-
Join ccmfans.net
ccmfans.net is the Central Coast Mariners fan community, and was formed in 2004, so basically the beginning of time for the Mariners. Things have changed a lot over the years, but one thing has remained constant and that is our love of the Mariners. People come and go, some like to post a lot and others just like to read. It's up to you how you participate in the community!
If you want to get rid of this message, simply click on Join Now or head over to https://www.ccmfans.net/community/register/ to join the community! It only takes a few minutes, and joining will let you post your thoughts and opinions on all things Mariners, Football, and whatever else pops into your mind. If posting is not your thing, you can interact in other ways, including voting on polls, and unlock options only available to community members.
ccmfans.net is not only for Mariners fans either. Most of us are bonded by our support for the Mariners, but if you are a fan of another club (except the Scum, come on, we need some standards), feel free to join and get into some banter.
Will Trump be Charged with Treason
- Thread starter midfielder
- Start date
true believer
Well-Known Member
1st show some proof .or we'll believe you're a lying ideologue
2nd item is unequivocal bullshit . show trials are a mark of totalitarian regimes
biden pardoned the police officers at the white house when felonisimo attempted his first coup
why the f'k would you need to pardon the police . unless you expected a witch trial ?
President Joe Biden just issued last minute preemptive pardons to protect them from Trump: 📌 Liz Cheney 📌 General Mark Milley 📌 Dr. Anthony Fauci 📌 Adam Schiff and Jan. 6 Committee members of Congress and staffers 📌 Police officers who testified before the January 6 Committee
coming to you
People's Court (Germany) - Wikipedia
Capn Gus Bloodbeard
Well-Known Member
God, what absolute nonsense people make up on the internet. Fauci funded the pandemic. Utterly absurd.
Anyway, Trump is following the normal dictator steps. Whitehorse.gov has removed the constitution page and all references to past Presidents.
true believer
Well-Known Member
musk and felonissimo don't want people to read books
marinermick
Well-Known Member
What, Fauci funded the pandemic? That’s the most tin foil hat thing I have seen on this page. This is bat shit crazy stuff Mark.
Bat shit crazy? Was that an intended pun Mick?
Please don’t tell me anyone still thinks Covid 19 SARS 2 was a zoonotic spillover event, as not one verifiable serial link species has been identified after 5 years of looking.
Does anyone still honestly not believe also that the NIH allowed funding of Coronavirus gain of function research at the WIV through Ecohealth Alliance that happened under Fauci’s watch, despite the supposed moratorium on such research, which is why it was outsourced to Wuhan?
So yes, I stand by my opinion that Fauci had a hand in the pandemic that followed and that probably goes a long way to explaining why the measures taken to deal with it (in large part at his recommendation) were so unprecedentedly draconian, as he knew just how dangerous what they had helped to create was.
If you feel that connecting those dots makes me a tin foil hat wearer, I’ll take one in large please.
Please don’t tell me anyone still thinks Covid 19 SARS 2 was a zoonotic spillover event, as not one verifiable serial link species has been identified after 5 years of looking.
Does anyone still honestly not believe also that the NIH allowed funding of Coronavirus gain of function research at the WIV through Ecohealth Alliance that happened under Fauci’s watch, despite the supposed moratorium on such research, which is why it was outsourced to Wuhan?
So yes, I stand by my opinion that Fauci had a hand in the pandemic that followed and that probably goes a long way to explaining why the measures taken to deal with it (in large part at his recommendation) were so unprecedentedly draconian, as he knew just how dangerous what they had helped to create was.
If you feel that connecting those dots makes me a tin foil hat wearer, I’ll take one in large please.
Last edited:
marinermick
Well-Known Member
Wow, lots of woo there with zero evidence. Real Sky News stuff.
As you said, you are connecting the dots, but going from one to ten, then ten to six, then six to eight etc., to have a picture that is most likely not even remotely the truth.
Let’s agree to differ on that Mick but the evidence is out there if one bothers to actually look.
Please feel free to provide an alternative view on how you believe the pandemic occurred and I’ll be more than happy to look at that.
My own research into this goes way beyond anything MSM might put out there, as I simply wanted to understand how our world got turned upside down and whilst it’s easy to get sucked down rabbit holes, I made sure not to buy into anything that didn’t stack up without credible evidence.
There can surely be no doubt that Ecohealth Alliance was funding GoF research on exactly the kind of viruses that could cause a SARS type infection in Wuhan, which is the recognised epicentre of the outbreak. There’s nothing controversial in that surely?
The fact that Fauci tried to redefine what the term Gain of Function meant during his senate testimony, shows he knew exactly what had happened.
Anyway, I believe that I have read enough and researched enough to have formed a rational view of what happened but feel free to shoot me down without offering a plausible, reasoned counter opinion, as that’s how it seems to work these days.
Hopefully the empirical truth will be revealed at some point for anyone that cares to look at it but until such time as a clear case is demonstrated for a counter view to my own I will stick with it.
Please feel free to provide an alternative view on how you believe the pandemic occurred and I’ll be more than happy to look at that.
My own research into this goes way beyond anything MSM might put out there, as I simply wanted to understand how our world got turned upside down and whilst it’s easy to get sucked down rabbit holes, I made sure not to buy into anything that didn’t stack up without credible evidence.
There can surely be no doubt that Ecohealth Alliance was funding GoF research on exactly the kind of viruses that could cause a SARS type infection in Wuhan, which is the recognised epicentre of the outbreak. There’s nothing controversial in that surely?
The fact that Fauci tried to redefine what the term Gain of Function meant during his senate testimony, shows he knew exactly what had happened.
Anyway, I believe that I have read enough and researched enough to have formed a rational view of what happened but feel free to shoot me down without offering a plausible, reasoned counter opinion, as that’s how it seems to work these days.
Hopefully the empirical truth will be revealed at some point for anyone that cares to look at it but until such time as a clear case is demonstrated for a counter view to my own I will stick with it.
Wombat
Well-Known Member
Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which is part of the NIH, told Congress in May that the NIH "has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology." Ebright said: "The documents make it clear that assertions by the NIH director, Francis Collins, and the NIAID director, Anthony Fauci, that the NIH did not support gain-of-function research or potential pandemic pathogen enhancement in Wuhan are untruthful."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A disagreement between Republican Sen. Rand Paul and Dr. Anthony Fauci has put $600,000 of U.S. grant money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology back into the spotlight, while making “gain-of-function” research a household term — all amid calls for more investigation into the origins of SARS-CoV-2.
At issue is whether the National Institutes of Health funded research on bat coronaviruses that could have caused a pathogen to become more infectious to humans and, separately, if SARS-CoV-2 — the virus that causes the disease COVID-19 — transferred naturally from bats to humans, possibly through an intermediate host animal, or if a virus, a naturally occurring one or a lab-enhanced one, was accidentally released from the Wuhan lab.There are a lot of unknowns, speculation and differences of opinion on these topics. But let’s start with what we do know: In 2014, the NIH awarded a grant to the U.S.-based EcoHealth Alliance to study the risk of the future emergence of coronaviruses from bats. In 2019, the project was renewed for another five years, but it was canceled in April 2020 — three months after the first case of the coronavirus was confirmed in the U.S.
EcoHealth ultimately received $3.7 million over six years from the NIH and distributed nearly $600,000 of that total to China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology, a collaborator on the project, pre-approved by NIH.
The grant cancellation came at a time when then-President Donald Trump and others questioned the U.S. funding to a lab in Wuhan, while exaggerating the amount of federal money involved.
Wuhan, of course, is where the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic emerged in late 2019.
The Wuhan Institute of Virology has studied bat coronaviruses for years and their potential to ultimately infect humans, under the direction of scientist Shi Zhengli, as the Scientific American explained in a June 2020 story. Such zoonotic transfer — meaning transmission of a virus from an animal to a human — of coronaviruses occurred with the SARS and MERS coronaviruses, which led to global outbreaks in 2003 and 2012. Both viruses are thought to have started in bats, and then transferred into humans through intermediate animals — civets and racoon dogs, in the case of SARS, and camels in the case of MERS.
Experts have suspected the SARS-CoV-2 virus similarly originated in bats. Researchers in China — including at the Wuhan Institute of Virology — have said the virus shares 96% of its genome with a bat virus collected by researchers in 2013 in Yunnan Province, China. (While that’s quite similar, Dr. Stanley Perlman, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Iowa who studies coronaviruses and a pediatric infectious disease physician, told us it would be “impossible” to take such a virus and make the kind of changes required to turn it into SARS-CoV-2 in a lab. One would need a virus that’s 99.9% similar, and “in theory it might work.”)
An article published in Nature Medicine in March 2020 said that the virus likely originated through “natural selection in an animal host before zoonotic transfer,” or “natural selection in humans following zoonotic transfer.” The researchers, who analyzed genomic data, said SARS-CoV-2 “is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.” While they said an accidental laboratory release of the naturally occurring virus can’t be ruled out, they said they “do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.”
In an April 2020 statement, University of Sydney professor Edward Holmes, who was involved in mapping the genome of SARS-CoV-2, responded to “unfounded speculation” that the bat virus with 96% similarity was the origin of SARS-CoV-2. He said: “In summary, the abundance, diversity and evolution of coronaviruses in wildlife strongly suggests that this virus is of natural origin. However, a greater sampling of animal species in nature, including bats from Hubei province, is needed to resolve the exact origins of SARS-CoV-2.”
The U.S. Intelligence Community said in an April 30, 2020, statement that it “concurs with the wide scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not manmade or genetically modified,” and that it “will continue to rigorously examine emerging information and intelligence to determine whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals or if it was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan.”
The zoonotic transfer theory hasn’t been proven; for example, no intermediate animal host, as was the case for SARS of MERS, has yet been identified. Lab-accident theories haven’t been proven either — whether a lab worker could have been infected by a naturally occurring virus and then transmitted it outside the lab, or, as Paul and others suggest, a lab-manipulated virus could be the origin.
But recently there has been renewed debate over the origin. On May 14 the journal Science published a letter from 18 scientists calling for “more investigation” to determine how the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic began. “Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable,” they wrote. “Knowing how COVID-19 emerged is critical for informing global strategies to mitigate the risk of future outbreaks.”
Jesse Bloom, one of the organizers of that letter, who studies viral evolution at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, told us in an email: “We know that SARS-CoV-2 is similar to other coronaviruses that circulate in bats, so the deep origins of the virus are definitely from bat coronaviruses. As far as the immediate proximal origins, we simply don’t know the details.”
Bloom said zoonotic transfer either directly from a bat to a human or through an intermediate host animal is possible, as is a lab accident from research of similar viruses. “Because we don’t know the details for either of these scenarios, it’s not possible to say whether a hypothetical lab accident would have involved a virus exactly identical to that isolated in nature, or one that had been grown or somehow modestly manipulated in a lab. At this point, all of these are hypothetical scenarios, and while different scientists may have different guesses at how likely each scenario is, we need more information before anyone can be certain.”
The scientists are hardly alone in calling for more investigation.
As the letter noted, the U.S. government, along with 13 other countries, also had called for more inquiry into the origins in a March statement this year.
Fauci and Shi Zhengli are Gold Medal liars.
marinermick
Well-Known Member
It’s not a matter of agreeing to disagree. I don’t have an opinion on how Covid came about and didn’t make any claims. Whether it came organically and was man made by the Chinese are both plausible.
You are the one making some very fanciful claims so the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence. And I am not talking about you “connecting the dots” because that is not evidence. That is just speculation.
marinermick
Well-Known Member
Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which is part of the NIH, told Congress in May that the NIH "has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology." Ebright said: "The documents make it clear that assertions by the NIH director, Francis Collins, and the NIAID director, Anthony Fauci, that the NIH did not support gain-of-function research or potential pandemic pathogen enhancement in Wuhan are untruthful."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A disagreement between Republican Sen. Rand Paul and Dr. Anthony Fauci has put $600,000 of U.S. grant money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology back into the spotlight, while making “gain-of-function” research a household term — all amid calls for more investigation into the origins of SARS-CoV-2.
There are a lot of unknowns, speculation and differences of opinion on these topics. But let’s start with what we do know: In 2014, the NIH awarded a grant to the U.S.-based EcoHealth Alliance to study the risk of the future emergence of coronaviruses from bats. In 2019, the project was renewed for another five years, but it was canceled in April 2020 — three months after the first case of the coronavirus was confirmed in the U.S.
EcoHealth ultimately received $3.7 million over six years from the NIH and distributed nearly $600,000 of that total to China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology, a collaborator on the project, pre-approved by NIH.
The grant cancellation came at a time when then-President Donald Trump and others questioned the U.S. funding to a lab in Wuhan, while exaggerating the amount of federal money involved.
Wuhan, of course, is where the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic emerged in late 2019.
The Wuhan Institute of Virology has studied bat coronaviruses for years and their potential to ultimately infect humans, under the direction of scientist Shi Zhengli, as the Scientific American explained in a June 2020 story. Such zoonotic transfer — meaning transmission of a virus from an animal to a human — of coronaviruses occurred with the SARS and MERS coronaviruses, which led to global outbreaks in 2003 and 2012. Both viruses are thought to have started in bats, and then transferred into humans through intermediate animals — civets and racoon dogs, in the case of SARS, and camels in the case of MERS.
Experts have suspected the SARS-CoV-2 virus similarly originated in bats. Researchers in China — including at the Wuhan Institute of Virology — have said the virus shares 96% of its genome with a bat virus collected by researchers in 2013 in Yunnan Province, China. (While that’s quite similar, Dr. Stanley Perlman, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Iowa who studies coronaviruses and a pediatric infectious disease physician, told us it would be “impossible” to take such a virus and make the kind of changes required to turn it into SARS-CoV-2 in a lab. One would need a virus that’s 99.9% similar, and “in theory it might work.”)
An article published in Nature Medicine in March 2020 said that the virus likely originated through “natural selection in an animal host before zoonotic transfer,” or “natural selection in humans following zoonotic transfer.” The researchers, who analyzed genomic data, said SARS-CoV-2 “is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.” While they said an accidental laboratory release of the naturally occurring virus can’t be ruled out, they said they “do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.”
In an April 2020 statement, University of Sydney professor Edward Holmes, who was involved in mapping the genome of SARS-CoV-2, responded to “unfounded speculation” that the bat virus with 96% similarity was the origin of SARS-CoV-2. He said: “In summary, the abundance, diversity and evolution of coronaviruses in wildlife strongly suggests that this virus is of natural origin. However, a greater sampling of animal species in nature, including bats from Hubei province, is needed to resolve the exact origins of SARS-CoV-2.”
The U.S. Intelligence Community said in an April 30, 2020, statement that it “concurs with the wide scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not manmade or genetically modified,” and that it “will continue to rigorously examine emerging information and intelligence to determine whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals or if it was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan.”
The zoonotic transfer theory hasn’t been proven; for example, no intermediate animal host, as was the case for SARS of MERS, has yet been identified. Lab-accident theories haven’t been proven either — whether a lab worker could have been infected by a naturally occurring virus and then transmitted it outside the lab, or, as Paul and others suggest, a lab-manipulated virus could be the origin.
But recently there has been renewed debate over the origin. On May 14 the journal Science published a letter from 18 scientists calling for “more investigation” to determine how the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic began. “Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable,” they wrote. “Knowing how COVID-19 emerged is critical for informing global strategies to mitigate the risk of future outbreaks.”
Jesse Bloom, one of the organizers of that letter, who studies viral evolution at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, told us in an email: “We know that SARS-CoV-2 is similar to other coronaviruses that circulate in bats, so the deep origins of the virus are definitely from bat coronaviruses. As far as the immediate proximal origins, we simply don’t know the details.”
Bloom said zoonotic transfer either directly from a bat to a human or through an intermediate host animal is possible, as is a lab accident from research of similar viruses. “Because we don’t know the details for either of these scenarios, it’s not possible to say whether a hypothetical lab accident would have involved a virus exactly identical to that isolated in nature, or one that had been grown or somehow modestly manipulated in a lab. At this point, all of these are hypothetical scenarios, and while different scientists may have different guesses at how likely each scenario is, we need more information before anyone can be certain.”
The scientists are hardly alone in calling for more investigation.
As the letter noted, the U.S. government, along with 13 other countries, also had called for more inquiry into the origins in a March statement this year.
Fauci and Shi Zhengli are Gold Medal liars.
Where did you cut and paste this from? Where is source and link?
FFC Mariner
Well-Known Member
It’s far from speculation Mick, it is a reasoned hypothesis based upon multiple sources of information.
Like I say, it is my own view and you and everyone else are free to take it or leave it as you each see fit, or just post sarcastic cartoons rather than engage in a genuine intellectual debate. 🙄
true believer
Well-Known Member
good idea
Online statistics
- Members online
- 25
- Guests online
- 390
- Total visitors
- 415
Latest posts
-
National Youth League Fixtures and Mariners youth team discussion- Latest: true believer
-
-
-
