patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,191,210 comments by 13,859 users - Ceffer, DhammaStep, Patrick, richwicks, UkraineIsTotallyFucked online now
Here's the law which Fauci violated
invite response
2021 Jun 4, 12:03pm 784 views 11 comments
by Rin ➕follow (8) 💰tip ignore
Comments 1 - 11 of 11 Search these comments
1
mell
2021 Jun 4, 12:11pm
The timing to allow gof research under a disguise just before Trump was inaugurated coupled with the timing of the leaked virus one year before the election could point to a deliberate attempt to remove Trump from office. That's because any catastrophe (that cannot be turned into nationalism via a war with a clearly defined enemy) and its consequences will always be pinned onto the currently sitting president. If that turns out to be true millions would have died because of TDS. Accidental or deliberate leak, the gallows should await those responsible.
2
Onvacation
2021 Jun 4, 1:00pm
Onvacation
2021 Jun 4, 1:00pm
ThreeBays says
I've got to agree here. Fauci and Gates weren't thinking of "knowingly develops, produces, stock-piles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon" .
They just wanted to make a bunch of money and cull the world of a lot of useless eaters.
Emphasis on knowingly assists. It's pretty clear that is not the case.
I've got to agree here. Fauci and Gates weren't thinking of "knowingly develops, produces, stock-piles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon" .
They just wanted to make a bunch of money and cull the world of a lot of useless eaters.
3
Patrick
2021 Jun 4, 1:44pm
Patrick
2021 Jun 4, 1:44pm
ThreeBays says
I think the opposite is pretty clear.
https://nypost.com/2021/03/27/chinas-deception-over-covid-origins-more-outrageous-every-day/
Emphasis on knowingly assists. It's pretty clear that is not the case.
I think the opposite is pretty clear.
The former leader of the State Department’s task force investigating the origins of COVID-19 not only believes the virus escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, but also that it was the result of bioweapons research.
“The Wuhan Institute of Virology is not the National Institute of Health,” says David Asher. “It was operating a secret, classified program. In my view, and I’m just one person, my view is it was a biological weapons program.”
https://nypost.com/2021/03/27/chinas-deception-over-covid-origins-more-outrageous-every-day/
4
Patrick
2021 Jun 4, 3:21pm
Patrick
2021 Jun 4, 3:21pm
https://patrick.net/post/1339531/2021-06-04-ccp-military-scientist-filed-patent-feb
More evidence that Fauci knowingly assisted a foreign state in creating a biological weapon.
More evidence that Fauci knowingly assisted a foreign state in creating a biological weapon.
5
stfu
2021 Jun 4, 3:41pm
Rin says
No, because there is only one party.
Will the next Congress, once the Dems lose the majority, start one?
No, because there is only one party.
6
EBGuy
2021 Jun 4, 4:54pm
On gain-of-function research...
In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic? Many ask reasonable questions: given the possibility of such a scenario—however remote—should the initial experiments have been performed and/or published in the first place, and what were the processes involved in this decision?
Scientists working in this field might say—as indeed I have said—that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks. It is more likely that a pandemic would occur in nature, and the need to stay ahead of such a threat is a primary reason for performing an experiment that might appear to be risky. However, we must respect that there are genuine and legitimate concerns about this type of research, both domestically and globally. We cannot expect those who have these concerns to simply take us, the scientific community, at our word that the benefits of this work outweigh the risks, nor can we ignore their calls for greater transparency, their concerns about conflicts of interest, and their efforts to engage in a dialog about whether these experiments should have been performed in the first place. Those of us in the scientific community who believe in the merits of this work have the responsibility to address these concerns thoughtfully and respectfully.
Granted, the time it takes to engage in such a dialog could potentially delay or even immobilize the conduct of certain important experiments and the publication of valuable information that could move the field forward for the good of public health. Within the research community, many have expressed concern that important research progress could come to a halt just because of the fear that someone, somewhere, might attempt to replicate these experiments sloppily. This is a valid concern.
Anthony Fauci, 2012
American Society for Microbiology Journal, mBio
https://journals.asm.org/doi/full/10.1128/mBio.00359-12
In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic? Many ask reasonable questions: given the possibility of such a scenario—however remote—should the initial experiments have been performed and/or published in the first place, and what were the processes involved in this decision?
Scientists working in this field might say—as indeed I have said—that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks. It is more likely that a pandemic would occur in nature, and the need to stay ahead of such a threat is a primary reason for performing an experiment that might appear to be risky. However, we must respect that there are genuine and legitimate concerns about this type of research, both domestically and globally. We cannot expect those who have these concerns to simply take us, the scientific community, at our word that the benefits of this work outweigh the risks, nor can we ignore their calls for greater transparency, their concerns about conflicts of interest, and their efforts to engage in a dialog about whether these experiments should have been performed in the first place. Those of us in the scientific community who believe in the merits of this work have the responsibility to address these concerns thoughtfully and respectfully.
Granted, the time it takes to engage in such a dialog could potentially delay or even immobilize the conduct of certain important experiments and the publication of valuable information that could move the field forward for the good of public health. Within the research community, many have expressed concern that important research progress could come to a halt just because of the fear that someone, somewhere, might attempt to replicate these experiments sloppily. This is a valid concern.
Anthony Fauci, 2012
American Society for Microbiology Journal, mBio
https://journals.asm.org/doi/full/10.1128/mBio.00359-12
7
Rin
2021 Jun 4, 5:16pm
Rin
2021 Jun 4, 5:16pm
Patrick says
The big thing, which everyone should be asking, guilty or not, is why was a potential biohazard being worked upon ... in a non-NATO lab?
If I recall the final years of the 90s, when the Cold War was winding down, a US company could not assemble supercomputing facilities outside of our NATO/SEATO allies and let's face it, w/o having a team of hackers a/o cryptographers around, even our enemies wouldn't get much mileage out of such a facility.
But here, it's like offering candy to a baby.
ThreeBays saysEmphasis on knowingly assists. It's pretty clear that is not the case.
I think the opposite is pretty clear.The former leader of the State Department’s task force investigating the origins of COVID-19 not only believes the virus escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, but also that it was the result of bioweapons research.
“The Wuhan Institute of Virology is not the National Institute of Health,” says David Asher. “It was operating a secret, classified program. In my view, and I’m just one person, my view is it was a biological weapons program.”
The big thing, which everyone should be asking, guilty or not, is why was a potential biohazard being worked upon ... in a non-NATO lab?
If I recall the final years of the 90s, when the Cold War was winding down, a US company could not assemble supercomputing facilities outside of our NATO/SEATO allies and let's face it, w/o having a team of hackers a/o cryptographers around, even our enemies wouldn't get much mileage out of such a facility.
But here, it's like offering candy to a baby.
9
Patrick
2021 Jun 4, 5:25pm
Patrick
2021 Jun 4, 5:25pm
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9653363/Dr-Peter-Daszak-spotted-outside-million-dollar-home-upstate-New-York.html
The PENTAGON gave money to Daszak to help create the virus in Wuhan?
WTF
Sure sounds like a bioweapon.
EXCLUSIVE: British doctor Peter Daszak who tried to gag the Wuhan lab leak theory is seen outside his million-dollar home in upstate NY as it's revealed he has IGNORED Congress' demands for answers
DailyMail.com spotted Dr. Peter Daszak outside of his million dollar home in an affluent neighborhood of Rockland County, New York on Friday
The House Energy and Commerce Committee sent Daszak 34 questions about his charity's involvement with the Wuhan lab in April with a May 17 deadline
Daszak has failed to respond to any of its questions about his charity, EcoHealth Alliance, and its federal funding, according to a well-placed source
That funding went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China, which is accused of being the source of Covid-19
Rather than answer DailyMail.com's questions about his involvement in Wuhan, he said, 'Goodbye, I have no comment' and called the police
Federal data seen reveals the Pentagon gave $39 million to EcoHealth Alliance between 2013 and 2020
The PENTAGON gave money to Daszak to help create the virus in Wuhan?
WTF
Sure sounds like a bioweapon.
11
Patrick
2021 Jun 5, 10:47am
https://twitter.com/Not_the_Bee/status/1399966243017445378
Patrick
2021 Jun 5, 10:47am
- He had some urgent discussions about gain of function.
- Ignored scientist who told him China lied about virus and data.
- Was informed about possible Wuhan lab leak.
- Told on email that retail masks don't work due to size of virus.
https://twitter.com/Not_the_Bee/status/1399966243017445378
"(a) IN GENERAL.—Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stock-piles, transfers,
acquires, retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system
for use as a weapon, or knowingly assists a foreign state or any organization
to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years,
or both. There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this sec-tion
committed by or against a national of the United States. "
I think it's clear that our 'bought & paid for' Biden admin is not going to pursue war crimes investigation into Fauci, Gates, and the merry band at the NIH.
Will the next Congress, once the Dems lose the majority, start one?