Tuesday, May 11, 2021

Tucker Carlson: Why Isn't There a Criminal Investigation of Toni Fauci's Role in the Creation of the Covid Pandemic?


Related: 

....As scientists with relevant expertise, we agree with the WHO director-general (5), the United States and 13 other countries (6), and the European Union (7) that greater clarity about the origins of this pandemic is necessary and feasible to achieve. We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data. A proper investigation should be transparent, objective, data-driven, inclusive of broad expertise, subject to independent oversight, and responsibly managed to minimize the impact of conflicts of interest. Public health agencies and research laboratories alike need to open their records to the public. Investigators should document the veracity and provenance of data from which analyses are conducted and conclusions drawn, so that analyses are reproducible by independent experts. ....

11 comments:

  1. A lot of China's economic success has been based on what I call regulatory arbitrage. Their health and safety standards for workers are nearly nonexistent, so they have no hindrances or "extra" costs associated with environmental standards-- or really any of that. They really just don't care.

    It seems extremely odd they don't have costs associated with labor unions. The whole country is, in a way, to function as a labor union. In the USA, the labor unions had to fight hard battles to win health and safety protections for workers until, during the New Deal, the federal government took up this task much more actively.

    Regulatory arbitrage may be a more important factor than cheap Chinese labor, especially as human labor becomes ever more unnecessary in production.

    Probably Fauci used the Wuhan lab because he wanted to circumvent protections imposed on this research in the USA. I don't think this work would have been allowed here, but I am certain it wouldn't have been allowed here without the highest levels of protection from the gain of function potential pandemic pathogen.

    Look at this from the NIH:

    https://osp.od.nih.gov/biotechnology/gain-of-function-research/

    Yep.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It sounds to me as if Fauci is exempted from these guidelines as per the footnote quoted by Tucker. So I believe Tucker answered his own question. What is criminal and not criminal is based on what the laws say is or is not criminal. The ethical questions-- and the moral ones-- citizens need to keep pounding away to see them asked and answered and enacted legislatively by decent men and patriots. Maybe Tucker could have framed his comments more along these lines.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "It sounds to me as if Fauci is exempted from these guidelines as per the footnote quoted by Tucker."

    Carlson would presumably argue that there was no urgent necessity in terms of public health or national security to justify the research.

    Carlson seems to be wrong in claiming that the Wuhan virology lab was a Level 2 facility. According to this 2017 report in Nature, the gain of function research conducted in Wuhan meant an upgrade in the lab to BSL 4.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But as Nicholas Wade indicates in his Medium article, the Wuhan institution had multiple labs not all BSL4, and the creation of the hybrid corona viruses was conducted in a Level 2 lab as Carlson correctly stated.

      Delete
  4. "Carlson would presumably argue that there was no urgent necessity in terms of public health or national security to justify the research."

    He'd be exactly right, too. There was no urgent necessity or public health or national security to justify this.

    The problem is, it is only Anthony Fauci, as an exalted head of one of our beautiful and astonishing institutions, says there is urgent necessity in terms of public health or national security to justify the research, that's that.

    There is urgent necessity in terms of public health or national security to justify the research. Fauci was best of the best, and he thought this was urgent necessity in terms of public health or national security to justify the research, so the rest of us, can just sit back and cry into our beer, or vodka, or good scotch, Irish whiskey, or Beefeaters gin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The problem is, it is only Anthony Fauci, as an exalted head of one of our beautiful and astonishing institutions, says there is urgent necessity in terms of public health or national security to justify the research, that's that."

      At least Faucie might be required to spell out the logic by which the creation of biological weapons of mass destruction in highly insecure facilities was something to funded by the American taxpayer. If his logic is as feeble as that behind his mask mandate, the exercise might lead to his replacement by someone, if no less mendacious, at least less annoyingly arrogant.

      Delete
  5. But there is a huge problem with the Carlson/Wade assumption that Covid spread worldwide from Wuhan beginning in late fall 2019, this being that Covid is reported to have been present in other locations before then, including Barcelona, Spain in the spring of 2019, and in Italy in the fall of 2019.

    Moreover, covid was widespread in the US during the December 2019/January 2020 period. And it was present in British Columbia by the first week January 2020, because that's when everyone in my household had it, which is to say we had a flu-like infection with headache, fever, prolonged congestion, which could not have been flu, since as everyone knows, there was no flu in 2020.

    Interestingly, the British Columbia Center for Disease Control sought volunteers for Covid testing in early 2020 and I sought to be among those tested. However, many months later I received an email notifying me that the proposed testing had been cancelled. No reason was given, which raises the question whether it was cancelled when it was realized the results could contradict the government/MSM narrative.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for all of this, CS. It is extremely useful.

      It is possible more than one thing is happening but so far it has not been possible to distinguish between different types of events and occurrences.

      One of the things Tucker mentioned was the study of a woman scientist, I believe at Harvard, and her questioning how it could be that there was so little variation in genotype so far, a mysterious anomaly, she thought, due to the fact this genotype has been replicated a vast number of times, worldwide.

      According to Tucker, and I believe he quoted the scientist, meant the organism had been "designed."

      I was struck by this because for me it was the first time I had heard of research actually backing up the conclusion of a "designed" organism. This placed a bioweapon on more than a speculative footing.

      One thing you can't believe in all this is how much monkeying around has been done worldwide with these viruses...I don't think there is any official register which would allow us to count the number of GMO viruses which are out there now, worldwide. How many other Wuhan-like labs are out there, winging it, supported not only by US-based twits such as Fauci, but others his equivalent in nations which hate the US? (And the western world?)

      We only know about Wuhan because it has been specifically named, and from the beginning of the crisis. Even so, we really don't know everything going on at the Wuhan lab. This was probably just one project among others.

      I'm keeping an open mind. I don't expect to live long enough, or study deeply enough, to put all the pieces together and come to a comprehensive understanding. I pray some people who are living now will.

      Delete
    2. "According to Tucker, and I believe he quoted the scientist, meant the organism had been "designed."

      Which raises the question whether advanced technology is compatible with the continued existence of humanity, or more generally Can Adaptation Lead to Extinction to quote the title of an article in Oikos by by Daniel J. Rankin and Andres Lopez-Sepulcre:

      Abstract: Ever since J.B.S. Haldane proposed the idea, evolutionary biologists are aware that individual level adaptations do not necessarily lead to optimal population performance. A few deeply mathematical models, drawing from a diverse range of systems, even predict that individual selection can lead to the extinction of the whole population, a phenomenon which has become known as evolutionary suicide. Due to the complexity of both following adaptation and determining the exact cause of an extinction, evolutionary suicide has remained untested empirically. However, three recent empirical studies suggest that it may occur, and that suicide should be taken seriously as a potentially important evolutionary phenomenon. Here we ask whether or not evolutionary suicide can occur, briefly reviewing the theoretical and empirical evidence. We further highlight systems which may be used to test whether or not individual level selection can cause extinction.

      Delete