Further, Richard Ebright being incorrect on vaccine mandates, does not make everything else he happens to agree with also incorrect. This is a fallacy known as 'guilt-by-association', the most notorious example is Hitler being pro-animal rights.
Ebright could be wrong on 20 things, and right on 1. It is not my job to toss out all ideas because one idea is wrong: my job is sift through information to find and report on the truth. He's a microbiologist with familiarity on lab security, that is his domain of expertise. What he's not an expert in, however, is immunology, vaccines, or political or biological ethics.
I do not make character assassination judgements based on bad ideas like 'mainstream media' do. I only criticise the bad behaviour itself if it presents (such as being overtly dishonest, committing fraud, profiteering, murder, etc). Instead I debate ideas.
Demanding bans or mandating requirements is nothing new in politics, it does not justify a full blown character assassination or a complete rejection of all presented ideas. For example, I have criticised mainstream media pundit Oakeshott's views on vaccines, but not her views being opposed to lockdowns. I have criticised Elon Musk's censorship, but not his callout of the BBC.
It is possible to distinguish and differentiate ideas. No-one is perfect, no ideas are perfect. I do not toss the baby out with the bathwater, and Ebright still has an opportunity to respond and try to refute my premise.
If you wish to contest his lab leak views, or mine, rather than making vague insinuations of "pushing" as a weak implied character attack with no real substantce (if I was a highly paid propagandist I would not be accepting the below-minimum-wage of Substack and would be using the much broader reach of mainstream media outlets), how about you write an actual, evidenced, in-depth rebuttal to my observations and analysis of the various pieces of evidence that point to an engineered virus, and show people where exactly I'm wrong?
Now to return the vague insinuation: why would you be making vague insinuations in the first place shortly after I wrote a criticism aimed at Ebright when I've been writing for a good year now?
Odd accusation to say I'm "pushing it" regarding lab leaks. Saying it's an "entirely fake narrative" would require evidence to that extent.
"a purified version was strategically released"
How is releasing it any different from a lab leak? It'd still have to be "purified" (whatever that means) in a lab. Engineering would still have to be involved. They don't just produce weapons in backdoor shacks.
I have written 4 articles covering a multi-part series on the lab leaks, including an extensive history of prior 'outbreaks' that originated from numerous labs to show this is not an isolated example and they have just gotten more brazen in their attempts to inflict harms upon the public.
Part 4: The Wuhan Outbreak (It's Not Where You Think), where I point out a cross-over event involving the military that has been ignored:
Part 1: I Melt My Laptop's CPU To Find No-one Knows The Definition Of 'Gain-Of-Function'
I demonstrate that numerous people have given factually (and legally) incorrect definitions for gain-of-function, including the NIH, Congress, Fauci, Peter Daszak and even Rand Paul (but Rand Paul was the most accurate of all of them):
So this isn't me "pushing it", this is me documenting, with evidence and receipts, a giant papertrail of heavy government involvement in viral research. I am also working on a viral genome analysis as I believe I've identified the (deleted) intermediary host which, should I opt to organise and publish (pending a re-review), would slam dunk that Ralph Baric and his cohorts were directly responsible for SARS-CoV-2.
Flipping back - and I did mention 'plural S' - leaks. There has been more than one lab leak, involving more than one pathogen, with varying rates of mortality, and for differing targets. Hence my stressing of the plural. You're over-focused on SARS-CoV-2, which is one more experiment in a long line of experiments.
I advise the reading of the Part 3 article specifically. It is a bit like saying 'we don't have to fear assassins, look, one of their bullets missed!'; the fact there was even a bullet to begin with ought to concern you.
It sounds like you're not here to debate in good faith, and are now making weird, unevidenced emotional appeals.
I asked you to provide evidence as to why the lab leaks (plural S) weren't a thing. Instead, you ignored what has been written in Part 3, mentioned what you thought was SARS-CoV-2's survival rate and pretended like that addresses any of my points, which it doesn't.
Part 3 - which you obviously haven't read - include:
- Foot and Mouth Disease
- Avian Flu
- Swine Flu
- Smallpox
- SARS
- MERS
None of these outbreaks of which have been addressed. Foot and Mouth Disease isn't even a human disease, so the survival rate you quoted - for humans - isn't even applicable. As said, it also doesn't cover Marburg (German lab outbreak from a monkey) or Ebola (where the 'natural origins' theory does not stand up to scrutiny and most point to, again, a lab).
Further, the articles length aren't something you can just digest within the space of 8 hours, and I'm absolutely confident if I asked you any questions about the articles - what, for example, is the actual definition of gain-of-function, and what industry ties were found involving Fauci from the FOIA - I imagine you would continue to give me these baseless emotional arm flails with, again, no evidence.
You can make as many desperation emotional appeals as you want. All you're doing is appealing to the fact this virus 'isn't' successful, according to *your* definition of success (you think it involves it killing as many people as possible). If you read the Bastiat Crime article - which you also clearly haven't or you wouldn't be this way - the definition of success is how much profit it drives vaccine manufacturers.
Indeed, if you knew anything about viral evolution, you'd know host selection for spread favours viruses that don't kill their host. It's why historical pandemics (black plague, Russian flu, etc) die out within about 4 years. SARS had a high mortality rate and barely spread (something like, 8,000 cases tops). So if one wants a virus to spread, one has to drive down mortality, which is exactly what Wuhan Institute of Virology did.
The mortality comes from the vaccines. The advantage is, the globalists don't risk injuring themselves this way. A virus is hard to control, but an administered syringe they can refuse or take saline.
Excellent! Thank you.
Further, Richard Ebright being incorrect on vaccine mandates, does not make everything else he happens to agree with also incorrect. This is a fallacy known as 'guilt-by-association', the most notorious example is Hitler being pro-animal rights.
Ebright could be wrong on 20 things, and right on 1. It is not my job to toss out all ideas because one idea is wrong: my job is sift through information to find and report on the truth. He's a microbiologist with familiarity on lab security, that is his domain of expertise. What he's not an expert in, however, is immunology, vaccines, or political or biological ethics.
I do not make character assassination judgements based on bad ideas like 'mainstream media' do. I only criticise the bad behaviour itself if it presents (such as being overtly dishonest, committing fraud, profiteering, murder, etc). Instead I debate ideas.
Demanding bans or mandating requirements is nothing new in politics, it does not justify a full blown character assassination or a complete rejection of all presented ideas. For example, I have criticised mainstream media pundit Oakeshott's views on vaccines, but not her views being opposed to lockdowns. I have criticised Elon Musk's censorship, but not his callout of the BBC.
It is possible to distinguish and differentiate ideas. No-one is perfect, no ideas are perfect. I do not toss the baby out with the bathwater, and Ebright still has an opportunity to respond and try to refute my premise.
If you wish to contest his lab leak views, or mine, rather than making vague insinuations of "pushing" as a weak implied character attack with no real substantce (if I was a highly paid propagandist I would not be accepting the below-minimum-wage of Substack and would be using the much broader reach of mainstream media outlets), how about you write an actual, evidenced, in-depth rebuttal to my observations and analysis of the various pieces of evidence that point to an engineered virus, and show people where exactly I'm wrong?
Now to return the vague insinuation: why would you be making vague insinuations in the first place shortly after I wrote a criticism aimed at Ebright when I've been writing for a good year now?
Odd accusation to say I'm "pushing it" regarding lab leaks. Saying it's an "entirely fake narrative" would require evidence to that extent.
"a purified version was strategically released"
How is releasing it any different from a lab leak? It'd still have to be "purified" (whatever that means) in a lab. Engineering would still have to be involved. They don't just produce weapons in backdoor shacks.
I have written 4 articles covering a multi-part series on the lab leaks, including an extensive history of prior 'outbreaks' that originated from numerous labs to show this is not an isolated example and they have just gotten more brazen in their attempts to inflict harms upon the public.
Part 4: The Wuhan Outbreak (It's Not Where You Think), where I point out a cross-over event involving the military that has been ignored:
https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/the-wuhan-outbreak-its-not-where
Part 3: Vaccine manufacturers are behind the outbreaks (note plural s):
https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/vaccine-manufacturers-are-behind
Part 2: I Returned To Programmer Hell To Read Over 3000 Pages To Prove NIH Has No Security
I discover numerous connections using automated data scraping and plenty of dirt on Fauci and the NIH
For how: https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/i-returned-to-programmer-hell-to
For the results: https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/i-returned-to-programmer-hell-to#%C2%A7the-results-are-in
Part 1: I Melt My Laptop's CPU To Find No-one Knows The Definition Of 'Gain-Of-Function'
I demonstrate that numerous people have given factually (and legally) incorrect definitions for gain-of-function, including the NIH, Congress, Fauci, Peter Daszak and even Rand Paul (but Rand Paul was the most accurate of all of them):
https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/i-melt-my-laptops-cpu-to-find-no
So this isn't me "pushing it", this is me documenting, with evidence and receipts, a giant papertrail of heavy government involvement in viral research. I am also working on a viral genome analysis as I believe I've identified the (deleted) intermediary host which, should I opt to organise and publish (pending a re-review), would slam dunk that Ralph Baric and his cohorts were directly responsible for SARS-CoV-2.
Flipping back - and I did mention 'plural S' - leaks. There has been more than one lab leak, involving more than one pathogen, with varying rates of mortality, and for differing targets. Hence my stressing of the plural. You're over-focused on SARS-CoV-2, which is one more experiment in a long line of experiments.
And yes, I have covered in extense (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/extense) the various threats they pose. I encourage you to read Part 3, which I linked in my earlier comment.
If the depth is challenging, then the more layperson's article Bastiat Crimes And Vaccine Cultists
(https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/bastiat-crimes-and-vaccine-cultists) might make it more obvious. There are also the attempts to weaponise insects (https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/vaccine-cultists-wont-take-no-for-018).
I advise the reading of the Part 3 article specifically. It is a bit like saying 'we don't have to fear assassins, look, one of their bullets missed!'; the fact there was even a bullet to begin with ought to concern you.
It sounds like you're not here to debate in good faith, and are now making weird, unevidenced emotional appeals.
I asked you to provide evidence as to why the lab leaks (plural S) weren't a thing. Instead, you ignored what has been written in Part 3, mentioned what you thought was SARS-CoV-2's survival rate and pretended like that addresses any of my points, which it doesn't.
Part 3 - which you obviously haven't read - include:
- Foot and Mouth Disease
- Avian Flu
- Swine Flu
- Smallpox
- SARS
- MERS
None of these outbreaks of which have been addressed. Foot and Mouth Disease isn't even a human disease, so the survival rate you quoted - for humans - isn't even applicable. As said, it also doesn't cover Marburg (German lab outbreak from a monkey) or Ebola (where the 'natural origins' theory does not stand up to scrutiny and most point to, again, a lab).
Further, the articles length aren't something you can just digest within the space of 8 hours, and I'm absolutely confident if I asked you any questions about the articles - what, for example, is the actual definition of gain-of-function, and what industry ties were found involving Fauci from the FOIA - I imagine you would continue to give me these baseless emotional arm flails with, again, no evidence.
You can make as many desperation emotional appeals as you want. All you're doing is appealing to the fact this virus 'isn't' successful, according to *your* definition of success (you think it involves it killing as many people as possible). If you read the Bastiat Crime article - which you also clearly haven't or you wouldn't be this way - the definition of success is how much profit it drives vaccine manufacturers.
Indeed, if you knew anything about viral evolution, you'd know host selection for spread favours viruses that don't kill their host. It's why historical pandemics (black plague, Russian flu, etc) die out within about 4 years. SARS had a high mortality rate and barely spread (something like, 8,000 cases tops). So if one wants a virus to spread, one has to drive down mortality, which is exactly what Wuhan Institute of Virology did.
The mortality comes from the vaccines. The advantage is, the globalists don't risk injuring themselves this way. A virus is hard to control, but an administered syringe they can refuse or take saline.