275.html

I mean you acuse me of shit and i have literally no reason to hunt these news companies down.

Ok for sake of argument lets say all these reports are lies. What is the truth? What the fuck was Wuhan doing with Coronaviruses and who was paying for it? How did it leak? How did it jump to humans so virulently?

More importantly who is making all the money from this pandemic? Where is the vaccine money going? Who is benefitting the most from pushing booster shots? Look for the money and i can guarantee something fucky is sitting somewhere on the path.

 

[Buyetyen]

Ok for sake of argument lets say all these reports are lies. What is the truth? What the fuck was Wuhan doing with Coronaviruses and who was paying for it? How did it leak? How did it jump to humans so virulently?

More importantly who is making all the money from this pandemic? Where is the vaccine money going? Who is benefitting the most from pushing booster shots? Look for the money and i can guarantee something fucky is sitting somewhere on the path.

In order, my answers to your questions are:

1. Not going to be found in tabloids.
2. I don't know
3. I don't know
4. That's what airborne viruses tend to do
5. If the reports are to be believed, the wealthiest 1% in America made over a trillion dollars off of the pandemic in one capacity or another.
6. The vaccines are being distributed for free, so I assume someone other than the pharmaceutical companies.
7. The people who get them.

You're not wrong about following the money. You're just looking in the wrong direction. Big Pharma actually is more profitable when we're kept on a razor's edge between health and sickness. Preventive medicines like vaccines don't help that bottom line, especially since you can get most if not all of them for free. There was indeed a lot of fuckery during the pandemic. It just mostly comes from the capitalist class.

 

[Agema]

Turns out they WERE doing gain of function research on Corona Viruses and Fauci was lying the whole time.

Wrong. This article is misleading, as is your interpretation.

It describes an experiment done at Wuhan that is not really gain of function as would generally be interpreted: the virus was not modified to change its effectiveness. The target mouse to be infected was modified (and hence why it may fall into a grey area of "gain of function"). But this does not make the virus any more or less dangerous.

So, if we were to put it as "is this the sort of experiment we all got in a panic about a few months back where they were making more infectious viruses", the answer is emphatically no. Consequently, more to the point, this experiment does not meet the NIH's criteria for high concern. On either count, Fauci's claim that the NIH did not fund gain of function at Wuhan remains valid.

 

[CriticalGaming]

You're not wrong about following the money. You're just looking in the wrong direction. Big Pharma actually is more profitable when we're kept on a razor's edge between health and sickness. Preventive medicines like vaccines don't help that bottom line, especially since you can get most if not all of them for free. There was indeed a lot of fuckery during the pandemic. It just mostly comes from the capitalist class.

My big problem with them pushing the vaccine on people so hard is that by all evidences the vaccine isn't all that helpful nor protective.

1. You can still get covid, but even worse you can give it to other people. One of the big promotions with the vaccine was "get it and you dont have to wear a fucking mask anymore" That's a lie. We are still mandated to wear masks everywhere. So if the vaccine isn't helpful in that regard, are we doomed to wear masks forever? What is the new threshold for not having to wear the masks anymore? We are at something like 75% fully vaccined nationwide at this point. What's the goal? Where is the benefit if it isn't stopping the spread of anything.

2. They want every to get boosters, okay fine. But they were talking about boosters super early as if they were already aware that the vaccine was not super effective. But they have not given any information that I've seen as to how long you wait from your second shot, to when you should get the booster. So again it seems like this super quickly made vaccine isn't really worth a goddamn.

3. While the vaccine is supposedly effective against super severe Covid symptoms, the vast majority of people have recovered from the virus just fine on their own and evidence suggests that this natural immunity from fighting off the virus is much more effective than the vaccine in the first place. Not that I suggest everyone just go get the virus so we can be done with it, I'm just saying that it seems like a strange thing to push when it doesn't seem to be all that great in the long run.

4. I got vaccinated when I almost died in the hospital, they just gave it to me since i was there. I'm not opposed to getting the vaccine nor am I opposed to boosters. But I am also not opposed to people choosing not to get them. Because at the end of the day who are they hurting but themselves? Remember even if you are vaccinated you can spread the virus, so getting the shot doesn't do anything to protect other people, it only protects yourself to a degree. So why are we forcing people to comply?

 

[CriticalGaming]

Wrong. This article is misleading, as is your interpretation.

It describes an experiment done at Wuhan that is not really gain of function as would generally be interpreted: the virus was not modified to change its effectiveness. The target mouse to be infected was modified (and hence why it may fall into a grey area of "gain of function"). But this does not make the virus any more or less dangerous.

So, if we were to put it as "is this the sort of experiment we all got in a panic about a few months back where they were making more infectious viruses", the answer is emphatically no. Consequently, more to the point, this experiment does not meet the NIH's criteria for high concern. On either count, Fauci's claim that the NIH did not fund gain of function at Wuhan remains valid.

But if you make the mouse capable of being infected by a virus that otherwise wouldn't infect it, does that in turn promote the virus to adapt within the new host to gain new infectability? Could that not be argued as gaining function by promoting virus mutation?

I have no idea on the science, but if they were trying to get the virus into new hosts what purpose would that serve outside of trying to change of increase the virus's abilities? If not gaining function, surely it must be changing the function of the virus in some way. right?

 

[thebobmaster]

Trials: COVID vaccines 90% effective against Delta infection, death

www.cidrap.umn.edu

According to this article, the vaccine was 95% effective against preventing death from the Delta variant, which is more infectious than the normal variant. That said, the effectiveness did drop in older age groups...down to 88% effective for ages 40-59 and 87% for 60+.

An observational study at the Clalit Research Institute in Israel, in conjunction with Harvard University, found that the Pfizer vaccine was 59% effective 14-20 days after the first dose, 66% 21-27 days after the first dose, and 90% 7-20 days after the second dose in the 12-18 age group, when matched up with individuals who were not vaccinated.

Efficacy against symptomatic infection was estimated at 57% 14-20 days after dose 1, 82% 21-27 days after dose 1, and 93% 7-21 days after dose 2.

All of these results are with a 95% confidence interval.

DON'T LET PERFECT BE THE ENEMY OF GOOD. The vaccine doesn't completely prevent infection, no. There is still a chance you'll get infected. There is still a chance you can spread that infection. LOWER THAT FUCKING CHANCE AND STOP BEING A SELF-RIGHTEOUS PRICK.

 

[Buyetyen]

My big problem with them pushing the vaccine on people so hard is that by all evidences the vaccine isn't all that helpful nor protective.

1. You can still get covid, but even worse you can give it to other people. One of the big promotions with the vaccine was "get it and you dont have to wear a fucking mask anymore" That's a lie. We are still mandated to wear masks everywhere. So if the vaccine isn't helpful in that regard, are we doomed to wear masks forever? What is the new threshold for not having to wear the masks anymore? We are at something like 75% fully vaccined nationwide at this point. What's the goal? Where is the benefit if it isn't stopping the spread of anything.

As has already been said, do not let perfect be the enemy of good.

2. They want every to get boosters, okay fine. But they were talking about boosters super early as if they were already aware that the vaccine was not super effective. But they have not given any information that I've seen as to how long you wait from your second shot, to when you should get the booster. So again it seems like this super quickly made vaccine isn't really worth a goddamn.

They talked about it because the US did such a terrible job and failed to contain the virus, thus increasing the chances of a strain that the vaccine would be less effective against.

And again, you are mistaking anything less than absolute perfection for being the worst.

3. While the vaccine is supposedly effective against super severe Covid symptoms, the vast majority of people have recovered from the virus just fine on their own and evidence suggests that this natural immunity from fighting off the virus is much more effective than the vaccine in the first place. Not that I suggest everyone just go get the virus so we can be done with it, I'm just saying that it seems like a strange thing to push when it doesn't seem to be all that great in the long run.

You're forgetting about the long-term complications from Covid. Which include but are not limited to lung tissue scarring, pulmonary problems and impotence. You really want to roll those dice on "natural immunity?"

Because at the end of the day who are they hurting but themselves?

Here's where you're wrong. People who cannot get the vaccine (either yet because they're children or at all because they're immuno-compromised) are put at risk by anti-vaccine stupidity. Further, the greater the number of people unvaccinated gives the virus a geometrically greater chance of mutating into more dangerous strains. We didn't wipe out smallpox by saying, "Whatevs" to vaccines.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

But I am also not opposed to people choosing not to get them. Because at the end of the day who are they hurting but themselves? Remember even if you are vaccinated you can spread the virus, so getting the shot doesn't do anything to protect other people, it only protects yourself to a degree. So why are we forcing people to comply?

You know absolutely nothing about how vaccinations work. Do you think we got rid of smallpox and polio through politely asking them to go away?

 

[CriticalGaming]

You're forgetting about the long-term complications from Covid. Which include but are not limited to lung tissue scarring, pulmonary problems and impotence. You really want to roll those dice on "natural immunity?"

I think long term effects are too early to call still. The virus hasnt even been a problem for anything that can be considered "long term" and we dont truly know how complete people will recover let alone the rate in which these "long term" effects occur.

Do they appear in every covid case? I dont think so. Severe cases? Ok how severe? What other factors can effect the type of these lingering effects because clearly they are different between people so are these effects because of covid or are they existing problems people could have had and not known until after covid hit them?

Further, the greater the number of people unvaccinated gives the virus a geometrically greater chance of mutating into more dangerous strains.

How?

If the vaccine doesnt prevent infection then that leads to higher chances of mutation, because now the virus can mutate into a strain that is even more resistant to the vaccine. The same way bacteria evolves to resist different anti-biotic drugs when used too heavily.

Using the anti-biotic logic. It is actually more beneficial in the long run to have a % of people remain unvaccinated as it lowers the chance of getting a vaccine resistant mutation. Right?

 

[CriticalGaming]

You know absolutely nothing about how vaccinations work. Do you think we got rid of smallpox and polio through politely asking them to go away?

You're right i dont.

But looking at some summaries of polio and smallpox vaccines. Both vaccines prevented infection and spread. The covid vaccine does neither of those things as it stands now.

 

[Buyetyen]

I think long term effects are too early to call still. The virus hasnt even been a problem for anything that can be considered "long term" and we dont truly know how complete people will recover let alone the rate in which these "long term" effects occur.

Do they appear in every covid case? I dont think so. Severe cases? Ok how severe? What other factors can effect the type of these lingering effects because clearly they are different between people so are these effects because of covid or are they existing problems people could have had and not known until after covid hit them?

They have been linked to Covid, yes.

How?

If the vaccine doesnt prevent infection then that leads to higher chances of mutation, because now the virus can mutate into a strain that is even more resistant to the vaccine. The same way bacteria evolves to resist different anti-biotic drugs when used too heavily.

Using the anti-biotic logic. It is actually more beneficial in the long run to have a % of people remain unvaccinated as it lowers the chance of getting a vaccine resistant mutation. Right?

Thing is, the vaccine doesn't prevent infection, it gives your body a way to fight it. This dramatically reduces the virus's ability to replicate, thus the reduced symptoms. With a lower rate of replication comes a lower rate of mutation and transmission, making you less of a vector. In other words, the vaccine is there to give your natural immune system the information to fight the virus. This is completely different from anti-biotics, there's nothing for the virus to beat other than your immune system. And new strains may be able to do that because of higher rates of transmission or greater replication or a number of other factors.

That's why we need to reach herd immunity. Polio is gone because we still vaccinate kids against it to this day. There aren't enough viable bodies unable to fight back to give the virus a chance to reach epidemic proportions.

Unfortunately, because Trump bumblefucked the response to the pandemic so badly, our window for achieving that is pretty much closed at this point. The virus was never contained, we're dealing with new variants, and vaccine hesitancy has only made the problem worse by ensuring that more bodies remain unequipped to fight back. Welcome to covid as the new seasonal flu. It is now endemic. And we'll probably need to get covid variant shots every year just like we get our flu shots every year. Masking up in the winter will probably be the new normal.

 

[Kwak]

Wrong. This article is misleading, as is your interpretation.

It describes an experiment done at Wuhan that is not really gain of function as would generally be interpreted: the virus was not modified to change its effectiveness. The target mouse to be infected was modified (and hence why it may fall into a grey area of "gain of function"). But this does not make the virus any more or less dangerous.

So, if we were to put it as "is this the sort of experiment we all got in a panic about a few months back where they were making more infectious viruses", the answer is emphatically no. Consequently, more to the point, this experiment does not meet the NIH's criteria for high concern. On either count, Fauci's claim that the NIH did not fund gain of function at Wuhan remains valid.

But this really doesn't sound good (from the yahoo link)

"In the letter to Representative James Comer (R., Ky.), Lawrence A. Tabak of the NIH cites a “limited experiment” that was conducted to test if “spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor in a mouse model.” The laboratory mice infected with the modified bat virus “became sicker” than those infected with the unmodified bat virus."

Why would they do that?

Then articles like this -

Internal Documents Further Contradict Fauci’s ‘Gain-of-Function’ Research Denials | National Review

A grant proposal submitted by EcoHealth Alliance suggests the NIH was funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan.

www.nationalreview.com

- are claiming they were attempting to make bat coronaviruses more transmissible
" The proposal directs $599,000 of the total grant to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for research designed to make the viruses more dangerous and/or infectious — and its author acknowledged the danger associated with such work. "
(can't see where the evidence of that is as there's no citation) - is there any legitimate non-malevolent scientific reason they would do that?

Here's the text of the proposal, as all other sources are conjecture. Can't see the line which proposes making them more transmissible, but it is in technical-speak.

RePORT 〉 RePORTER

reporter.nih.gov

...
Aim 1. Characterize the diversity and distribution of high spillover-risk SARSr-CoVs in bats in southern China. We will use phylogeographic and viral discovery curve analyses to target additional bat sample collection and molecular CoV screening to fill in gaps in our previous sampling and fully characterize natural SARSr-CoV diversity in southern China. We will sequence receptor binding domains (spike proteins) to identify viruses with the highest potential for spillover which we will include in our experimental investigations (Aim 3).
Aim 2. Community, and clinic-based syndromic, surveillance to capture SARSr-CoV spillover, routes of exposure and potential public health consequences. We will conduct biological-behavioral surveillance in high-risk populations, with known bat contact, in community and clinical settings to 1) identify risk factors for serological and PCR evidence of bat SARSr-CoVs; & 2) assess possible health effects of SARSr-CoVs infection in people. We will analyze bat-CoV serology against human-wildlife contact and exposure data to quantify risk factors and health impacts of SARSr-CoV spillover.
Aim 3. In vitro and in vivo characterization of SARSr-CoV spillover risk, coupled with spatial and phylogenetic analyses to identify the regions and viruses of public health concern. We will use S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that % divergence thresholds in S protein sequences predict spillover potential. We will combine these data with bat host distribution, viral diversity and phylogeny, human survey of risk behaviors and illness, and serology to identify SARSr-CoV spillover risk hotspots across southern China. Together these data and analyses will be critical for the future development of public health interventions and enhanced surveillance to prevent the re-emergence of SARS or the emergence of a novel SARSr-CoV.

....
This project seeks to understand what factors allow coronaviruses, including close relatives to SARS, to evolve and jump into the human population by studying viral diversity in their animal reservoirs (bats), surveying people that live in high-risk communities in China for evidence of bat-coronavirus infection, and conducting laboratory experiments to analyze and predict which newly-discovered viruses pose the greatest threat to human health.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

The covid vaccine does neither of those things as it stands now.

You and others have been proven wrong on this so many times, yet you keep repeating this. It's not ignorance any more; it's just a dogged determination to not admit that you're wrong.

 

[Agema]

But if you make the mouse capable of being infected by a virus that otherwise wouldn't infect it, does that in turn promote the virus to adapt within the new host to gain new infectability? Could that not be argued as gaining function by promoting virus mutation?

It is theoretically possible that the virus could mutate. But then, it could do that with pretty much any experiment: there are always some risks with viruses.

I would not call that a gain of function experiment, because the intent of the experiment was not gain of function: in fact, arguably any gain of function in this case would ruin the experiment because they wouldn't be testing the natural virus anymore. Furthermore, the experiment did not examine transmission between animals - so (in theory) the virus ain't going anywhere.

Why would they do that?

You find a novel virus. You want to know whether it is infectious to humans, or how infectious it is - because if it is infectious, it's a potential threat you might want to keep an eye on. So, you need to set up an experiment to see whether it can infect humans. You can't use humans, obviously (ethics), so you express the relevant target human protein in mice and test it on mice. This is the same principle as why we might test novel drugs on mice.

Here's the text of the proposal, as all other sources are conjecture.

Nothing in that proposal I can see is explicitly about modifying viruses. Virus modification might potentially fall under the sentence "We will use S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that % divergence thresholds in S protein sequences predict spillover potential." But on the other hand, that might just mean the sort of experiment described above.

What I think is quite interesting is that National Review are slightly cagey with the wording in their article: I suspect they know this is not quite the smoking gun they are portraying it as, leaving themselves wiggle room for plausible deniability. Less reputable media like the NYPost of course don't give a shit.

 

[Kwak]

You find a novel virus. You want to know whether it is infectious to humans, or how infectious it is - because if it is infectious, it's a potential threat you might want to keep an eye on. So, you need to set up an experiment to see whether it can infect humans. You can't use humans, obviously (ethics), so you express the relevant target human protein in mice and test it on mice. This is the same principle as why we might test novel drugs on mice.

Yeah I thought this would be the reason.
Is gain of function, modifying viruses to be more dangerous, a legitimate scientific tool, or solely a bio-warfare thing that all governments are (in theory) against?

 

[Agema]

Is gain of function, modifying viruses to be more dangerous, a legitimate scientific tool, or solely a bio-warfare thing that all governments are (in theory) against?

Before I answer whether it's legitimate, the obvious thing someone might want to test is to take a natural virus, and mutate it to see if it's more infectious in the new form - this might give them some idea of what could happen in natural mutation so they could prepare for a potential future zoonotic disease. In some cases, they could experimentally demonstrate how a virus could have mutated to better understand the process which again could provide advantages. If we still wonder whether SARS-CoV-2 is a lab leak, a gain of function experiment could be a way to help understand whether it was.

So, it is scientifically legitimate, but it's controversial. A lot of people, including experts in the field, do not think the information gained - particularly from the higher risk sorts of work - is worth the risk.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Leave the jokes to people who know what they're doing.

I didn't know facts and jokes were the same thing.

You do realise, don't you, that you're doing exactly what I accused you of, right there? The study provides evidence of mask effectiveness, and all you've done is mine it (twice now) for angles to argue otherwise!

Why would you recommend or mandate something for groups where it shows it doesn't work? Masks for those under 50 showed they didn't work. And, the vast majority of people (like the PRESIDENT) wear cloth masks and they don't do anything.

Here we go, President Biden is wearing a cloth mask now and it doesn't do anything.

I love the way you say that as if it isn't somehow every scientist's job to analyze data.

Most medical professionals aren't scientists and don't really analyze data. His job is literally to analyze data.

"Wah wah wah, systematic review says something I don't like so I'm going to bluster a whole load of waffle to fob it off"

Systematic review didn't say something I don't like, it just said outdoor transmission happens, which I never said it didn't. Show me outdoor tranmission happening at any meaningful rate and you still have not. It just says a super generic less than 10% where that can mean 9.9% or 0.0000001%. If I said more than 10 people died in car accidents, it could mean 11 or 40,000 or 10 million. It's as meaningless as the improper phrase of "I could care less".

"Probably"... because you haven't read it, which is precisely the sort of thing I'm pointing out. Which is also pretty amazing, because I literally quoted the paper in a reply to you months ago. Here it is again, just for you to ignore or instantly forget again:

"The antiviral effects of HCQ are well documented. It is also known that chloroquine, and probably HCQ, have zinc ionophore characteristics, increasing intracellular zinc concentrations... It has been hypothesised that zinc may enhance the efficacy of HCQ in treating COVID-19 patients"

Note the phrasing of the last sentence: zinc enhances the antiviral effect of HCQ, not that HCQ enhances the effectiveness of zinc.

Funny how you purposefully remove the line right inbetween those "Zinc itself is able to inhibit coronavirus RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) activity." This wasn't solely Zelenko's paper. I prefer to listen to any person speak themselves to get their unaltered opinion. That's why I didn't care to see the paper, I actually heard what his opinion was. It's like I can watch say Dr. Paul Offit answer questions for hours, I don't care about some random quote of his pulled into some news article when I can get his straight and complete words on something.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Yes! This is what prior studies have demonstrated, as Derwand et al (2020) cite above, which you'd know if only you'd read the science properly in the first place!

Like I said, I my knowledge of HCQ came from it working as a zinc ionophore for the antiviral effect and helping modulate the inflammatory response. I never said HCQ alone "killed" covid. I even said take a natural ionophore instead of HCQ and zinc because I never had much faith in HCQ. Taking some things that in theory could help a little that would do no harm (natural ionophore and zinc and vitamin d) is better than just laying in bed doing nothing. It's the exact logic of masks; we don't know if they work, but let's do it just in case.

Holy shit dude. Why would you really think introducing more unscientific crankery is helping your case?

Just pointing out that if vitamin d toxicity was a thing like you said it was, then where's all these people getting vitamin d toxicity from that protocol? Surely taking 2,000 or 5,000 or 10,000 IUs a day is safe. We do have long-term studies saying those amounts are safe anyway, which I post previously.

How do you think they came up with the side effect list for ivermectin?

Everything has side effects, I guess we shouldn't take any drugs for anything then. Show me ivermectin doing more harm than someone not taking it.

You mean a doctor who had not seen a patient prescribed ivermectin for that patient, and the hospital which was actually treating that patient declined to give it to them.

Nope, doctors that saw patients couldn't give them the drug they prescribed.