The Coronavirus - a virus from eating bats, an accident or something sinister gone wrong?

[Howe]

Interesting points from Switzerland. Unfortunately, we cannot trust any information from Dr. Fauci, the CDC or the FDA.

 

[Muda69]

The Feds Sent More than 1 Million Coronavirus Stimulus Payments to Dead People, GAO Says

https://reason.com/2020/06/25/the-feds-sent-more-than-1-million-coronavirus-stimulus-payments-to-dead-people-gao-says/

Quote

More than 1 million stimulus payments totaling nearly $1.4 billion were sent to deceased Americans during the federal government's unprecedented emergency spending in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

That's just one of the major findings in a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report reviewing the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, the $2.3 trillion stimulus package passed by Congress in late March. In addition to mailing checks to some dead people, the GAO found that federal agencies—like the Small Business Administration, which was tasked with processing more than $600 billion in payments to businesses forced to close by the pandemic—struggled to handle the massive surge in spending. That's caused confusion and left government auditors unable to do important oversight work.

"Consistent with the urgency of responding to serious and widespread health issues and economic disruptions, agencies have given priority to moving swiftly where possible to distribute funds and implement new programs," the GAO concluded. "As tradeoffs were made, however, agencies have made only limited progress so far in achieving transparency and accountability goals."

A major element of the CARES Act was the direct payments of up to $1,200 sent to every American. As of May 31, the Treasury Department had issued more than 160 million payments worth $269.3 billion via paper checks, prepaid debit cards, and direct deposits to bank accounts.

To distribute the money, the Treasury Department used 2019 tax return records, but it did not use "third-party data, such as the death records maintained by the Social Security Administration (SSA), to detect and prevent erroneous and fraudulent tax refund claims," the GAO found. As a result, individuals who may have died since filing their 2019 tax returns received direct payments through the CARES Act.

Mostly, that's because of the complexities of the federal bureaucracy. The GAO report states that the IRS has full legal access to the Social Security death list, but the Treasury Department's Bureau of Fiscal Service (BFS), which handled the distribution of the CARES Act payments, does not. Congress should allow the BFS to have access to that data if another round of stimulus payments are sent, the GAO suggests.

Officials from the IRS told the GAO that they raised that potential problem to Congress even before the CARES Act was passed. After the bill was passed, IRS attorneys determined that the agency did not have the legal authority to withhold payments from deceased individuals.

Officially, the IRS says that any payment made to a dead person must be returned, but the GAO notes that "the IRS does not currently plan to take additional steps to notify ineligible recipients on how to return payments."

The small business loans distributed as part of the CARES Act stimulus are another situation where the government's rush to get money out the door may have led to mistakes. The Paycheck Protection Program backed more than 4.6 million loans totaling over $500 billion, but the GAO found that many borrowers were not given proper guidance on how the loans would operate, including what rules would make a business eligible for loan forgiveness once the pandemic had passed.

"Because of the number of loans approved, the speed with which they were processed, and the limited safeguards, there is a significant risk that some fraudulent or inflated applications were approved," the GAO concludes.

The Treasury Department is refusing to disclose vital information about loan recipients, which will only make accountability measures more difficult to implement.

Fast-tracking the direct payments and other aspects of the coronavirus response  might have caused money to be wasted, but other reports indicate that the stimulus package accomplished its goal. Stuffing billions of dollars into the economy caused the poverty rate to fall even as millions of Americans were kept out of work by COVID-19 outbreaks, according to a report from the University of Chicago. Meanwhile, Commerce Department data shows that personal income rose by about 10 percent during April.

Still, the full cost of the CARES Act stimulus will be felt for years to come. That one-time infusion of cash has caused the expected budget deficit for 2020 to quadruple from about $1 trillion to nearly $4 trillion.

All to be paid by our children and grandchildren. 

 

[swordfish]

From a friend........

Covid-19 has become perhaps the most destructive farce in man's history, and we have only ourselves to blame.
We won't know until next summer or fall if it has had any impact on overall mortality; about 2.8 million Americans die every year from many causes (7,600 a day, 53,000 a week, 233,000 a month)
We do know it's not as deadly or communicable as advertised.
We do know there is an effective treatment; (chloroquine and antibiotics being used in Turkey)
We do know we've destroyed millions of lives with no convincing evidence that lives have been saved.
We do know that progressive states ordered covid patients into nursing homes, and that accounted for nearly half of all deaths.
I was skeptical when the pandemic began, and I'm convinced that we should all be living our lives normally. If you interact with an elderly, chronically I'll person, you should wear a mask, and protect them from this virus.

[Howe]

Robert F. Kennedy blasts Dr. Fauci

[Howe]

[swordfish]

https://yachatsnews.com/12119-2/

Oregon governor issues emergency order requiring people in Lincoln County and six other counties wear masks inside public places starting June 24

Lincoln County’s directive goes further than Brown’s order by also applying to outdoor settings where people or groups cannot maintain six feet of distance from other parties. The county’s orders also applies to bars, restaurants and other eating establishments except when the patron is eating or drinking.

But the order exempts children under 12, people with disabilities or breathing issues, or people of color who “have heightened concerns about racial profiling and harassment while wearing face coverings in public.”

You must wear a mask.....if your white......

Really confused, because early on in this COVID BS thing, we were led to believe that the black population was being afflicted a whole bunch worse than whites.......

[Bobref]

I hate to say I told you so, but those states that were in such a big hurry to “re-start” are paying the price now, like Texas, Arizona, and Florida:

https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20200626/florida-bans-drinking-at-bars-again-as-covid-19-cases-spike

Florida bans drinking at bars again as COVID-19 cases spike

The Five O’Clock Club at 1930 Hillview St. in Sarasota’s Southside Village recently reopened. Florida bars are being forced to close again as coronavirus cases spike. [PROVIDED PHOTO]

By Zac Anderson 
Political Editor

Posted at 11:33 AMUpdated at 1:02 PM

   

Halsey Beshears, the secretary of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, made the announcement about bars on Twitter Friday.

Florida is banning drinking at bars again as the state experiences a big surge in coronavirus cases.

Halsey Beshears, the secretary of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, made the announcement about bars on Twitter Friday.

“Effective immediately, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation is suspending on premises consumption of alcohol at bars statewide,” Beshears tweeted.

Florida’s bars were shutdown for two months to try and contain the spread of the coronavirus. Gov. Ron DeSantis allowed them to reopen in early June, but since then Florida has experienced a big wave of new coronavirus cases.

Florida again shattered the daily record for new cases Friday, with the state Department of Health reporting more than 8,000.

Effective immediately, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation is suspending on premises consumption of alcohol at bars statewide.

Bars were included in Phase 2 of the governor’s reopening plan, which also allowed movie theaters, bowling alleys, tattoo parlors and other businesses to reopen.

The decision to ban drinking at bars is a reversal from what DeSantis said last week about rolling back reopening efforts.

“We’re not rolling back,” DeSantis said at a news conference.

DeSantis said earlier this week that DBPR would crack down on bars and other establishments that were not following reopening guidelines. The agency revoked the liquor license of a bar near the University of Central Florida where multiple employees and patrons contracted the virus.

But the governor’s office appears to have concluded that stronger enforcement was not enough amid the flood of new coronavirus cases.

Florida continues to set daily records for new cases, with the state topping 4,000 cases in a single day for the first time, then 5,000 and now 8,000, all in the span of just the last week.

Florida has become one of the worst coronavirus hotspots in the nation.

DeSantis has been playing down the surge in cases by noting that many of those infected are younger and less likely to be seriously ill. He also has pointed to the availability of hospital beds, but bed availability has started declining in parts of the state.

The worsening outbreak has alarmed many health officials and policymakers. Cites and counties across the state have enacted, or are considering, new mask regulations that require facial coverings in certain public settings.

DeSantis has opposed a statewide mask rule.

Closing bars to everything but to-go orders is the most significant example of easing back on reopening, but it is not the only one.

Sarasota Memorial Hospital announced Thursday that it will ban visitors again starting today at 6 p.m..

Sarasota Memorial was treating 36 COVID-19 patients on Thursday, more than triple the number of patients hospitalized with the disease at the beginning of the month

[Howe]

 

[Muda69]

[Bobref]

@Howe and @DannEllenwood, still maintain that there’s no science behind the concept of universal masking? You need to travel outside the boundaries of the State of Denial. This study was published yesterday. If it’s too complicated for you, let me know and I’ll dumb it down.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6498/1422

Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

Kimberly A. Prather1, 

Chia C. Wang2,3, 

Robert T. Schooley4

 See all authors and affiliations

Science  26 Jun 2020:
Vol. 368, Issue 6498, pp. 1422-1424
DOI: 10.1126/science.abc6197 

Correctly fitted masks are an important tool to reduce airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2, particularly in enclosed spaces, such as on this Moscow Metro train in Russia.

PHOTO: SERGEI FADEICHEV/TASS VIA GETTY IMAGES

Respiratory infections occur through the transmission of virus-containing droplets (>5 to 10 µm) and aerosols (≤5 µm) exhaled from infected individuals during breathing, speaking, coughing, and sneezing. Traditional respiratory disease control measures are designed to reduce transmission by droplets produced in the sneezes and coughs of infected individuals. However, a large proportion of the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) appears to be occurring through airborne transmission of aerosols produced by asymptomatic individuals during breathing and speaking (1—3). Aerosols can accumulate, remain infectious in indoor air for hours, and be easily inhaled deep into the lungs. For society to resume, measures designed to reduce aerosol transmission must be implemented, including universal masking and regular, widespread testing to identify and isolate infected asymptomatic individuals.

Humans produce respiratory droplets ranging from 0.1 to 1000 µm. A competition between droplet size, inertia, gravity, and evaporation determines how far emitted droplets and aerosols will travel in air (4, 5). Larger respiratory droplets will undergo gravitational settling faster than they evaporate, contaminating surfaces and leading to contact transmission. Smaller droplets and aerosols will evaporate faster than they can settle, are buoyant, and thus can be affected by air currents, which can transport them over longer distances. Thus, there are two major respiratory virus transmission pathways: contact (direct or indirect between people and with contaminated surfaces) and airborne inhalation.

In addition to contributing to the extent of dispersal and mode of transmission, respiratory droplet size has been shown to affect the severity of disease. For example, influenza virus is more commonly contained in aerosols with sizes below 1 µm (submicron), which lead to more severe infection (4). In the case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), it is possible that submicron virus-containing aerosols are being transferred deep into the alveolar region of the lungs, where immune responses seem to be temporarily bypassed. SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to replicate three times faster than SARS-CoV-1 and thus can rapidly spread to the pharynx, from which it can be shed before the innate immune response becomes activated and produces symptoms (6). By the time symptoms occur, the patient has transmitted the virus without knowing.

Identifying infected individuals to curb SARS-CoV-2 transmission is more challenging compared to SARS and other respiratory viruses because infected individuals can be highly contagious for several days, peaking on or before symptoms occur (2, 7). These “silent shedders” could be critical drivers of the enhanced spread of SARS-CoV-2. In Wuhan, China, it has been estimated that undiagnosed cases of COVID-19 infection, who were presumably asymptomatic, were responsible for up to 79% of viral infections (3). Therefore, regular, widespread testing is essential to identify and isolate infected asymptomatic individuals.

Airborne transmission was determined to play a role during the SARS outbreak in 2003 (1, 4). However, many countries have not yet acknowledged airborne transmission as a possible pathway for SARS-CoV-2 (1). Recent studies have shown that in addition to droplets, SARS-CoV-2 may also be transmitted through aerosols. A study in hospitals in Wuhan, China, found SARS-CoV-2 in aerosols further than 6 feet from patients, with higher concentrations detected in more crowded areas (8). Estimates using an average sputum viral load for SARS-CoV-2 indicate that 1 min of loud speaking could generate >1000 virion-containing aerosols (9). Assuming viral titers for infected super-emitters (with 100-fold higher viral load than average) yields an increase to more than 100,000 virions in emitted droplets per minute of speaking.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for social distancing of 6 feet and hand washing to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 are based on studies of respiratory droplets carried out in the 1930s. These studies showed that large, ∼100 µm droplets produced in coughs and sneezes quickly underwent gravitational settling (1). However, when these studies were conducted, the technology did not exist for detecting submicron aerosols. As a comparison, calculations predict that in still air, a 100-µm droplet will settle to the ground from 8 feet in 4.6 s, whereas a 1-µm aerosol particle will take 12.4 hours (4). Measurements now show that intense coughs and sneezes that propel larger droplets more than 20 feet can also create thousands of aerosols that can travel even further (1). Increasing evidence for SARS-CoV-2 suggests the 6 feet CDC recommendation is likely not enough under many indoor conditions, where aerosols can remain airborne for hours, accumulate over time, and follow airflows over distances further than 6 feet (5, 10). 

Infectious aerosol particles can be released during breathing and speaking by asymptomatic infected individuals. No masking maximizes exposure, whereas universal masking results in the least exposure.

In outdoor environments, numerous factors will determine the concentrations and distance traveled, and whether respiratory viruses remain infectious in aerosols. Breezes and winds often occur and can transport infectious droplets and aerosols long distances. Asymptomatic individuals who are speaking while exercising can release infectious aerosols that can be picked up by airstreams (10). Viral concentrations will be more rapidly diluted outdoors, but few studies have been carried out on outdoor transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, SARS-CoV-2 can be inactivated by ultraviolet radiation in sunlight, and it is likely sensitive to ambient temperature and relative humidity, as well as the presence of atmospheric aerosols that occur in highly polluted areas. Viruses can attach to other particles such as dust and pollution, which can modify the aerodynamic characteristics and increase dispersion. Moreover, people living in areas with higher concentrations of air pollution have been shown to have higher severity of COVID-19 (11). Because respiratory viruses can remain airborne for prolonged periods before being inhaled by a potential host, studies are needed to characterize the factors leading to loss of infectivity over time in a variety of outdoor environments over a range of conditions

Given how little is known about the production and airborne behavior of infectious respiratory droplets, it is difficult to define a safe distance for social distancing. Assuming SARS-CoV-2 virions are contained in submicron aerosols, as is the case for influenza virus, a good comparison is exhaled cigarette smoke, which also contains submicron particles and will likely follow comparable flows and dilution patterns. The distance from a smoker at which one smells cigarette smoke indicates the distance in those surroundings at which one could inhale infectious aerosols. In an enclosed room with asymptomatic individuals, infectious aerosol concentrations can increase over time. Overall, the probability of becoming infected indoors will depend on the total amount of SARS-CoV-2 inhaled. Ultimately, the amount of ventilation, number of people, how long one visits an indoor facility, and activities that affect airflow will all modulate viral transmission pathways and exposure (10). For these reasons, it is important to wear properly fitted masks indoors even when 6 feet apart. Airborne transmission could account, in part, for the high secondary transmission rates to medical staff, as well as major outbreaks in nursing facilities. The minimum dose of SARS-CoV-2 that leads to infection is unknown, but airborne transmission through aerosols has been documented for other respiratory viruses, including measles, SARS, and chickenpox (4).

Airborne spread from undiagnosed infections will continuously undermine the effectiveness of even the most vigorous testing, tracing, and social distancing programs. After evidence revealed that airborne transmission by asymptomatic individuals might be a key driver in the global spread of COVID-19, the CDC recommended the use of cloth face coverings. Masks provide a critical barrier, reducing the number of infectious viruses in exhaled breath, especially of asymptomatic people and those with mild symptoms (12) (see the figure). Surgical mask material reduces the likelihood and severity of COVID-19 by substantially reducing airborne viral concentrations (13). Masks can also protect uninfected individuals from SARS-CoV-2 aerosols and droplets (13, 14). Thus, it is particularly important to wear masks in locations with conditions that can accumulate high concentrations of viruses, such as health care settings, airplanes, restaurants, and other crowded places with reduced ventilation. The aerosol filtering efficiency of different materials, thicknesses, and layers used in properly fitted homemade masks was recently found to be similar to that of the medical masks that were tested (14). Thus, the option of universal masking is no longer held back by shortages.

From epidemiological data, places that have been most effective in reducing the spread of COVID-19 have implemented universal masking, including Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea. In the battle against COVID-19, Taiwan (population 24 million, first COVID-19 case 21 January 2020) did not implement a lockdown during the pandemic, yet maintained a low incidence of 441 cases and 7 deaths (as of 21 May 2020). By contrast, the state of New York (population ∼20 million, first COVID case 1 March 2020), had a higher number of cases (353,000) and deaths (24,000). By quickly activating its epidemic response plan that was established after the SARS outbreak, the Taiwanese government enacted a set of proactive measures that successfully prevented the spread of SARS-CoV-2, including setting up a central epidemic command center in January, using technologies to detect and track infected patients and their close contacts, and perhaps most importantly, requesting people to wear masks in public places. The government also ensured the availability of medical masks by banning mask manufacturers from exporting them, implementing a system to ensure that every citizen could acquire masks at reasonable prices, and increasing the production of masks. In other countries, there have been widespread shortages of masks, resulting in most residents not having access to any form of medical mask (15). This striking difference in the availability and widespread adoption of wearing masks likely influenced the low number of COVID-19 cases.

Aerosol transmission of viruses must be acknowledged as a key factor leading to the spread of infectious respiratory diseases. Evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 is silently spreading in aerosols exhaled by highly contagious infected individuals with no symptoms. Owing to their smaller size, aerosols may lead to higher severity of COVID-19 because virus-containing aerosols penetrate more deeply into the lungs (10). It is essential that control measures be introduced to reduce aerosol transmission. A multidisciplinary approach is needed to address a wide range of factors that lead to the production and airborne transmission of respiratory viruses, including the minimum virus titer required to cause COVID-19; viral load emitted as a function of droplet size before, during, and after infection; viability of the virus indoors and outdoors; mechanisms of transmission; airborne concentrations; and spatial patterns. More studies of the filtering efficiency of different types of masks are also needed. COVID-19 has inspired research that is already leading to a better understanding of the importance of airborne transmission of respiratory disease.

Edited June 27, 2020 by Bobref

[Howe]

45 minutes ago, Bobref said:

@Howe and @DannEllenwood, still maintain that there’s no science behind the concept of universal masking? 

I have never posted a comment stating “there’s no science behind the concept of universal masking” or any statement even close. I have never seen a comment from DannEllenwood even close either. The guy who created the COVID-19 virus has stated such on national television.          

     

[Howe]

BREAKING: KENNEDY EXPOSES DR. FAUCI’S ROLE IN CREATING HIGHLY INFECTIOUS MUTANT STRAIN OF CORONAVIRUS

 

The Daily Mail today reports that it has uncovered documents showing that Anthony Fauci’s NIAID gave $3.7 million to scientists at the Wuhan Lab at the center of Coronavirus leak scrutiny. According to the British paper, “the federal grant funded experiments on bats from the caves where the virus is believed to have originated”

Background; following the 2002-2003 SARS coronavirus outbreak, NIH a collaboration by Chinese scientists, US military virologists from the bioweapons lab at Ft. Detrick and NIH scientists from the NIAID to prevent future coronavirus outbreaks by studying the evolution of virulent strains from bats in human tissue.

Those efforts included “gain of function” research that used a process called “accelerated evolution” to create Covid Pandemic superbugs; enhanced bat born Covid mutants more lethal and more transmissable than wild COVID. Fauci’s studies alarmed scientists around the world who complained, according to a Dec 2017 NY Times article that: “these researchers risk creating a monster germ that could escape the lab and seed a pandemic”

Dr. Mark Lipsitch of the Harvard School of Public Health’s Communicable Disease Center told the Times that Dr. Fauci’s NIAID experiments “have given us some modest scientific knowledge and done almost nothing to improve our preparedness for pandemic, and yet risked creating an accidental pandemic”

In October 2014, following a series of Federal laboratory mishaps that narrowly missed releasing these deadly engineered viruses, President Obama ordered a halt to all federal funding for Dr. Fauci’s dangerous experiments.

It now appears that Fauci may have dodged the federal restrictions by shifting the research to the military lab in Wuhan. Congress needs to launch and investigation of NIAID’s mischief in China.

https://www.fort-russ.com/2020/04/breaking-kennedy-exposes-dr-faucis-role-in-creating-highly-infectious-mutant-strain-of-coronavirus/

 

 

Fin

[Guest]

Never said it. I choose not to wear a mask. My body. My choice. Once the murder of babies is outlawed, I’ll think about wearing a mask. Until then, forget it. 
If rioters, looters and anarchists can burn cities to the ground then shutdowns NEED TO BE ILLEGAL!  

[Bobref]

23 minutes ago, DannEllenwood said:

Never said it. I choose not to wear a mask. My body. My choice. Once the murder of babies is outlawed, I’ll think about wearing a mask. Until then, forget it. 
If rioters, looters and anarchists can burn cities to the ground then shutdowns NEED TO BE ILLEGAL!  

We have a new leader in the clubhouse for the greatest non sequitur in the history of the GID.

[Howe]

Did Dr. Fauci Fund the Research That Led to Coronavirus Outbreak?

Did Dr. Anthony Fauci fund, with American taxpayer dollars, the research that produced the coronavirus that has shut down and locked up the mightiest and most free nation in history? The answer is, “Probably yes.” Should he have known better? The answer is, “Indubitably yes.” 

Dr. Fauci has been virtually worshiped as an icon by the press and the public has been played by Brad Pitt on Saturday Night Live and is being considered for Sexiest Man of the Year. According to Newsweek, he is something of “an American folk hero for his calm, steady leadership” during the crisis. 

Just last year, Dr. Fauci, who heads up the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIH), sent the scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology a boatload of

money to pursue gain-of-function research on bat viruses, research which has been going on at Wuhan for years. “Gain-of-function” refers to research that involves manipulating viruses in the lab “to explore their potential for infecting humans.” (Emphasis mine throughout.) 

Writes Newsweek, “Gain-of-function techniques have been used to turn viruses into human pathogens capable of causing a global pandemic.” The catastrophic risks, should one of these manipulated viruses escape containment, are obvious. 

The U.S. Embassy warned in January of 2018 that the Wuhan Institute had a record of shoddy practices that could lead to an accidental release. According to its cable, “[T]he new lab has a serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to safely operate this high-containment laboratory.” 

The Obama administration was so alarmed by worries about an outbreak that they suspended support for this kind of research at Wuhan in 2014. But when Trump took office, Fauci was able to persuade him that it was safe, and the project resumed in 2017. The second tranche of multi-million dollar funding came in 2019, and this stash was particularly devoted to understanding how bat coronaviruses could mutate to attack humans. The National Institutes of Health canceled this project for a second time on April 24, just two weeks ago. Dr. Fauci has not responded to Newsweek’s request for comment. 

Richard Ebright, an infectious disease expert at Rutgers University, said the project description refers to experiments that are designed to enhance the ability of bat coronavirus to infect human cells through genetic engineering. The risk of causing a pandemic through an accidental release from the lab is obviously a prime concern. Our intelligence agencies now believe the pandemic outbreak may have emerged “accidentally” due to “unsafe laboratory practices” at the Wuhan lab. 

This research at WIV, research funded with our tax dollars, was dedicated to deliberately creating a version of a bat virus that could be transmitted to humans. The insane purpose here was ostensibly to develop such a virus so it could be studied and a therapeutic response developed before it caused a worldwide pandemic. This kind of research is so obviously crazy and dangerous that 200 research scientists wrote a letter pleading that such foolish and potentially lethal research be terminated. 

But the NIH, under the direction of Dr. Fauci, sent $3.7 million to the WIV lab in 2014, and then showered the Chinese scientists at this lab with another $3.7 million in 2019 to keep their work going, the work of developing a bat virus that could attack people. Two back-to-back 5-year projects that took $7.4 million out of taxpayer pockets and out of the United States. 

When the NIH ended Obama’s moratorium on this research, and the second phase of research began, NIH established a framework to determine how the research would go forward. The heart of the framework was that scientists would have to get approval from a panel of experts who would decide whether the obvious risks were justified. 

The kicker here is that these reviews were conducted in secret. After Science magazine discovered that NIH had approved two influenza projects using gain-of-function methods, scientists rightly opposed to this kind of research wrote a scathing editorial in the Washington Post. 

The authors were Tom Inglesby of Johns Hopkins and Mark Liptsitch of Harvard. “We have serious doubts about whether these experiments should be conducted at all. With deliberations kept behind closed doors, none of us will have the opportunity to understand how the government arrived at these decisions or to judge the rigor and 

integrity of that process." 

Dr. Fauci began working in earnest on gain-of-function research over a decade ago, in connection with bird-flu viruses. The research involved taking wild viruses and passing them through live animals until they mutated into a form that could actually pose a pandemic threat. These researchers would take a virus that was poorly transmitted among humans and turn it into one that was highly transmissible. 

Ferrets were the animals of choice. Ferrets were deliberately infected and researchers allowed the virus to mutate in the lab’s ferret colony. The mutations continued until the virus was able to infect a ferret that had not been deliberately infected with the disease. 

Researcher Ron Fouchier of Erasmus University in Holland knew he had succeeded when a virus jumped from an infected ferret to an uninfected ferret in an adjacent cage who had had no contact with the infected animal. Transmissibility had been achieved, and Fouchier had created a pandemic-causing virus in his lab. Fouchier's work, wrote Harvard epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch in the journal Nature in 2015, "entails a unique risk that a laboratory accident could spark a pandemic, killing millions." 

A consortium of 17 scientists, the Cambridge Working Group, issued a statement of protest, that was eventually endorsed by 200 scientists (mentioned above) because well, accidents happen. Here’s how the statement read in part: “Laboratory creation of highly transmissible, novel strains of dangerous viruses...poses substantially increased risks. An accidental infection in such a setting could trigger outbreaks that would be difficult or impossible to control.” 

Fauci defended this kind of research in a 2011 op-ed in the Washington Post, writing that “information gained through biomedical research...provides a critical foundation...for generating countermeasures, and, ultimately protecting the public health.” 

Bottom line: it appears that dangerously misguided research in Wuhan, funded by U.S. taxpayer dollars under the direction of Dr. Fauci, created the virus that is now plaguing the world. The research was allowed to continue by Dr. Fauci despite warnings from 200 prominent scientists that such research was exceedingly dangerous. It may be time to ask whether Dr. Fauci is in the right place at the right time.

https://www.afa.net/the-stand/culture/2020/05/did-dr-fauci-fund-the-research-that-led-to-coronavirus-outbreak/

 

 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Bobref said:

We have a new leader in the clubhouse for the greatest non sequitur in the history of the GID.

My body, my choice Bob.  Same thing.  You know this as a legal beagle.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Howe said:

Did Dr. Fauci Fund the Research That Led to Coronavirus Outbreak?

Did Dr. Anthony Fauci fund, with American taxpayer dollars, the research that produced the coronavirus that has shut down and locked up the mightiest and most free nation in history? The answer is, “Probably yes.” Should he have known better? The answer is, “Indubitably yes.” 

Dr. Fauci has been virtually worshiped as an icon by the press and the public has been played by Brad Pitt on Saturday Night Live and is being considered for Sexiest Man of the Year. According to Newsweek, he is something of “an American folk hero for his calm, steady leadership” during the crisis. 

Just last year, Dr. Fauci, who heads up the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIH), sent the scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology a boatload of

money to pursue gain-of-function research on bat viruses, research which has been going on at Wuhan for years. “Gain-of-function” refers to research that involves manipulating viruses in the lab “to explore their potential for infecting humans.” (Emphasis mine throughout.) 

Writes Newsweek, “Gain-of-function techniques have been used to turn viruses into human pathogens capable of causing a global pandemic.” The catastrophic risks, should one of these manipulated viruses escape containment, are obvious. 

The U.S. Embassy warned in January of 2018 that the Wuhan Institute had a record of shoddy practices that could lead to an accidental release. According to its cable, “[T]he new lab has a serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to safely operate this high-containment laboratory.” 

The Obama administration was so alarmed by worries about an outbreak that they suspended support for this kind of research at Wuhan in 2014. But when Trump took office, Fauci was able to persuade him that it was safe, and the project resumed in 2017. The second tranche of multi-million dollar funding came in 2019, and this stash was particularly devoted to understanding how bat coronaviruses could mutate to attack humans. The National Institutes of Health canceled this project for a second time on April 24, just two weeks ago. Dr. Fauci has not responded to Newsweek’s request for comment. 

Richard Ebright, an infectious disease expert at Rutgers University, said the project description refers to experiments that are designed to enhance the ability of bat coronavirus to infect human cells through genetic engineering. The risk of causing a pandemic through an accidental release from the lab is obviously a prime concern. Our intelligence agencies now believe the pandemic outbreak may have emerged “accidentally” due to “unsafe laboratory practices” at the Wuhan lab. 

This research at WIV, research funded with our tax dollars, was dedicated to deliberately creating a version of a bat virus that could be transmitted to humans. The insane purpose here was ostensibly to develop such a virus so it could be studied and a therapeutic response developed before it caused a worldwide pandemic. This kind of research is so obviously crazy and dangerous that 200 research scientists wrote a letter pleading that such foolish and potentially lethal research be terminated. 

But the NIH, under the direction of Dr. Fauci, sent $3.7 million to the WIV lab in 2014, and then showered the Chinese scientists at this lab with another $3.7 million in 2019 to keep their work going, the work of developing a bat virus that could attack people. Two back-to-back 5-year projects that took $7.4 million out of taxpayer pockets and out of the United States. 

When the NIH ended Obama’s moratorium on this research, and the second phase of research began, NIH established a framework to determine how the research would go forward. The heart of the framework was that scientists would have to get approval from a panel of experts who would decide whether the obvious risks were justified. 

The kicker here is that these reviews were conducted in secret. After Science magazine discovered that NIH had approved two influenza projects using gain-of-function methods, scientists rightly opposed to this kind of research wrote a scathing editorial in the Washington Post. 

The authors were Tom Inglesby of Johns Hopkins and Mark Liptsitch of Harvard. “We have serious doubts about whether these experiments should be conducted at all. With deliberations kept behind closed doors, none of us will have the opportunity to understand how the government arrived at these decisions or to judge the rigor and 

integrity of that process." 

Dr. Fauci began working in earnest on gain-of-function research over a decade ago, in connection with bird-flu viruses. The research involved taking wild viruses and passing them through live animals until they mutated into a form that could actually pose a pandemic threat. These researchers would take a virus that was poorly transmitted among humans and turn it into one that was highly transmissible. 

Ferrets were the animals of choice. Ferrets were deliberately infected and researchers allowed the virus to mutate in the lab’s ferret colony. The mutations continued until the virus was able to infect a ferret that had not been deliberately infected with the disease. 

Researcher Ron Fouchier of Erasmus University in Holland knew he had succeeded when a virus jumped from an infected ferret to an uninfected ferret in an adjacent cage who had had no contact with the infected animal. Transmissibility had been achieved, and Fouchier had created a pandemic-causing virus in his lab. Fouchier's work, wrote Harvard epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch in the journal Nature in 2015, "entails a unique risk that a laboratory accident could spark a pandemic, killing millions." 

A consortium of 17 scientists, the Cambridge Working Group, issued a statement of protest, that was eventually endorsed by 200 scientists (mentioned above) because well, accidents happen. Here’s how the statement read in part: “Laboratory creation of highly transmissible, novel strains of dangerous viruses...poses substantially increased risks. An accidental infection in such a setting could trigger outbreaks that would be difficult or impossible to control.” 

Fauci defended this kind of research in a 2011 op-ed in the Washington Post, writing that “information gained through biomedical research...provides a critical foundation...for generating countermeasures, and, ultimately protecting the public health.” 

Bottom line: it appears that dangerously misguided research in Wuhan, funded by U.S. taxpayer dollars under the direction of Dr. Fauci, created the virus that is now plaguing the world. The research was allowed to continue by Dr. Fauci despite warnings from 200 prominent scientists that such research was exceedingly dangerous. It may be time to ask whether Dr. Fauci is in the right place at the right time.

https://www.afa.net/the-stand/culture/2020/05/did-dr-fauci-fund-the-research-that-led-to-coronavirus-outbreak/

 

 

Facts matter.

[Guest]

On 6/26/2020 at 8:28 AM, swordfish said:

From a friend........

Covid-19 has become perhaps the most destructive farce in man's history, and we have only ourselves to blame.
We won't know until next summer or fall if it has had any impact on overall mortality; about 2.8 million Americans die every year from many causes (7,600 a day, 53,000 a week, 233,000 a month)
We do know it's not as deadly or communicable as advertised.
We do know there is an effective treatment; (chloroquine and antibiotics being used in Turkey)
We do know we've destroyed millions of lives with no convincing evidence that lives have been saved.
We do know that progressive states ordered covid patients into nursing homes, and that accounted for nearly half of all deaths.
I was skeptical when the pandemic began, and I'm convinced that we should all be living our lives normally. If you interact with an elderly, chronically I'll person, you should wear a mask, and protect them from this virus.

Facts matter!

 

[Bobref]

1 hour ago, DannEllenwood said:

My body, my choice Bob.  Same thing.  You know this as a legal beagle.

You couldn’t be more wrong, and your analogy to abortion could not be farther off the mark.

[dazed and confused]

12 hours ago, DannEllenwood said:

Never said it. I choose not to wear a mask(except on the airplane). My body. My choice(except on the airplane). Once the murder of babies is outlawed, I’ll think about wearing a mask. Until then, forget it(except on the airplane). 
If rioters, looters and anarchists can burn cities to the ground then shutdowns NEED TO BE ILLEGAL!  

but you did say  "Still have NOT worn a mask besides on the airplane." so I took the liberty to edit this comment to make it more truthful.

[Bobref]

14 hours ago, DannEllenwood said:

Never said it. I choose not to wear a mask. My body. My choice. Once the murder of babies is outlawed, I’ll think about wearing a mask. Until then, forget it. 
If rioters, looters and anarchists can burn cities to the ground then shutdowns NEED TO BE ILLEGAL!  

Let’s see if your “analysis” can stand up to a little cross-examination, just for the heck of it. Do you have any kids attending public schools?

Did you know that a public school student in Indiana, by the time he hits the 6th grade, is required to show proof of multiple vaccinations against diseases like pertussis, polio, measles, varicella (chicken pox), mumps, rubella, Hepatitis A and B, diphtheria, tetanus, etc.? That’s a lot of needle sticks. Your body, your choice. How do you feel about that?

[Bobref]

21 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

C'mon Bob...dumb it down?  Being a great lawyer does not make you a health professional...regardless of the hotels you choose to stay......😉

You don’t have to be a health professional to understand the article. And there’s no need to “dumb it down for you. That was meant for someone else. 🤣

For the record, I do agree with wearing masks.  But the data out there is very split when it comes to the level of effectiveness for surgical masks.  Even more split on wearing cloth masks.  My workplace no longer allows cloth masks. 

I wear an N95 in public. And the Science article uses the very latest data on mask effectiveness.

What makes this all interesting is that in some states, COVID is on the increase, while in other states that is not the case.  And many of those states that are holding it in check are not necessarily the best at wearing masks and social distancing.  I would not call our state the best at precautions.  

The states experiencing the greatest surges — Florida and Texas - were among the first and most aggressive in rolling back restrictions. Florida is now starting to backpedal. They closed bars this past week.

What is true in all cases is that the mortality rate for COVID is on the decrease...even with the increase in incidence.  That is what we don't understand and I will be glad when we do understand why the relationship to incidence and mortality have changed.  I hope this change is permanent....but none of us truly know.

it’s no mystery. We’ve just gotten a lot better at diagnosing and treating COVID-19. Just a product of experience. The public has also been sensitized so that now people are seeking treatment earlier.

 

[Howe]

The manufacturing plant where I am employed had five people test positive for the coronavirus about six weeks ago. The company implemented a mandatory mask policy. Approximately 400 union employee's refused to comply. As the weather keeps getting warmer the number of employee's who refuse to wear a mask is currently around 700. No one else has tested positive for the coronavirus. I am a member of management therefore I must comply with the mandatory mask policy until it is lifted. 

[Howe]

 

[Bobref]

On 6/27/2020 at 3:14 PM, DannEllenwood said:

Never said it. I choose not to wear a mask. My body. My choice. Once the murder of babies is outlawed, I’ll think about wearing a mask. Until then, forget it. 
If rioters, looters and anarchists can burn cities to the ground then shutdowns NEED TO BE ILLEGAL!  

 

10 hours ago, Bobref said:

Let’s see if your “analysis” can stand up to a little cross-examination, just for the heck of it. Do you have any kids attending public schools?

Did you know that a public school student in Indiana, by the time he hits the 6th grade, is required to show proof of multiple vaccinations against diseases like pertussis, polio, measles, varicella (chicken pox), mumps, rubella, Hepatitis A and B, diphtheria, tetanus, etc.? That’s a lot of needle sticks. Your body, your choice. How do you feel about that?

[crickets]🦗