Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on ""Why Did You Dismiss The Lab-Leak Theory?": Rubio Grills Fauci On Past Statements Of COVID-19 Origin" video.

@obediahpolkinghorniii564 Look up the articles, which predate the controversy and the pandemic. It will be up to independent experts to decide on the scope and limits of the term "gain-of-function" within the meaning of the regulation, and then determine whether it applies to the facts. Or, you could just let the government office that is under scrutiny swear they didn't violate any regulations. I don't care anymore. I'm emigrating by 2025 at the latest. I don't understand your wager. I only know the attacks on me have been nonstop. So. Who cares?
2
@Jeangrey567 The tech giants who censored this enjoy Section 230 immunity, a federal law that preempts any state's laws. A lawsuit would be dismissed. They would move to have the lawyer fined for filing a frivolous nuisance suit.
1
@obediahpolkinghorniii564 Nothing in the articles you linked states that one or the other hypothesis concerning COVID's origins has compelling evidence to support it. Both hypotheses remain viable, with some scientists strongly favoring one, and others considering the evidence to be balanced. Let's keep in mind that viruses are presumed to be naturally occurring, absent evidence to the contrary. The burden of proof on the lab leak side is greater (and indeed, a lab leak of a naturally occurring virus, not an engineered one, is hardly impossible -- leaks are not rare), which accounts for the language you rely on. You thought no one would read the articles or grasp what they're saying. Or that they aren't aware of the open letter of scientists to the NYTimes, etc., asking for more research.
1
@obediahpolkinghorniii564 Wouldn't studying the effects of a class of coronaviruses in humanized mice have the potential to accelerate their natural evolutionary pathways, just as we now see new variants of COVID 19 emerging, since the time it has passed to people? Lab leak does NOT imply "man-made." Nor does it imply the virus would have tell-tail markers of engineering. The mice they use are genetically engineered. The viruses aren't, or not necessarily. It's not obvious how the viruses could mutate when introduced into the mice? They do in nature. At any rate, the moratorium on gain-of-function research was indeed lifted, in 2017. That's also a fact.
1
@obediahpolkinghorniii564 Nice try. Now we can confirm you are making assertions BEYOND the evidence. Both articles consider both hypotheses, and do not disconfirm lab origin. For example, the latter: "More scientific data could swing the balance of evidence to favor one hypothesis over another. Obtaining related viral sequences from animal sources would be the most definitive way of revealing viral origins. For example, a future observation of an intermediate or fully formed polybasic cleavage site in a SARS-CoV-2-like virus from animals would lend even further support to the natural-selection hypotheses. It would also be helpful to obtain more genetic and functional data about SARS-CoV-2, including animal studies. The identification of a potential intermediate host of SARS-CoV-2, as well as sequencing of the virus from very early cases, would similarly be highly informative. Irrespective of the exact mechanisms by which SARS-CoV-2 originated via natural selection, the ongoing surveillance of pneumonia in humans and other animals is clearly of utmost importance." Thanks, sweets. Expert witness testimony under Daubert was a specialty of mine. 😉
1
@letsbeclear2013 The Lancet and Nature from 2017 and 2018 reported on the fact that the moratorium on gain-of-function research was lifted in 2017. These are scientific/medical journals. Precisely how much money from our taxes went to such research, de facto, before the moratorium was lifted and after, is one more thing we are entitled to know, but don't.
1
Also, note that these articles date from well before the pandemic. That's also important. :/
1
@obediahpolkinghorniii564 Who is doing that?
1