Bombshell! Covid-19 Virus Lab-Made? Fauci Connected?

News & Current Events Public News & Current Events
,
241

I have heard the statistic that children who live in a house with cats and dogs have less asthma. There is also evidence that fresh air, exercise, sunshine, a change of scenery and a psychological boost are all immune boosting. Sterile, small, confined environments are not as healthy as freedom, movement and joy.
Some apartments are tiny, some houses face north and have little light. Some residences are noisy, some have irritating neighbors. Some people hate the other people they live with. Many people are demoralized, depressed, frightened and miserable. For some, being trapped at home is not only life threatening, it can be very unhealthy.

If it were, then they could simply dig up all this amazing data showing how round-the-world sailors and people otherwise isolated for long stretches became sick when coming back into society's fold.
They can. But thats not my forte. It’s called PTSD, trauma, stress and I have no doubt they all affect the immune system. How come no one has done detailed psychological studies on released convicts? PTSD and trauma due to domestic violence. Depression. Extensive incarceration. Maybe there is the data but it’s not readily available to me. I suspect there IS evidence that supports being trapped in any enclosure versus being able to move freely and experience the out-of doors, the later being more healthy. Lets look at it this way. I would suggest being trapped at home, say a smallish apartment with 2 kids under 5 for a month or more is stressful. On top of that throw in lack of savings, no job, threats from authorities. No parks, no movies, no beach, no soccer, no swimming, no classes, no birthday parties, Stay the F. home! No walks, no parks, No nothin! I wonder what the stress is doing to their immune system?
You know, because they aren't out getting re-challenged every day by pumping into other diseased folks.
Thats the thought of those who are implementing, monitoring and punishing those who break the lockdown. Surfing in the ocean, walking in a park or going to a playground doesn't necessarily mean infecting someone and it can definitely be immune boosting. Fresh air and sunshine, very immune boosting. Many people are currently trapped in their unhealthy homes. It is a different experience than living on 180 acres and having freedom. I suggest miserable and in prison (oh sorry - on lockdown) equals unhealthy just as Dr. Mikovits was suggesting. I found her to be credible and caring. AKGrannyWGrit PS, Be nice to Granny!    
242
No need for thanks!  I’m glad you’re having fun with this, Jim and others.  I’m sorry y’all missed my point that the conclusion drawn from a logical fallacy is false by definition. Major Premise:  There is a controversy over hydroxychloroquine, Minor premise:  The controversy is a “very unscientific jihad against hydroxychloroquine...”  Conclusion:  This “... is evidence, in and of itself, of the hidden forces that control our mainstream media and so many other entities, at work.” Uh, no actually.  Would you have us believe that a controversy between scientists is “unscientific”?  Apparently so.  And would you have us believe that all the scientists who disagree with you are all muslims on a “jihad”?  “Nazis”?  “Book burners”?  Oh please! And actually Jim, no, your personal opinions are not evidence, and do not establish any form of causal link whatsoever (save in your own mind) between there being a controversy and your conclusion this is all the work of some unspecified dark and sinister “hidden forces”.  (play twilight zone theme here) Post Hoc Propter Hoc again, and a false conclusion, by definition.  I hope that helps.  Oh, and for you and your friends who took umbrage at being described as Deep State operatives.  Jim tells me Deep State operatives may be identified as people who invite us to “...create bogeymen when they say so...”.  
 
I mean that is what conspiracy theorists do isn’t it?  That is what you do on this site, isn’t it, Jim?  No need to get precious about who you’re working for, or what your agenda is. Same as I asked your mate meme, Jim.  Evidence please, not personal opinions? And please assure me you do understand that in the real world false actually means false, and doesn’t mean true because I say so?
 
So, unless there is anything else you’d like to discuss, I’ll let y’all get back under your tin foil hats and cook up whom you wish to demonise next, and wish you a good day.
243

Jim, Dave, thc …if you really believe that the Bryan Fischer article is a “dispassionate look at the data”.
I previously identified a few logical and evidential issues with the article. You have not addressed them - other than describing them as weak - rather you have continued the same pro-HCQ arguments that we have heard so much already. You are at liberty to promote HCQ and bash Fauci, but I was hoping this forum would manage such discussions with certain standards of evidence and logic.
The Bryan Fischer article is a mess.

  1. It extrapolates from a paper discussing a different drug and a different disease
  2. It makes a huge leap from an in vitro study to: “So HCQ functions as both a cure and a vaccine. In other words, it’s a wonder drug for coronavirus.”
  3. It talks about HCQ as a vaccine - it was Bryan Fischer that brought that up, not me, Jim!
  4. It - and you - ignores the fact that MANY molecules will be found that impact a specific virus in vitro. For instance, look at this: https://theconversation.com/we-found-and-tested-47-old-drugs-that-might-treat-the-coronavirus-results-show-promising-leads-and-a-whole-new-way-to-fight-covid-19-136789 Whether any of these work clinically is a totally different matter - worth researching, yes, but not declared as cures from the test tube.
  5. He makes the claim that Dr Raoult used zinc for his study, providing us with a link that says no such thing. (As far as I know, nobody here has been able to stand up that idea either.)
    His article is rhetoric, founded on poor logic and evidence. He may be right that HCQ is a wonder drug, and that Fauci is a shit, but this article doesn’t demonstrate it.
    He is preaching to the choir - are you happy to be in that choir?
244
I mean that is what conspiracy theorists do isn’t it?
If what you mean is that conspiracy theorists look at things from different points of view, do not accept "official narrative" as dogma without question, and are open to refining their views as evidence shifts, yes. Yes, that's what conspiracy theorists do. Oh, and as with many theories, sometimes they are actually true. Sometimes not.
That is what you do on this site, isn’t it, Jim?
Ah yes. The Logic 101 instructor resorting to a convenient and simplistic label for what is a very, very diverse community with equally diverse views. Well done, sir. I don't know all the fancy Latin wording to describe your tactic, but I recognize dissonance when I see it: your critique of others hides within it your own failings, projected outwards onto them. Clearly you want to believe this site is full of nuts, tin-foil hatters (well done using a trite label there. Really strengthens your argument), and logic-lacking nincompoops, so, obviously, we are. What's that you said about drawing illogical conclusions based on false premises? I can't remember, but I'm sure you'll remind us next class period.
No need to get precious about who you’re working for, or what your agenda is.Same as I asked your mate meme, Jim. Evidence please, not personal opinions?
Evidence is the one thing we all hold highest here. You back up your views with data and evidence others can check and verify, or you STFU. I've been roasted more than once - deservedly - for presenting an argument with nothing to back it up, and I've been lauded even by people who disagree with me when I "came bearing evidence" to back up my mouth. We don't always agree (in fact we often don't, as a whole community), but if you think this website is filled with people (especially the veterans) who don't bring facts and data to defend their arguments, you've either not spent enough time reading the forums or you are willfully choosing to remain ignorant. If the latter, probably because it supports your internal world-view and predetermined views of sites like this one, but if it's the former, you'd be better served spending some time reading more deeply. That's not to say people here are always inherently correct, but the core members of this community are always willing to challenge one another and themselves, and redraw their conclusions when someone else brings solid evidence that suggests such a redrawing is necessary or logical. Can you say the same of yourself?
And please assure me you do understand that in the real world false actually means false, and doesn’t mean true because I say so?
So, unless there is anything else you’d like to discuss, I’ll let y’all get back under your tin foil hats and cook up whom you wish to demonise next, and wish you a good day
By all means, do what you feel is right, especially if doing so allows you to maintain your current mental paradigm about the universe. Please don't let the door hit you on your way out, and mind the dog poop on the lawn.
Or, stay and bring evidence to your counter-arguments rather than a freshman-level attempt to use Philosophy 101, fancy Latin, and ad hominem to do the heavy lifting for you.
I have my suspicions - based solely on anecdotal evidence and experience, and not at all scientific data - as to which of these two paths you will choose.
P.S.- Guys and gals, we've arrived at the big leagues! We're drawing fancy-talking trolls now! Woot!
245

Thank you Snydeman for your post #243 on the search for meaning and truth (fancy Latin name - epistemology).  Welcome to the “Big League!”

 
I note your comments are directed towards some unspecified “you”, but since you quote me correctly, I am pleased to reply on you’s behalf.  And since those quotes are from a reply to Jim H which I liked (# 241 “Conspiracy Theories”) , thank you so much for denying readers of your post any opportunity to read the full text of mine.  Cute.
 
Please forgive the pun, but I note you make “derogatory or mocking” comments “in an indirect way”, as the Oxford dictionary defines “snide” comments.  I enjoy that literary device as well, it injects a bit of levity to things IMO.  There is an exquisite irony in your alias.  You are very funny.
 
Now as a noun, Snydeman, the Oxford defines a “snide” man as “devious and underhand”.  I have no reason to believe you are such a man, Snydeman, even though your post clearly proves you behave that way.  I give everybody three strikes before I declare them out, Snydeman, and this stunt is only strike one for you.  I will, however, take the implied warning and watch my back.
 
I swear to you, Snydeman, since I threw down the gauntlet to Kant’s disciples, they’ve been dropping out the trees on this thread like flies.  And all united in the conviction that Peak Prosperity should abandon evidence and become a faith based community.
 
I’ll run my BS detector over your post and see if, like all Kant’s disciples, you trade in logical fallacies too, and get back to you.
246

Not sure if this link has been posted. Lots of data for Chris.
Observational Study of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19

247

Looking back at the recent posts imho, those involved in the back-and-forth with wildtravel on one side and a bunch of old timers on the other, have gone a bit down the path of lobbing dung at each other and a bit off the path of civil, respectful conversation backed by data.
I suggest we all look back at our posts and ask the question “Would people reading this be inclined to label me a pompous know-it-all full of hubris who is convinced he/she is “right”.” I know I haven’t been involved, but I just almost hit the “post comment” button on another wad of manure and then stopped myself. So I’ll be the first to admit guilt.
To help us get back on track, it might be useful to answer these questions:

  1. What are your thoughts on whether our honey badger friend originate (intentionally or not) in a lab? What data push you one way or the other in your opinion? If it did originate in a lab, would you be willing to speculate on whether or not the release was intentional? Why or why not?
  2. Based on the evidence what do you think of the effectiveness hydroxychloroquine as an early-stage treatment? What about remdesivir? What evidence do you have to support your view?
  3. Is there an active attempt on the part of the media, politicians and other powerful players to promote remdesivir over HQC? If so, do the data justify their attempt?
I think sand_puppy and Jim H and perhaps a few others have taken clear stands on these questions and presented lots of data. wildtravel, I'm not quite sure where you stand, so I'd love it if you could reply in a direct and clear way. Here's my attempt at answering the questions:
  1. Chris in several recent videos has presented lots of data that in my opinion shows that the virus is more likely than not to have evolved in a lab. I would lean towards accidental release, but that is speculation. There is no clear data pointing one way or another right now.
  2. Jim H, Chris, sandpuppy and others have shown many studies that suggest high efficacy in early stage treatment, although the larger double-blind placebo controlled studies are still in progress. So far, remdesivir shows lackluster performance in the U.S. trial and some evidence of at least mild to moderate efficacy in early stage disease in the Chinese trial. So it looks less promising at this point. It's high cost and need to be delivered by infusion puts it at a serious disadvantage relative to HCQ for early stage treatment and prophylaxis.
  3. Clearly yes. The data so far shows HCQ is more promising, but the media message is strongly the opposite of that.
 
248

Sadly.  

I just heard today, in the attached video starting at marker 11:20, that efforts to promote or publish studies to show the efficacy of HCQ are being suppressed along the way by various approval boards… so this effort to suppress is multi-faceted and coordinated, all the way up and down, from mass media to the medical/governmental interfaces.  This is what we get for letting the deep state build their system for the last 60 years. 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTc02hrY49E

249

There is no good in civility toward trolls.  We are in an information war and you are not seeing clearly what is happening here.  You are literally feeding the troll by trying to be a healer… there is nothing to heal… you have been deceived.  Up to you if you refrain or not.  I recall your work with PTSD if I am not mistaken?        

250
Of the remaining 1376 patients, during a median follow-up of 22.5 days, 811 (58.9%) received hydroxychloroquine (600 mg twice on day 1, then 400 mg daily for a median of 5 days); 45.8% of the patients were treated within 24 hours after presentation to the emergency department, and 85.9% within 48 hours.
Reading papers isn't my specialty but I thought the point we are arguing is to give it early. 24 and 48 hours from presenting symptoms seems early. Did I misunderstand the paper? BTW I have no opinion for or against this drug.
251

Actually, presentation to ED is usually 5 to 8 days out from initial symptom onset, so 24-48 hours after that does qualify as late intervention. Simply another study meticulously designed to fail.

252

There are simply mounds of clinical evidence that line up into a clear, dot-connecting, recognizable pattern - that being that HQC, especially when paired with Zithromycin and Zinc, will dramatically benefit someone suffering from Covid-19 if given reasonably early in the disease course.  The thing you are mistaking in reading this paper is to mix up time after presentation to the emergency room with time after initiation of symptoms.  These are two different things… and could easily equate to a 7 day difference.  Most people don’t go the emergency room until they are having serious trouble breathing or oxygenating… if you look at what Dr. Zelenko did to get such excellent results, he treated any high risk patient (> 60, being treated for hypertension, etc) right away once they started to show flu-like symptoms.  This is what works.    

edit: What Credenta said : )

253

I saw the same as Jim H and Credenda with the Observational Study in NEJM

So these were super big and busy downtown quaternary care medical centers–not the kinds of places you wander into for a little hangnail, sprained ankle or a mild bronchitis.  Patient presenting at New York Presbyterian are sick and a basic visit takes 6-12 hours.

Remember the stages of COVID illness:  1)  viral replication where you feel “like you are coming down with the flu”, tired, achy, a low grade fever.  Typically 5-7 days.  2) Stage 2 the inflammatory and clotting aspects begin to appear. Shortness of breath starts here. Oxygen level falls, the CT scan shows bilateral ground glass opacities (fluid in the alveoli) and clots in the pulmonary microvasculature.  2nd week.  3)  Stage 3:  The cytokine storm and clotting complications predominate.  Heart failure, clots in arteries, clots in lungs and kidneys, etc.

So the patients in this study were sick enough to admit to a quaternary care medical center requiring lots of oxygen:  Mid to Late Stage 2.

The treatment decision was NOT RANDOMIZED.  Each treating doctor individually decided whether to give HCQ / Azith / or other antibiotics.  And the group getting HCQ were clearly sicker.  Table 1:  More obese (BMI >30 and BMI>40), way more hypertesion, more on steroids before admission, several inflammatory markers higher, and significantly more hypoxic.

Hypoxia can be approximated by the Oxygen Saturation sensor on a finger tip.  (HCQ group was 94% compared to 96% in the no-HCQ group.)   But the real tell is the PaO2:FIO2 ratio.  This ratio tells us how much supplemental oxygen was needed.  

For example:  If one person has an Oxygen Saturation of 94% on room air (room air has 21% oxygen) that is very different from an Oxygen Saturation of 94% on a high flow mask that delivers 50% Oxygen (FIO2=50%).  So this ratio lets you know how much inspired oxygen the patients requires to get to their measured Oxygen Saturation.  And the HCQ group was clearly worse than the no-HCQ group.  They were sicker.

Doc thinks:  “This guy looks like crap, I’ll throw everything at him.” So the sickest get placed into the HCQ group.  Then they do poorly and they say:  “HCQ doesn’t help.”

 

254

24-48 hours of admission to the ED.
How sick would YOU have to be to succumb to going to an NYC ED during this pandemic.
I would have to be mostly dead. And then I would still go to Miracle Max first.
https://youtu.be/xbE8E1ez97M

255

It’s why I brought up his name earlier in this thread, and I see another poster has as well. I don’t know enough about his work to tie it to Gain of Function research in virology, but boy it sure sounds like it is. It sounds like a significant leap forward in being about to genetically modify cells in labs.

256

Thank you for sharing your experience. Wow, it’s so sad, what was once a great tradition of innovation and creativity is now just a field of political hacks. Yes, it disgusts me.
I couldn’t stomach the reply from my boss(about continuing futile research in order to keep the money flowing) as I knew it must be a top down policy from the lab’s research director, a Nobel laureate. I was pissed, because I was doing the computer molecular modeling for these chemists. I understood on a three dimensional level, that the molecules wouldn’t fit, like trying to shoehorn a square peg in a round hole. I knew it would be lots of hours of boring, repetitive computer modeling, staring at a screen that would never change and never advance. My time was wasted, all for a paycheck and the privilege to swap jokes and logic puzzles with these very prestigious researchers over lunch every day. It’s helpful to hear from your experience that I made the right decision, as it seems things have only gotten worse. How sad. I do miss working with very smart people.

257

The argument that it ‘could not have come from a lab because we couldn’t have modelled the result’ does not sit well. In the field of engineering we have a substantial number of very advanced tools to compute outcomes however some of the most intransient problems and previously unsolved technical issues can only be dealt with in a methodical and somewhat randomised experimental design process. I expect these methods also would be applicable and effective in the field of microbiology and probably utilised in medical research. For interest review “Experimental Design” or specifically “Taguchi Methods”

258

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn8MxJx_erk

259
Thank you Snydeman for your post #243 on the search for meaning and truth (fancy Latin name - epistemology). Welcome to the “Big League!”
Wait, my post was about epistemology? You sure you read the right post?
I note your comments are directed towards some unspecified “you”, but since you quote me correctly, I am pleased to reply on you’s behalf. And since those quotes are from a reply to Jim H which I liked (# 241 “Conspiracy Theories”) , thank you so much for denying readers of your post any opportunity to read the full text of mine. Cute.
I'll take cute, but really it was just sloppy. I didn't hit the correct "reply" button to indicate who I was replying to, but I'm happy to note that you were up to the task of figuring it out, since I only quoted your words within my post. Proof positive that your intellect matches your diction!
Please forgive the pun, but I note you make “derogatory or mocking” comments “in an indirect way”, as the Oxford dictionary defines “snide” comments. I enjoy that literary device as well, it injects a bit of levity to things IMO. There is an exquisite irony in your alias. You are very funny.
You missed the other exquisite irony in my post which I thought quite clever, but I'll take the compliment on being funny. Do I have to post the mirror picture again, or should I just point out that the whole "indirect way" method is one I saw you using in a few of your posts. Takes one to know one, maybe?
Now as a noun, Snydeman, the Oxford defines a “snide” man as “devious and underhand”. I have no reason to believe you are such a man, Snydeman, even though your post clearly proves you behave that way. I give everybody three strikes before I declare them out, Snydeman, and this stunt is only strike one for you. I will, however, take the implied warning and watch my back.
Oh, I'll be upfront and say please just count three strikes now and declare me out. There are a few reasons why:
1) I don't consider you any kind of "authority" whose opinion about me I need to care about. So, how many "strikes" you adjudicate to me, or whether you call me "out" holds about as much weight with me as listening to Dr. Phil wax poetic about epidemiology. None.
2) You took what I said and twisted it. I stated no "warning" to you implying you needed to "watch your back." I basically said you need to drop the pedantic nonsense and support your perspective with data and evidence rather than linguistic circumlocution and condescending statements about "logic" and "philosophy." If you want to prove people wrong, show them the data. The science. The facts. Saying, in a very indirect way I might add, that they lack logic just because you don't agree with them is not going to fly with the crowd here for very long. Circling back to the first part of this point, I have learned to immediately discount those who twist others' words rather than directly discuss or debate their actual ones, since it most often indicates they have nothing concrete and evidence-based to counter with.
I swear to you, Snydeman, since I threw down the gauntlet to Kant’s disciples, they’ve been dropping out the trees on this thread like flies. And all united in the conviction that Peak Prosperity should abandon evidence and become a faith based community.
I don't even know what the fuck you are trying to say here. I mean, you talk a lot and use lots of great words and even reference Immanuel Kant, so I suppose I should be impressed...but those two sentences are a whole lot of nothing in the end. PP has always been an evidence-based site, and I've seen Chris, Adam, and many other PPers show a willingness to change their views with new evidence or new ways to interpret existing evidence. But name-dropping an 18th century German philosopher doesn't constitute evidence, even if it is kinda funny to read.
I’ll run my BS detector over your post and see if, like all Kant’s disciples, you trade in logical fallacies too, and get back to you.
Oh my. I suppose I shall be very upset if your BS detector flashes red, what with your opinion carrying so much gravitas around here and all. Are you going to call my mom if I get snarky again?
Onwards to more relevant posts, namely Quercus's:
To help us get back on track, it might be useful to answer these questions:
Your point is valid, of course, and I don't know why I take on the task of taking trolls to task (that's a mouthful), but I'm sorry...some of the people he's calling illogical are people who've long established their credentials as solid thinkers and presenters of evidence-based arguments - and some of them I don't even agree with all the time! I think trolls calling out people for the very thing they are doing themselves is what irks me. Then again, I used snark to combat snark, so I admit I was being a bit hypocritical on some level. My apologies if my remarks denigrated the overall quality of the thread.  
What are your thoughts on whether our honey badger friend originate (intentionally or not) in a lab? What data push you one way or the other in your opinion? If it did originate in a lab, would you be willing to speculate on whether or not the release was intentional? Why or why not?
Well, first off none of this is my area of expertise, but I was very doubtful of the "lab origin" theory up until about a week ago. Now I'm not so certain. Chris's podcasts and evidence I'm seeing pop up elsewhere has at least gotten me to be willing to open up to all the possible explanations. I've also learned so much science I think I'll need to watch some of these podcasts a few times just to grasp the basics. As for speculation, I won't. I'm just going to read a lot from multiple experts. I will readily admit my resistance to the lab-based-origin hypothesis is partly grounded in my emotional desire for that not to be true...so I recognize I'm not thinking about it as objectively as I need to. But I'm listening, at least, even if my heart wants to believe we humans can't possibly be that evil or stupid.
Based on the evidence what do you think of the effectiveness hydroxychloroquine as an early-stage treatment? What about remdesivir? What evidence do you have to support your view?
I'm only basing my opinions on what I'm reading and hearing. Remdesivir, according to a friend who works for the CDC, is effective, but the claims its a "miracle cure" or any somesuch drives him nuts. It helps ease the duration and severity in some cases, but not when administered too late in the disease progression. He had no opinion on HQC, but that's because he's not one of the people working on anything related to it. As for me, again...I stand here among giants and brains far more qualified than mine. I'm carefully watching and listening, though, but this is why I haven't been posting as much lately. Well, that, and all the work I'm putting into growing a garden.
Is there an active attempt on the part of the media, politicians and other powerful players to promote remdesivir over HQC? If so, do the data justify their attempt?
On this one, I can weigh in. History shows very clearly that if there are multiple options, solutions or paths, but one of those paths can bring profit to the elite or wealthy while the others can not, the former will be chosen while the latter will not - I could list out a few examples from the past, but this post is already long enough. There's far fewer examples in history of the powerful, wealthy, or elite choosing what's the best for the commoners over what's best for the elite, so yeah...I think there's ample anecdotal evidence to suggest one is being hoisted on us far more than the other, despite neither being scientifically bullet-proof miracle solutions, much less being even adequately tested. At the very least someone should be asking why the rush to annoint remdesivir king over HQC?  
I think sand_puppy and Jim H and perhaps a few others have taken clear stands on these questions and presented lots of data. wildtravel, I'm not quite sure where you stand, so I'd love it if you could reply in a direct and clear way.  
And this would be my point. In these woods, ya gotta bring a loaded gun to a gunfight; evidence and data to back up clear assertions. Sand_puppy, Jim and others do that. This new "wildtravel" person talks all fancy and makes grandiose claims but, in the end, reminds me of a balloon releasing air and not much else.
Sorry. I regressed again. I'm gonna go back into time-out now.
260

Snydeman,
I wish I could give you 2 thumbs up, that was awesome! And, I agree, intellectually the virus got out by either accident or intentional. Emotionally, that is overwhelming to try to process that, the degree of stupidity or arrogance is mind-boggling and heart-boggling (just made that up).
I certainly wanted to be as snarky with wildtravel as he has been with us. “Picturing a balloon releasing air and not much else” gave me with a good dose of medicine, after all “laughter is the best medicine”. So, thank you…
Linda