O/T Covid Vaccine mRNA

[frogmiller]

The world is full of viruses. frog. Every type of animal will have viruses that are well placed to exploit them as hosts. Flu viruses originated in birds, for example, whereas bats are known to host many different types of coronaviruses. Crossing from one species to another is not easy and is generally dependent upon mutations to permit colonisation, but viruses mutate fairly easily, particularly in the case of RNA viruses like coronaviruses. HIV, for example, almost certainly originated in monkeys.

H5N1 bird flu looks like it has mutated to make the jump from birds to cattle. That brings it in close proximity to humans and it is probably only a matter of time before a mutation occurs that allows it to establish in human populations. That’s just how viruses roll.

It’s probably impossible to find out exactly how SARS-Cov2 got into the human population, but it can be said with a fair degree of confidence that it originated in bats, possibly via an intermediate species (pangolins were in the frame at one point, but I haven’t followed the research on that). Whether it entered the human population from a leak at the virology institute in Wuhan or whether it came via the wet market – where humans are in close proximity to animal is an unknown. The Chinese government id not known for its openness to scrutiny and I can’t see then cooperating with any investigation.

I doubt very much whether any paper trail to Fauci is particularly credible, but as I have mentioned before, I haven’t really followed the Fauci conspiracy theories. Given the reference to Trump, I’m guessing that they are popular with MAGA, right-wing, Christian fundamentalist types who do a lot of shouting on American TV?

Which vaccine do you think is owned by the American government?

On Trump generally, you may recall that he suggested that there should be research into whether injecting disinfectant into humans could be used to treat covid. This suggest that he may not be the sharpest knife in the draw when it comes to matters scientific.

Under the agreement with Moderna, the company made what it described as a $400 million “catch-up payment” to the N.I.H. The government will share that money with Dartmouth and Scripps. The individual scientists who helped invent the technique are also likely to receive a portion of the payment, experts said.Feb 23, 2023
https://www.nytimes.com › science
After Long Delay, Moderna Pays N.I.H. for Covid Vaccine Technique

[crashbang]

Has anyone ever been forced to have any vaccinations, if you don't want one don't have one.
Sorted.

[Eternal Optimist]

Has anyone ever been forced to have any vaccinations, if you don't want one don't have one.
Sorted.

If someone had been threatened with the loss of their employment unless they had the mRNA, would you consider that as being 'forced'?

[crashbang]

If you have principles get a job elsewhere, if you are just spouting on a soap box, get it.
Your choice. As I said no one is forced.

[frogmiller]

Little by little the whuhan lab information seems to be being exposed.

Here’s a summary of a New York Post article:

• NIH principal deputy director Lawrence Tabak admitted to Congress that the NIH funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, depending on the definition of gain-of-function, confirming the involvement through EcoHealth Alliance. “If you’re speaking about the generic term, yes, we did [fund gain-of-function research].”

• This admission follows years of evasive answers from federal health officials, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, about funding such controversial research.

• However, Tabak also said, “The generic term [gain-of-function] is research that goes on in many, many labs around the country. It is not regulated. And the reason it’s not regulated is it poses no threat or harm to anybody.”

• Dr. Bryce Nickels, a professor of genetics at Rutgers University, criticized the NIH’s communication as obfuscating and avoiding accountability. “Tabak was engaging in the usual obfuscation and semantic manipulation that is so frustrating and pointless.”

• The NIH has come under scrutiny for removing gain-of-function research definitions from its website amid debates on its research funding in Wuhan, raising concerns about its transparency and accountability.

• In response to these issues, the US Department of Health and Human Services recently barred the Wuhan Institute from receiving federal grants for ten years and pulled all funding from EcoHealth Alliance for three years.

• EcoHealth Alliance’s president, Dr. Peter Daszak, testified that his organization did not engage in gain-of-function research, contradicting previous statements and evidence.

• In previous communications and hearings, it was revealed that experiments funded by the NIH at the Wuhan lab increased the infectiousness of bat coronaviruses significantly. Tabak revealed that EcoHealth “failed to report” the bat coronaviruses modified with SARS and MERS viruses had been made 10,000 times more infectious, in violation of its NIH grant terms.

• The New York Post reports: “Fauci is scheduled to answer questions about the gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab and theories of the origin of the pandemic in a public subcommittee hearing set for June 3

[KerrAvon]

Little by little the whuhan lab information seems to be being exposed.

Here’s a summary of a New York Post article:

• NIH principal deputy director Lawrence Tabak admitted to Congress that the NIH funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, depending on the definition of gain-of-function, confirming the involvement through EcoHealth Alliance. “If you’re speaking about the generic term, yes, we did [fund gain-of-function research].”

• This admission follows years of evasive answers from federal health officials, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, about funding such controversial research.

• However, Tabak also said, “The generic term [gain-of-function] is research that goes on in many, many labs around the country. It is not regulated. And the reason it’s not regulated is it poses no threat or harm to anybody.”

• Dr. Bryce Nickels, a professor of genetics at Rutgers University, criticized the NIH’s communication as obfuscating and avoiding accountability. “Tabak was engaging in the usual obfuscation and semantic manipulation that is so frustrating and pointless.”

• The NIH has come under scrutiny for removing gain-of-function research definitions from its website amid debates on its research funding in Wuhan, raising concerns about its transparency and accountability.

• In response to these issues, the US Department of Health and Human Services recently barred the Wuhan Institute from receiving federal grants for ten years and pulled all funding from EcoHealth Alliance for three years.

• EcoHealth Alliance’s president, Dr. Peter Daszak, testified that his organization did not engage in gain-of-function research, contradicting previous statements and evidence.

• In previous communications and hearings, it was revealed that experiments funded by the NIH at the Wuhan lab increased the infectiousness of bat coronaviruses significantly. Tabak revealed that EcoHealth “failed to report” the bat coronaviruses modified with SARS and MERS viruses had been made 10,000 times more infectious, in violation of its NIH grant terms.

• The New York Post reports: “Fauci is scheduled to answer questions about the gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab and theories of the origin of the pandemic in a public subcommittee hearing set for June 3

Blimey. I’m criticised for linking to the Lancet and you rely upon a newspaper with all the credibility of the Daily Star and with a former Sun editor as Editor in Chief. And it is owned by News Corporation which numbers Blackrock and Vanguard amongst its shareholders… That apparently means that nothing that it publishes can be trusted.