Source: Fauci expressed disillusionment with ‘rambling, crazy’ Trump in journal | Anthony Fauci | The Guardian For “about 20-25 minutes”, Fauci wrote, he “encouraged [Trump] not to underplay the seriousness of the situation since if it turns out bad, it would look like he is covering up. I even spoke to him from a political standpoint that his chances for re-election might be more damaged if he downplayed the potential spread of virus in the USA than if he said we may face serious problems and even if the Stock Market goes down further, he was at least honest and the country would respect him for it. “I thought that he heard what I said, but the next day, he again underplayed it.” By 14 March, in the thick of the first Covid shutdowns, Fauci is bemoaning Trump’s fixation on “the fluff of ratings and publicity. And so he wants us to do 2 press conferences/day – one in AM and one in PM … We now will have no time to do work.” Scanning local radio, heard some ‘talk radio’ heads lying to their sheeple about what will happen Wednesday. Bob Wilson
the cdc should have had a spokes person who understood the science, and had public relations experience. it was an untenable position for Fauci, who was deeply involved, but lacked the communication ability needed.
The talking heads were making stuff up about the ‘diary’ and then complaining that real news sources were not repeating their ‘outrage.’ They also injected complaints about free people who choose to wear a face mask in public. They were so frustrated that their fantasies were not ‘news’ they basically were flittering about with no consistency. Babbling more than informative. Especially ineffective noise. Soon I was scanning the stations for more music. Bob Wilson
Propaganda parrots are everywhere … including ‘talk radio.’ We used to call them ‘trolls’ and Proverbs ‘fool.’ Bob Wilson
Speaking of worthless shots, here's one for the books Then people wonder why so man6 didn't want to bother with covid shots? LOL go figure ! It'll be interesting how the next few years of data go. .
Dateline: Jan 24, 2006 Source: Right Voice Refined Posted to YouTube: 14 months ago Comments: zero. The study in question was published in February 2005, using data from 1968 through 2001. Considering that there have been many vaccine system changes and more studies since, this YT posting seems more like worthless conspiracy click-bait than anything else.
Our topic (new Hearings) should draw much from: https://oversight.house.gov/report/after-action-review-of-the-covid-19-pandemic-the-lessons-learned-and-a-path-forward/ Link to downloadable 520-page document. Some might read it. Much is made there of: Alina Chan, Why the Pandemic Probably Started in a Lab, in 5 Key Points, THE N.Y. TIMES (June 3, 2024). I guess that word “probably” was not author’s choice but used for click purposes. Five key points were: 1. The SARS-like virus that caused the pandemic emerged in Wuhan, the city where the world’s foremost research lab for SARS-like viruses is located. 2. The year before the outbreak, the Wuhan institute, working with U.S. partners, had proposed creating viruses with SARS-CoV-2’s defining feature. 3. The Wuhan lab pursued this type of work under low biosafety conditions that could not have contained an airborne virus as infectious as SARS-CoV-2. 4. The hypothesis that Covid-19 came from an animal at the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan is not supported by strong evidence. 5. Key evidence that would be expected if the virus had emerged from the wildlife trade is still missing. -- Things can be said about those 5 that were not included in house.gov long document. 1. First phrase is obviously true, and second phrase has not been supported by evidence. 2. That grant proposal was not funded. 3. All work done there followed BSL-2 protocols; used in other labs (worldwide) for virus research including on rabies. It seems opinion to call BSL-2 “low biosafety conditions”. With no evidence that Wuhan Institute of Virology worked on this virus, this is speculation. 4. Dealt with below with publications and other sources cited in house.gov document. 5. Information that China government may have about wildlife trade in Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan is still unavailable, and I expect no further disclosures. That market has been closed but I don’t know if it has been demolished. What I do know is China government has put new restrictions on wildlife trade, some of which are noted at: https://everything.explained.today/Huanan_Seafood_Wholesale_Market/ https://reference.org/facts/Huanan_Seafood_Wholesale_Market/lV44b7c6 -- house.gov document also mentioned 5 publications addressing origins of COVID: Alexander Crits-Christoph et al. Genetic tracing of market wildlife and viruses at the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic. CELL 187: 5468-5482 Edward Holmes et al. The origins of SARS-CoV-2: A critical review. CELL 184: 4848-4856 Jonthan Pekar et al. The molecular epidemiology of multiple zoonotic origins of SARS-CoV-2. SCIENCE 377:960-966 Michael Worobey et al. The Hunan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan was the early epicenter of the COVID1-9 pandemic. SCIENCE 377: 951-959 Edward Holmes et al. The emergence and evolution of SARSCoV-2. ANN. REV. VIROL. (Sept. 11, 2024). I’ve read all and they are ‘open’ so readers can also. Not all readers may agree that preponderance of evidence supports natural origin of COVID jump to humans. But these are what house.gov document mentioned. It did not offer any opposing evidence, and yet did not draw the obvious conclusion. -- Alina Chan’s life changed after writing for NY Times: https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2025/03/12/alina-chan-cambridge-covid/ And I particularly draw readers’ attention to: https://www.bigbiology.org/episodes/2023/9/7/ep-105-follow-the-data-the-search-for-covids-origin-with-alina-chan Where in Sept. 2023, no evidence was presented that “the Pandemic Probably Started in a Lab”. Instead one hears that virus research including ‘gain of function’ (GoF) should proceed for human benefits, but ought to be done in remote places where BSL protocols are improved by sick people not allowed to get off the island. That matches my vision of benefits and risks of GoF research. Dr. Chan is pursuing related interests: Chen et al. eLife 2021;10:e63409. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.63409 == We are in a new world where next frisky virus jump to humans can be quickly (DNA) sequenced and mRNA vaccine against can be quickly manufactured at scale. Our new supepower! But limited by FUD about vaccines, and pharmaceutical companies profiteering if allowed to. do so. We are not quite yet Super. But I expect to hear nothing of that in new House Hearing.
Asking AI whether or not Dr fauci's diary reveals any dishonesty regarding matters of covid - it responded with the following;
One of Rand's complaints concerns the "furin cleavage site" of the virus which is part of the cell invasion mechanism. I don't claim expertise but this Lancet article gives the impression its origin is not determined by prior observation but part of a mechanism that lets the virus escape a cell that just manufactured it and a host of others: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(23)00144-1/fulltext . . . While it has been proposed that the FCS might have been engineered, it is becoming clearer that natural selection is, in fact, the driving factor in its acquisition and functionality, through recombination and epistasis. Central to this concept is the highly dynamic molecular nature of the SARS-CoV-2 spike, which is synthesised as a trimer with its three receptor (ACE2)-binding domains initially in a closed conformation. When an FCS is present, the spike encounters the intracellular protease furin on its way out of the cell, which processes and separates the S1 and S2 subdomains, imparting a relaxation in the protein and allowing one or more receptor-binding domains to flip up—the open conformation—markedly increasing receptor engagement and driving the transmissibility of the virus.2 The spike thus reversibly samples its open-trimer conformations and the FCS promotes this, but not exclusively.3 However, this sampling comes at some cost; if there are too many “up” domains the spike becomes unstable, which poses a problem as the virus can now shed S1 and lose transmissibility. The virus therefore exists in a transmission window, but its FCS has functionally stayed in place—as for Leigh Van Valen's so-called Red Queen hypothesis—through sequence changes elsewhere in the spike. For SARS-CoV-2, the best known of these changes was D614G, which arose and became embedded within lineage B just a few months after the initial outbreak. 614G markedly increases infectivity and is a “gateway mutation” upon which all the specific FCS changes in the variants of concern were built. . . . Evolution has a property that several parallel species can individually develop similar structures. For example, web fingers in fish, lizards, birds, and mammals. To claim a first detection proves this was "man" or "nature" made is simply to claim "observation" is "manufacture." A serious search separates what can not be proven to a hypothesis not backed up by provable facts and data. For example: Leading biologist dampens his ‘smoking gun’ Covid lab leak theory | Coronavirus | The Guardian David Baltimore, a distinguished biology professor, had become one of the most prominent figures cited by proponents of the so-called lab leak theory. Originally quoted in an article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in May, and widely requoted since, Baltimore had appeared to suggest that a specific feature in Covid-19’s genome, known as the furin cleavage site, was the “smoking gun” to the theory the virus had been contained inside a laboratory and then escaped via a leak. “These features make a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin for Sars2,” he said at the time. In recent days, however, Baltimore has told a fellow researcher, the scientific journal Nature and the LA Times that – while he had been quoted accurately in the bulletin – he should not have used the phrase “smoking gun” and was uncertain what the feature proved regarding the origins of the virus – natural or otherwise. In an email exchange with the Los Angeles Times, Baltimore conceded he had overstated the case and that he had an open mind on the matter. “ should have softened the phrase ‘smoking gun’ because I don’t believe that it proves the origin of the furin cleavage site but it does sound that way. “I believe that the question of whether the sequence was put in naturally or by molecular manipulation is very hard to determine but I wouldn’t rule out either origin.” I have little to no interest in the virus origins and am of the opinion that virus replication is a "lossy" or "noisy" process. Short term, unique variants often have a brief 'success' that gets muted by biological and man-made responses. We are not "homo dummies" (in spite of some coincidences.) Discussion of an origin hypothesis without hard evidence is a waste of my time as I'm more interested in adopting counter measures. For example, mRNA technology and limiting exposure. Bob Wilson
Dr Fauci takes the Fifth Amendment. Rand Paul simply blathers on. WELL DONE! Just a scripted Republican ‘kangaroo’ hearing. Theater ignoring the measles, GI parasite, and $1,250/month healthcare premium. Healthcare crashing and they are failing. Pure hokum. Bob Wilson
Some interesting legal questions: Opening statement and the Fifth - an opening statement is not compelled. But some of the Senators seemed to think it negates the 5th. Pardon and the 5th - does a pardon negate the 5th Amendment protection? There was reference to a ‘recent’ Supreme Court decision. We’ll see. Regardless, it is over for now and likely to drag on until a Supreme Court gets a chance to negate another Constitutional right. Bob Wilson
