Dr ANTHONY FAUCI's COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS to the 2022 GRADUATING CLASS of PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

I'm struggling to find a random definition which does not describe what the Wuhan lab was doing.

Your struggle is personal.  Nothing in your definitions is inconsistent with what I've said, you just don't understand what you are cut and pasting.

Recall these explanations-

[talk about gain-of-function over the last 2000 years and how my definitions a,b and d match that]

[You saying that the NIH's defintion matches my definition c]

[More of Paul's arguments that I am not making]

Repeating your lies doesn't make them more true.   Just like the NYPost article, the letter is linked to in the article and the letter very specifically refutes Yahoo's claim that "NIH Admits to Funding Gain-of-Function Research in Wuhan"

[You referring to that official statement again]

[You referring to that old Baric interview]

Finally, there is clearly conflict of interest if we're accusing the NIH of doing (through the Wuhan lab) gain-of-function research, whilst they are the ones in charge of the definition. Would you trust a murderer to fairly redefine the term "murder", if she was on trial for it?

To extend your metaphor, a US Senator falsely accuses a US Attorney General of financing a murder in China because the FBI once purchased a bunch of criminal records from China.  The Attorney General's honest and correct response is that he has little information about said murder and no jurisdiction to make that determination but the forensic information he does have suggests natural causes, not murder.  Furthermore, the legal definition of murder may be different in China.  In any case, the AG can state unequivocally that the FBI did not fund any Chinese murderers.

Again, You have claimed that Fauci is partly responsible for Covid, but have failed to provide any evidence to support your outlandish conspiracy theory.

I'm sure it is not necessary to point out that the NY Post is not a reliable source for factual information.  Even aside from its dogshit reputation

This is Ad Hominem, so we should just ignore it.

Wikipedia states:

Are you arguing against Paul or me?

WTF?  Your whole original thesis in POST#4 was "Rand Paul claims..."  If you are done promoting Paul's lies then this conversation is over.

Okay then. You, the NIH and me agree that if a research team were looking into making a coronavirus more effective against humans, then that would be considered (via the new 2011/2012 NIH definition) as gain-of-function research. 

Your only contention now is that the research done in Wuhan cannot be proven to involve making a coronavirus more effective against humans (of which I obviously contest). 

• He helped secure funding for the gain of function research conducted in Wuhan. He is also on record lying about this ("does not fund gain-of-function research and if it is" -- massive contradiction): Exchange between Sen. Rand Paul and Dr. Anthony Fauci - YouTube
  

• This seemingly contradictory speech from Fauci runs from 2 minutes 10 seconds on this video, for anyone who doesn't believe me: Exchange between Sen. Rand Paul and Dr. Anthony Fauci - YouTube 
  

• The only reason you've even heard of research by Dr. Baric or Dr. Shi is because of Paul's lies on May 11th.
  
• The only reason NY Post is pumping out false headlines about the NIH is to lend credibility to Paul's false accusations, not based on any independent investigation or reporting.
  
• If there are any differences between Paul's conspiracy theories about Fauci and your conspiracy theories about Fauci, you have yet to explain those differences.
  

they specifically deny that the virus variants listed cannot have produced the deadly Covid-19 variant. I can accept that part of the argument, however that doesn't mean the other variants they were testing (via gain-of-function research) did not produce the deadly Covid-19 variant. 

If a company were in charge of funding questionable research, and said company were also in charge of defining what is questionable research, would it not be a good idea for said company to change the definition of questionable research, so that the research is far more acceptable?

I won't have my time wasted by entertaining Ad Hominem as logically valid.

I haven't directly referred to Paul's arguments

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrQbZHQL_0w

>@Greyparrot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrQbZHQL_0w

I really enjoy these short, succinct videos that expose the hypocrisy.

Great find.

I wonder if Oromagi will respond to this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrQbZHQL_0w

I really enjoy these short, succinct videos that expose the hypocrisy.

Great find.

I wonder if Oromagi will respond to this.

Officially, Greyparrot has requested a safe space immunity from me for the last two years.  Since I refuse to stoop to responding in kind, Greyparrot gets to make comments on my shit all day every day but officially I'm not supposed to ever reply.  I try hard to never read his posts or look at his many, many youtube clips since it just frustrates me that I'm not allowed to debate him.

Honestly, Oro is the biggest apologizer for corporate elites, you have to wonder what awards they gave him as well.....

Okay then. You, the NIH and me agree that if a research team were looking into making a coronavirus more effective against humans, then that would be considered (via the new 2011/2012 NIH definition) as gain-of-function research. 

• False.  It still could not be NIH "gain-of-function" since that American designation only applies to research funded by the NIH and no research team in Wuhan has ever been funded by the NIH, any more than the US would permit the Chinese government to direct American research.
  

• There are thousands of different coronavirus strains, 7 of which have evolved to infect humans, 3 of which have demonstrated pandemic potential in humans.
  
• Is it possible that Wuhan was trying to make some coronavirus more effective against humans?  Yes.
  
• Is it likely?  No
  
• Is there any evidence suggesting such activity?  No
  

• Is it possible that Wuhan was trying to make some coronavirus more effective against humans?  Yes.
  
• Is it likely?  Yes
  
• Is there any evidence suggesting such activity?  No
  

whereas the NIH's backtracking and other official statements rejecting the initial narrative came around in October 2021 

• Be extremely specific: what fact do you claim NIH "backtracked" on?  What "initial narrative" has changed?
  
• The NIH and I agree that the NIH's letter in Oct 2012 is 100% consistent with all prior NIH statements and all of Dr. Fauci's testimony regarding EcoHealth and Wuhan.  You can't say "backtrack" without first explaining what you are talking about.  In prior posts, you pointed to false headlines but I have demonstrated in detail how those headlines were malicious lies (and you have not refuted).
  

they specifically deny that the virus variants listed cannot have produced the deadly Covid-19 variant. I can accept that part of the argument, however that doesn't mean the other variants they were testing (via gain-of-function research) did not produce the deadly Covid-19 variant. 

• Notice how you are now playing the same shell game as Paul. 
  
• Your first "they" is a pronoun indicating the NIH
  
• Your second "they" is a pronoun indicating the scientists in Wuhan
  
• You changed the subject of your sentence and concealed that change by using the same pronoun for both- not good.
  

I find the video he linked rather convincing at showing some of Fauci's hypocrisy.

• Well that's too bad since there's a bunch of pretty obvious clues that this video is manipulating you
  
• Notice that the video doesn't give you any context or timestamp for Fauci's comments, in fact the editor has zoomed in on Fauci in order to keep identifying information off the screen.
  
• Notice the way the video cuts to popular movie clips to demonstrate to you how you are supposed to react, how this video wants you to feel about the information you are receiving.
  
• Notice the way the editor manipulates the original vid with frame zooms to give you that "eye-popping" effect
  
• Notice the editing as Fauci's comments are repeated, the video changes to black and white and the audio is slowed down to make Fauci's voice sound demonic- a classic technique in political smear advertising.
  
• Greyparrot's video is not providing you data for analysis, he is telling you what emotion you are supposed to be feeling
  

• So, let's look at the facts.
  
• The clip from which Fauci is quoted as saying "the schools should be closed" is from  a PBS News Hour interview with Judy Woodruff  done on Mar 20th, 2020- so that's right at the beginning when experts were still hoping to contain a general pandemic.  Here is the exact quote in context:
  

• Judy Woodruff:
  Speaking of spring break, there has been conflicting advice to Americans this week in different states about whether schools should be closed or open, day care centers.
  What is your best advice on that right now?
• Anthony Fauci:
  You know, it really varies from location to location.  And you want to listen to the local — state and local health authorities. But you also would hope that they are looking at the guidelines that are coming from the federal level, because they are only guidelines. They say you should. They don't say you must.
  But they should at least be looked at. So, clearly, in certain circumstanc, particularly in areas where there's community spread, the schools should be closed.

• By this date, 46 States had already shut down their public schools so when Fauci says he had nothing to with those closures he is 100% accurate. The admnistration had only declared a public emergency a week before and made no recommendations about school closure.   Fauci's first statement on school closures came on Mar 12th (when Trump was still promising that COVID would go away with warmer weather and there would be no pandemic) when he said:
  
• YOU HAVE TO TAKE IT BY A STATE-BY-STATE BASIS. THE ONE THING I DO ADVISE AND I SAID THIS IN MULTIPLE HEARINGS AND MULTIPLE BRIEFINGS, THAT RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE TO START IMPLEMENTING BOTH CONTAINMENT AND MITIGATION. AND WHAT WAS DONE WHEN YOU DO CLOSING THE SCHOOLS IS MITIGATION. WE HAVE TO TRY AS BEST AS WE CAN TO DISTANCE OURSELVES FROM EACH OTHER,
  

[Stuff about Trump and Rand]

• Ultimately, Fauci's opinion on school closures remains roughly the same through the pandemic- schools closures are a real harm that should be avoided but weighed against the harms of local outbreaks and in all cases the decision has to be made locally. 
  
• June 4th, 2020  In his interview, Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said: “Children can get infected, so, yes, so you’ve got to be careful. You got to be careful for them, and you got to be careful that they may not spread it. Now, to make an extrapolation that you shouldn’t open schools, I think, is a bit of a reach.”  He also said opening schools “depends on the level of viral activity” in a particular area and it is time to be “creative” in reconfiguring classrooms to ensure students are not seated too close together.  “In some situations, there will be no problem for children to go back to school,” he said. “In others, you may need to do some modifications. You know, modifications could be breaking up the class so you don’t have a crowded classroom, maybe half in the morning, half in the afternoon, having children doing alternate schedules. There’s a whole bunch of things that one can do.”
  
•  August 3, 2020  K-12 schools and colleges can reopen, but safety should come first, Fauci says
  
• Nov 29th (the beginning of peak COVID) "We get asked it all the time. You know, we say it -- not being facetiously, as a sound bite or anything -- but, you know, close the bars and keep the schools open is what we really say," he said. "Obviously, you don't have one size fits all. But as I said in the past … the default position should be to try as best as possible within reason to keep the children in school or to get them back to school."
  
• Dec 31st, 2020 (Middle of peak COVID)  Schools can safely reopen, even when there’s substantial community transmission  Fauci said the coronavirus acts very differently from the flu when it comes to children.  With the coronavirus, children seem to have lower levels of infection than the broader community. “That was almost counterintuitive, but it’s turning out to be that way,” Fauci said.  “What we should do is to do everything to support the maintenance of the children in school. ... If you really want to get society back to some form of normality, one of the first things we have to do is to get the children back in school.”
  
• By the way, Trump wasn't saying anything about getting kids back in school at this point, really hadn't said much about the pandemic for months.  The entire  political apparatus was either coasting or planning to overthrow the government at this point.  Fuck the kids.
  
• Jan 20, 2021, Fauci finally has influence again as Biden's Chief Medical advisor just as we hit record COVID death, hospitals crashing, medical supply shortages, etc.
  
• Feb 12, 2021   “You should try to get as many teachers as you possibly can vaccinated as quickly as you possibly can,” Fauci said. “But to make it a sine qua non that you don’t open a school until every teacher is vaccinated, I think is not workable, and probably most of the teachers would agree with that ... You don’t want to essentially have nobody in school until all the teachers get vaccinated.”
  
• May 13th, 2021  Anthony Fauci, President Biden’s chief medical adviser, said Thursday that schools in the fall should be open “full blast” five days a week after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced that people who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 resume life without masks or other restrictions.
  
• Sept 9th 2021    Surging Covid-19 cases – and the increasing proportion reported in children – are causing many health experts to worry about the outlook as the school year gets underway across the entire country.  But Dr. Anthony Fauci said there shouldn’t be a big uptick “if we do it right.”  “We’ve gotta get the school system masked in addition to surrounding the children with vaccinated people,” said the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. “That’s the solution.”
  

We're all interested to see your response.

• I am doubtful
  

-->@oromagi

Half your response is rubbish that can be lumped into two categories, so I'll address that first:

(1) I'm not Rand Paul and I'm not here to defend everything he said, so you should stop making those assumptions. I'm sure it would be far easier to attack my arguments if they were the same as Rand Paul's, but you're actually going to have to read what I write, rather than respond to stuff you already know. The video I originally linked was show the context in which Fauci said something, not to argue Rand Paul's argument Dr ANTHONY FAUCI's COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS to the 2022 GRADUATING CLASS of PRINCETON UNIVERSITY (debateart.com) . 

(2) Ad Hominem is a waste of everyone's time. I don't care what you think of the Nypost, Rand Paul or whoever. I care about the validity of arguments.

Okay, I understand your argument better now.

So, **if** coronavirus research were funded by the NIH, and that research involved making a coronavirus more effective against humans, that would qualify for 'gain-of-function' research via the new 2011/2012 definition.

(a) I still contend that the NIH funded the Wuhan Virology lab through Ecohealth Alliance NIH-Document-Production-Cover-Letter-2021.10.20_McMorris-Rodgers.pdf (house.gov)  

(b) The definition is a bit of a bait-and-switch because it's possible for Fauci to say that gain-of-function research is not being conducted (in accordance with the new 2011/2012 definition), whilst gain-of-function research is being conducted via the old definition (that everyone besides the NIH is using).

Again, this is the issue with the NIH controlling the language as to what they are doing: the murderers are defining murder.

We're talking about the initial strand and its origin, because that will tell us who/what made it:
(1) The first reported cases of coronavirus were in the Wuhan area

(2) None of the animals in the Huanan wetmarket initially tested had traces of coronavirus (around 2000 samples), and zero animals from 209 other wetmarkets around China (around 80,000 samples) has traces of coronavirus 

A Bayesian analysis concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 is not a natural zoonosis but instead is laboratory derived | Zenodo 

(3) Bayesian analysis by Steven C. Quay shows that a wetmarket origin has a chance of 0.2%, whilst a lab leak has a chance of 99.8% (same source, but here's a video that quickly goes through his findings: SARS-CoV-2 Bayesian Analysis by Steven Carl Quay MD Phd – The Published Reporter® ) 

Sure, but it doesn't matter whether I'm being manipulated or not.  What matters is whether the video is correct or not.  

Fauci certainly has influence when he speaks on t.v, so he isn't absolved totally of the charge.

It would also be interesting to see any evidence that Fauci talked about shutting schools before they were closed, if it exists.

[Stuff about Trump and Rand]

Not relevant to the topic at hand: whether Fauci contradicted himself or not.

Based on what you're saying, I think Fauci had very little to do with the schools closing.

-->@Avery

Here is the letter that prefaced Fauci's recommendations.

https://www.science.org/content/article/infectious-disease-experts-call-nationwide-closure-us-schools-and-business-slow?cookieSet=1

It looks like around March Fauci was advising for the closing of schools.

Around May 2020 there are a ton of articles describing fights with Trump on whether school restrictions should be lifted.

Sorry, I should have cleaned that up better.

-->@oromagi

Half your response is rubbish that can be lumped into two categories, so I'll address that first:

(1) I'm not Rand Paul and I'm not here to defend everything he said, so you should stop making those assumptions. I'm sure it would be far easier to attack my arguments if they were the same as Rand Paul's, but you're actually going to have to read what I write, rather than respond to stuff you already know. The video I originally linked was show the context in which Fauci said something, not to argue Rand Paul's argument Dr ANTHONY FAUCI's COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS to the 2022 GRADUATING CLASS of PRINCETON UNIVERSITY (debateart.com) . 

(2) Ad Hominem is a waste of everyone's time. I don't care what you think of the Nypost, Rand Paul or whoever. I care about the validity of arguments.

• Let's recall your original thesis
  
• "You can list all the awards you want, but that doesn't excuse the disastrous consequences of this man's actions.  Anthony is partly responsible for Covid. He helped secure funding for the gain of function research conducted in Wuhan. He is also on record lying about this ("does not fund gain-of-function research and if it is" -- massive contradiction): Exchange between Sen. Rand Paul and Dr. Anthony Fauci - YouTube  Keep all this in mind as Anthony talks about the "profound ways" Covid impacted these students."
  
• That is- you called Fauci disasterous, responsible for COVID, and a liar and the only thing even close to evidence you present is Rand Paul's testimony.
  

• Please reconcile these two statements.  If ad homs and Paul make my arguments "rubbish"  you must explain why your ad hom and Paul are not rubbish.  What consistent standard is being applied here?
  

Okay, I understand your argument better now.

So, **if** coronavirus research were funded by the NIH, and that research involved making a coronavirus more effective against humans, that would qualify for 'gain-of-function' research via the new 2011/2012 definition.

• False.  For coronavirus research to be "gain-of-function" according to NIH standards, it must have a demonstrated potential for human pandemic.  That is "SARS, MERS, and avian flu strains in humans" as Dr. Baric succinctly explained in POST #9
  

(a) I still contend that the NIH funded the Wuhan Virology lab through Ecohealth Alliance NIH-Document-Production-Cover-Letter-2021.10.20_McMorris-Rodgers.pdf (house.gov)  

• Which letter I went through in POST #27 in some detail and bolded and underlined  for you the parts where the NIH very specifically explains how this is not "gain-of-function" and is not SARS2 and could not be SARS2
  
• It is not good faith argument to just keep repeating your contention while ignoring the fact I have blown your contention to pieces.
  
• Your argument is "Fauci funded COVID-19"  and "Fauci lied about it"  This letter very specifically proves that both of your arguments are 100% false.  You have to address my arguments.  You can't repeat the fake news a third time and link to the same letter that proves your news as fake three times.
  
• What is the physical link between the NIH funded research on mice in North Carolina and Wuhan? 
  
• What proof do you have that WIV1 can become SARS- the geneolocial  equivalent of claiming that a chimpanzee gave birth to a live human?
  

EcoHealthAlliance was testing if spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor in a mouse model In this limited experiment, laboratory mice infected with the SHC014 WIV1 bat coronavirus became sicker than those infected with the WIV1 bat coronavirus.   As sometimes occurs in science, this was an unexpected result of the research, as opposed to something that the researchers set out to do. Regardless, the viruses being studied under this grant were genetically very distant from SARS-CoV-2 ...

[So, neither SHC014 or WIV1 can be gain-of-function because neither virus exists in humans, also gain-of-function research must be intentional, unexpected results never qualify as gain-of-function].

(b) The definition is a bit of a bait-and-switch because it's possible for Fauci to say that gain-of-function research is not being conducted (in accordance with the new 2011/2012 definition), whilst gain-of-function research is being conducted via the old definition (that everyone besides the NIH is using).

• False.  Fauci never ever baits-and-switches.  He is NIH.  He was a part of coming up with the definiton of "gain-of-function."  When Fauci says "gain-of-function" he only means the NIH version.  That's why Fauci says "...and even if it was" in his May 11th testimony- he never considers such research gain-of-function although others might, right?
  

Again, this is the issue with the NIH controlling the language as to what they are doing: the murderers are defining murder.

• False and again you are just repeating your argument without bothering to address my counterargument that already disproved this argument.  The NIH had to go through peer review, Congressional approval, inspector general oversight, hundreds of commitees and meeting.  This is reasonably  like the Dept of Justice updating their definition of murder it is nothing at all like a murderer updating his definiton of murder.  Please address my arguments rather than just repeating shit over and over.
  

But we're not talking about "thousands of different coronavirus strains".

• Well then you need to stop saying coronavirus and start saying SARS2 because when you say "Wuhan working on coronaviruses" that includes thousands of possiblities that have nothing to do with humans.
  

When Fauci says "and even if it was", he starts referring to a non-NIH version -- he doesn't only mean the NIH version now.

Furthermore, he shouldn't be entertaining what others might think because their definition should be wrong to him. His response to Rand Paul should have been, 'the NIH was not funding gain-of-function research in the Wuhan lab'.   But those weren't the responses given. Instead, we got the contradictory 'it's not and even if it was, it's according to the guidelines'. Fauci's own words contradict himself.

• WTF?
  
• Dr. Anthony Fauci: (59:49) Senator Paul, with all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect that the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
  
• Dr. Anthony Fauci: (01:01:43)  I don’t favor gain-of-function research in China. You are saying things that are not correct.
  
• Dr. Anthony Fauci: (01:03:20)  I do not have any accounting of what the Chinese may have done, and I’m fully in favor of any further investigation of what went on in China. However, I will repeat again, the NIH and NIAID categorically has not funded gain-of-function research to be conducted in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
  
• Dr. Anthony Fauci: (01:04:10)  I fully agree that you should investigate where the virus came from. But again, we have not funded gain-of-function research on this virus in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. No matter how many times you say it, it didn’t happen.
  
• Dr. Anthony Fauci: (01:05:00)  Yeah. I mean, I just wanted to say, I don’t know how many times I can say it, Madam Chair, we did not fund gain-of-function research to be conducted in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
  
• Senator Paul had deceptively switched the subject to Dr. Baric's research in North Carolina so it would have been  non-responsive and confusing to make some reply about research Wuhan to that specific question.
  
• Do you still stand by your OP claim that Fauci was lying about gain-of-function research in Wuhan?  And if yes, why?
  

This contention here is pretty relevant because it appears that the research conducted in Wuhan would be considered gain-of-function with the historical definition, but not the new NIH definition.

• Please answer as directly as possible.  What research in Wuhan are you talking about?  

When I say the coronavirus, everyone but you seems to understand I'm referring to the one which caused the pandemic. You're just being obtuse.

• Not any scientist of any stripe would conflate the two.  That's like accusing somebody of murder and then later saying "well, actually he killed a mammal.  Everybody knows that humans are mammals"    The common cold is a coronavirus.  Scientists researching the common cold don't need to follow the same protocols as scientists researching SARS. 
  
• Since you are judging a scientist who would not conflate the two, you should judge Fauci according to a scientist's standards.

(2) None of the animals in the Huanan wetmarket initially tested had traces of coronavirus (around 2000 samples), and zero animals from 209 other wetmarkets around China (around 80,000 samples) has traces of coronavirus 

• False.  
  
• The initial research revealed a close evolutionary relationship between SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-related bat viruses (Wu et al. 2020). Especially, the identification of the virus RaTG13 in Rhinolophus affinis bats sampled from Yunnan province of China, which is 96.1 per cent identical to SARS-CoV-2 at the whole-genome sequence level, indicated a probable bat origin of SARS-CoV-2 (Zhou et al. 2020b). Subsequently, other close relatives of SARS-CoV-2 were identified in bats sampled from Yunnan province of China (Zhou et al. 2020a), Japan (Murakami et al. 2020), and Thailand (Wacharapluesadee et al. 2021). Importantly, a virus named BANAL-52 discovered in Rhinolophus malayanus bats from Laos is closer to SARS-CoV-2 than any known viruses and has a potential for infecting humans (Temmam et al. 2022). All these data indicate that bats are a natural reservoir host of SARS-CoV-2.
  
• we immediately performed a surveillance investigation in mammals in and around Wuhan after we identified an unknown coronavirus as the etiologic agent of COVID-19. As a result, canine alphacoronavirus were identified in raccoon dogs, while SARS-CoV-related coronaviruses and recombinant viruses of SARS-related and SARS-CoV-2-related coronaviruses were found in bats. However, no SARS-CoV-2 or the close relatives of SARS-CoV-2 were found in these mammals.
  
• coronaviruses were screened in the lung, liver, and intestinal tissue samples from fifteen raccoon dogs, seven Siberian weasels, three hog badgers, and three Reeves’s muntjacs collected in Wuhan and 334 bats collected around Wuhan. Consequently, eight alphacoronaviruses were identified in raccoon dogs, while nine betacoronaviruses were found in bats. Notably, the newly discovered alphacoronaviruses shared a high whole-genome sequence similarity (97.9 per cent) with the canine coronavirus (CCoV) strain 2020/7 sampled from domestic dog in the UK. Some betacoronaviruses identified here were closely related to previously known bat SARS-CoV-related viruses sampled from Hubei province and its neighbors, while the remaining betacoronaviruses exhibited a close evolutionary relationship with SARS-CoV-related bat viruses in the RdRp gene tree and clustered together with SARS-CoV-2-related bat coronaviruses in the M, N and S gene trees, but with relatively low similarity. Additionally, these newly discovered betacoronaviruses seem unlikely to bind angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 because of the deletions in the two key regions of their receptor-binding motifs. Finally, we did not find SARS-CoV-2 or its progenitor virus in these animal samples.
  
• https://academic.oup.com/ve/article/8/1/veac046/6601809
  
• (that is- they looked at 362 animals in Wuhan, mostly bats and discovered 17 new coronaviruses similar to SARS2.  (oh fuck) The viruses most similar to SARS2 are found in bat caves 800 miles from Wuhan).
  

A Bayesian analysis concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 is not a natural zoonosis but instead is laboratory derived | Zenodo 

(3) Bayesian analysis by Steven C. Quay shows that a wetmarket origin has a chance of 0.2%, whilst a lab leak has a chance of 99.8% (same source, but here's a video that quickly goes through his findings: SARS-CoV-2 Bayesian Analysis by Steven Carl Quay MD Phd – The Published Reporter® ) 

• Many red flags here:  not published in any science journal, no peer review, paid advertising, Quay is a legitimate M.D. but this paper is really nothing more than a .pdf file posted online.
  

• "Examining the structure and format of the document it becomes immediately clear that this is not a real scientific study but a report that contains scattered data and images. Nowhere in the paper is there an explanation of the protocol used to select the items included in the author's analysis, nor of the process followed to arrive at the final conclusions or to eliminate possible data selection bias as it occurs typically in meta-analyses of scientific research....
  

• While Bayes' theorem is an extremely useful scientific tool when used correctly, it is also known for its ability to superficially justify pseudoscientific hypotheses when used incorrectly. The theorem does not derive objective probabilities, but relies entirely on the probabilities given to it and the way in which those probabilities are introduced.
  

• ...The third argument that the paper takes into account is three of the key studies that support the unanimity of the natural origin of the virus. The paper briefly describes all 3 studies as so problematic that it doesn't even consider them to renew the possibility of a natural origin of the virus....Essentially, at this point the paper rejects all the evidence that leads the scientific community to the consensus of natural origin, having questionably examined only a small part of the studies in question. 
  

• At the same time, this rejection takes place in the place of an act, while the document then proceeds to a series of acts, each of which individually increases the probability of laboratory origin alone.
  

• Finally, the probabilities used in each act are subjective, and are based on the initially incomplete examination of the scientific evidence. Thus, with correspondingly biased practices, each editor is able to "prove as highly probable" almost any view he has decided to support in advance.
  

• That is, your paper takes 193 pages to unscientifically declare that if we disregard all other explanations as invalid without any explanation, then the possibility of the subjectively preferred explanation is made to seem likely artifiicially.
  

• Let's acknowledge that any medical professional with any honest insight into the origin of COVID-19 would be sure to publish in a  prestigious venue with peer review and enjoy the reputational benefits for the rest of her career.  The fact that Dr. Quay avoids scientists and goes straight to the tv cameras suggests his awareness that his conclusions are crap.
  

Be extremely specific: what fact do you claim NIH "backtracked" on?  What "initial narrative" has changed?

The NIH and I agree that the NIH's letter in Oct 2012 is 100% consistent with all prior NIH statements and all of Dr. Fauci's testimony regarding EcoHealth and Wuhan.  You can't say "backtrack" without first explaining what you are talking about.  In prior posts, you pointed to false headlines but I have demonstrated in detail how those headlines were malicious lies (and you have not refuted).

Here's me being extremely specific: the original story about the coronavirus originating in bats is wrong.

• But since the NIH has never claimed that COVID-19 definitely orginates from bats that is not the NIH backtracking or changing narrative.
  

The original story about the coronavirus originating in a wetmarket is wrong.

• But since the NIH has never claimed that COVID-19 definitely came from the Wuhan live animal market that is not the NIH backtracking or changing narrative.
  

• Dr. Anthony Fauci: (59:49) Senator Paul, with all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect that the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
  
• Dr. Anthony Fauci: (01:01:43)  I don’t favor gain-of-function research in China. You are saying things that are not correct.
  
• Dr. Anthony Fauci: (01:03:20)  I do not have any accounting of what the Chinese may have done, and I’m fully in favor of any further investigation of what went on in China. However, I will repeat again, the NIH and NIAID categorically has not funded gain-of-function research to be conducted in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
  
• Dr. Anthony Fauci: (01:04:10)  I fully agree that you should investigate where the virus came from. But again, we have not funded gain-of-function research on this virus in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. No matter how many times you say it, it didn’t happen.
  
• Dr. Anthony Fauci: (01:05:00)  Yeah. I mean, I just wanted to say, I don’t know how many times I can say it, Madam Chair, we did not fund gain-of-function research to be conducted in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
  

Here is the letter that prefaced Fauci's recommendations.

https://www.science.org/content/article/infectious-disease-experts-call-nationwide-closure-us-schools-and-business-slow?cookieSet=1

• This is a letter addressed to Fauci on Mar 16th with many scientists calling for a nationwide shutdown. Clearly, if Fauci wanted all schools shut down, public support like this would have given Fauci polticial cover.   Instead,  I have already documented Fauci's response 4 days later when he quite clearly states that decision must be made locally, not nationally.  Again, I will point out that Fauci is ahead of Trump, who only supported Governors making the call 7 days after this letter.
  

https://edhub.ama-assn.org/jn-learning/audio-player/18297084

• This interview is March 6th, ten days before the above pressure, 2 weeks before the press conference where Fauci became a public enemy of the right for contradicting Trump with the truth.  
  
• Even this early, Fauci is quite consistent:
  
• "What I'm seeing and what I think we'll see, Howard, is not an official country-wide mitigation.  I think the public will essentially make their own decision.  People will be doing things like decreasing travel by doing the kinds of things that you mentioned- cancelling conferences, encouraging people to not work in the workplace if they could do it at home.  They're going to be doing that anyway, so I don't think it's going to be like a public health mandate, but people are going to start hunkering down a bit.  Because you see them doing it spontaneously anyway."
  

It looks like around March Fauci was advising for the closing of schools.

https://edhub.ama-assn.org/jn-learning/audio-player/18297084

Around May 2020 there are a ton of articles describing fights with Trump on whether school restrictions should be lifted.

Correct me if my timeline is wrong.

• By May, the question of spring semester is essentially over and the debate was about how to re-open schools in the fall.  I have already including quotes above showing Fauci strongly supporting re-opening schools in the fall with vigorous measure like distancing and masking.  When Paul accusses Fauci on May 12th of supporting school closure and doesn't give Fauci any time to respond, Sen. Alexander makes a point of returning to the question and asks Fauci point blank whether he's recommmending schools remain closed in the fall and Fauci unequivocally says no.
  

None of what you wrote here proves that Covid-19 came from a wetmarket.

I could get into how peer review means virtually nothing, or how this is all Ad Hominem (again), but none of that matters if the paper is correct, so I'm just going to focus on that.

Is there any evidence to show that this potential problem actually affected the paper?

Firstly, where is it shown that the "natural origin" theory is the consensus in the "scientific community?". Seems like a bare assertion.

• The fact-checker provided you with five citations backing this statement.  Why are you pretending they didn't?
  

Secondly, where does this critique contend with the facts I referred to above:

(1) no animal in/surrounding/involved in the Huanan market had traces of Covid-19, and

(2) none of the first detected Covid-19 patients had anything to do with the Huanan wetmarket, and

(3) of the patients who did have contact with the Huanan wetmarket (during the initial outbreak), none of them had Covid-19?

You need to demonstrate why the findings are based on "initially incomplete examination of the scientific evidence", rather than just blindly stating it.

LOL. Why would we acknowledge that when it's untrue?

Chinese whistleblowers 'disappeared'. One actually reappeared and "experienced things I'm unable to talk about" Missing Chinese Covid whistleblower appears after 18 months saying 'I’ve experienced things I can’t talk about' | The US Sun (the-sun.com)

Talking about Covid-19 on Youtube or Facebook would get you banned How Facebook bans users from saying Covid was man-made in China | Daily Mail Online Sky News Australia banned from YouTube for seven days over Covid misinformation | Australian media | The Guardian 

NHS staff were silenced NHS staff forbidden from speaking out publicly about coronavirus | NHS | The Guardian

How the hell do you think someone is going to research for months on end and then publish extensive research on this?

But since the NIH has never claimed that COVID-19 definitely orginates from bats that is not the NIH backtracking or changing narrative.

They're still claiming it as of March this year: "Research evidence suggests that SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV originated in bats"

AFAIK, there was no official statement as to what caused Covid-19, but they allowed a litany of research to be published which concluded that it was likely Covid-19 started from the wetmarket:

"As for the vast majority of human viruses, the most parsimonious explanation for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonotic event. The documented epidemiological history of the virus is comparable to previous animal market-associated outbreaks of coronaviruses with a simple route for human exposure." The origins of SARS-CoV-2: A critical review (nih.gov) 

"Substantial evidence to suggest the source of transmission of the virus occurred within the Wuhan wet market" Illicit Wildlife Trade, Wet Markets, and COVID-19: Preventing Future Pandemics - PubMed (nih.gov) 

"The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan was the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic" The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan was the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic - PubMed (nih.gov) 

they had bat samples for no apparent reason, of which definitely don't have similar genetic profiles to Covid-19. Yep, and I'm sure EcoHealth Alliance just stared at the bat samples and did nothing with them, too. I'm sure that the research in Wuhan, which isn't known to study coronavirus in bats at all (and if it did, it's definitely not gain-of-function research, either), didn't use any of its EcoHealth Alliance funding to study anything else How China's 'Bat Woman' Hunted Down Viruses from SARS to the New Coronavirus - Scientific American .

All manipultion is a lie of some sort.

Prove it.

Talk about getting your panties in a bunch over nothing lol.