Comments by "Antony Wooster" (@antonywooster6783) on "" video.

  1. 1:03 Scientist who are challenged on their work, if they are real scientist, will welcome questions because they will believe in their own conclusions and will be happy to expound their reasoning, because they think they have "got it right". If they object to being questioned, either they are not scientists or they are, but they know that their data does not support the conclusions they are pushing. In other words, they have a sideline in snake-oil. Unfortunately there seems to be a lot of such corruption in "science" at the moment.
    2
  2. 1:07:54 "Wouldn't that be real cool?" Like those criminally insane "Scientists" in Boston, USA who recently announced that they had produced a Covid-19-like virus which was, however, not 1% lethal in human-modified mice but, Whoopee!, 80%!! Personally, though in general, I do not approve of the Death Penalty, if I had dictatorial powers, I would have them taken to the nearest suitable wall and shot. I cannot see a justification for any "gain of function" research. Why do we need it? Viruses jump from Nature to humans from time to time and surely that is problem enough. When we make viruses which are more deadly than those occurring naturally, there is always a chance that they will escape the lab and infect the world outside. This seems to be an entirely avoidable risk and one that has remarkably little upside, unless you are TRYING TO MAKE BIOWEAPONS. (If you are, you should be an outlaw and there should be a bounty on your head.)
    1
  3. Of course there were domestic researchers involved, as Fauci well knew, as he had been funding them at UNC, Chapel Hill laboratory, before he was told to close it down (As too dangerous.) by Obama. That was when he arranged with other "independent" organizations to transfer the research to China and launder the funding through (Was it?) the NIH. They had even published papers on it from that lab. Then, of course, there was always the Department of Defense research to take into consideration.
    1
  4. 1:05:41 Peter Dazak is not missing. Go to 1:02:35, look at the addressees and you will find he is the 5th person on the list.
    1
  5. Apology! that time should have been 1:03:00
    1