Science, Philosophy and Politics

By Andy May

Greg Weiner has written a great essay in Law & Liberty, entitled: “Why We cannot Just ‘Follow the Science.‘” His point is that scientists and science are important, but relying only on “The Science” for decision making is both dangerous and foolish. Science is a methodology for proposing well-developed answers to questions about natural events, it is a tool for proposing answers, not the answer. Skeptical scientists will try and disprove any proposed answer or theory, it is their duty. Only the very best theories survive this process and gain universal acceptance, like Einstein’s theory of relativity. For further discussion of this idea, see my discussion of facts and theories here. Most proposed answers, like man-made climate change, are furiously debated. So, it is fair to ask, as Weiner does, “Which [scientific] experts should we listen to …?”

The phrase “follow the science,” is a way to duck responsibility. In Weiner’s word’s: “The slogan ‘follow the science’ is meant to exempt politicians from the duty of judgment.” Moral and political judgement must superintend science. It seems likely that the virus that causes COVID-19 was engineered in the Wuhan Virology lab. The U.S. NIAID, led by Dr. Fauci, supported this research. Was that money, distributed by a government scientist, wise or moral? Would the public or politicians have approved of sending money to a Chinese laboratory, connected to the Chinese military, to conduct research on a deadly virus? Was “following the science” wise in that case? I think not.

Scientists should not be making critical decisions; they should be in advisory roles and carefully supervised by elected political leaders, not unelected bureaucrats. Recently, Nature revealed that critical early SARS-CoV-2 (the COVID-19 virus) gene sequences were removed from a U.S. government database, at the request of Wuhan University scientific researchers. The gene sequences contained valuable information that shows the early viral sequences from the Wuhan seafood market are more distantly related to SARS-CoV-2’s closest relatives in bats than later sequences found in humans from China and the U.S. This makes it less likely the market is the source of the first human infection.

Dr. Jesse Bloom discovered that the sequences had been deleted and managed to recover them from archives. He says there is no plausible reason for the deletions and suspects they were to obscure their existence. Bloom also believes we should be skeptical that all early Wuhan sequences have been shared.

The amino acid arginine is typically used in laboratories to “supercharge” a virus and make it more communicable and deadly. Arginine can be built with 36 different gene sequences in DNA. SARS-CoV-2 contains the sequence CGG-CGG, or “double CGG.” The same lethality is achieved with any of the 36 sequences (or codons) in the same site, but the double CGG sequence is the least likely to occur in nature. In fact, the double CGG sequence has never been found in naturally occurring coronaviruses. A virus naturally obtaining a new skill, will pick it up from similar viruses, yet no similar viruses have this combination, it was almost certainly the result of engineering.

While it is clear that politics has corrupted climate science, it appears the reverse is also true. Science has corrupted politics, in the words of Jon Stewart on Stephen Colbert’s show recently:

“Here’s how the world ends, the last words man utters are somewhere in a lab. A guy goes, ‘Huhuh, it worked.'”

Some pundits have tried to defend scientists and experts, but most of us should remember what Richard Feynman once said,

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

Science is scientific debate, with rules. Science is not wise words spoken from on high. Science, properly done, is so professionally researched and explained as to be self-evident. Once the paper is read, the data obtained and checked, anyone with the necessary skills can reproduce the author’s result and convince themselves that what the author said was true. “The Science” is not truth, it is a process that results in truth, if done properly. If no one can reproduce the result, if the underlying data aren’t available to the public, if the methodology is not clear, it is not a proper scientific theory, it is not “science.” Don’t follow it.

5 43 votes
Article Rating
338 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Derg
June 28, 2021 6:09 pm

I recently heard Trump say, I am paraphrasing, that he wondered if he told the press that HCQ was the worst drug on the market for Covid would that have saved lives.

The Press is evil. Flat out evil.

Simon
Reply to  Derg
June 28, 2021 7:31 pm

Except HCQ is less than worthless for covid….

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
June 28, 2021 7:34 pm

Did you skip your AL-Anon meeting again?

joe belford
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 28, 2021 7:45 pm

Simon is correct, HCQ has never proven effective in a randomized double blind trial.

John Tillman
Reply to  joe belford
June 28, 2021 8:00 pm

It was shown effective against SARS, which is why Trump suggested its use.

Doctors actually treating patients develop protocols without randomized double blind trials. Especially in a pandemic, why not? As FauXi himself advocated during the height of the HIV pandemic.

Greg
Reply to  joe belford
June 28, 2021 8:43 pm

Randomized double blind trial is not the only form of acceptable science.

HCQ has never proven effective …. because the only trials being done were stopped because of the fraudulent Lancet paper and never continued once the fraud was exposed.

A recently published study based on data obtained up to that point showed a 50% reduction in fatalities when HCQ + antibiotic was applied before critical illness.

HOWEVER, due to insufficient patent numbers ( about 250 ) this positive result was deemed “not statistically significant” and the paper reported no positive effect was proven. So the study tells us NOTHING about the efficacy of HCQ because it was incapable of finding anything.

The original trial was started with a program for over 600 patients which would have been able to detect a significant result if one was present. It failed to achieve those numbers because the trails were stopped !!

Prof Raoult’s team at Marseilles IHU have applied THREE times to conduct new tests to complete the work which was stopped because of scientific fraud. All three have been refused on the grounds we already “know” it does not work.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Greg
June 29, 2021 1:25 am

Please be reasonable! We already know that it absolutely can’t make money for Big Pharma or Fauci. It’s a dirt-cheap generic. So it “doesn’t work”. And also shockingly, if you overdose it, it has toxicity!

How could any responsible professional recommend such a dangerous unprofitable, er, ineffective drug?

TheLastDemocrat
Reply to  Greg
June 30, 2021 10:07 am

a 50% reduction in 250 people, I assume a pre-post design, and the difference is not statistically significant?

Something is funny.

  1. Please post the citation for this study.
  2. For at least a couple decades, we have been in the era of the Power Analysis; no one is running an under-powered study. Sample size calculations can be done easily with online apps.
  3. If a 50% reduction was not stat sig, then the study was set up to be powered for an even greater reduction – say, 60%. Setting up a pioneering study for an untested intervention with an expected success rate of 60% is preposterous. It is not done.
Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  joe belford
June 28, 2021 9:14 pm

HCQ is an ionophore helping Zn penetrate the cell walls. Zn does the heavy lifting by disrupting the virus replication process inside the cells. It is not a two-dimensional process any more than climate change is two dimensional. HCQ has a half life in the human body of greater than 30 days. When prescribed for CV-19, take 200mg once daily for 5 days to build up the concentration then take weekly thereafter to maintain the concentration, just like they do in countries with wide-spread malaria. You will also be prescribed 220mg zinc sulfate daily. HCQ has other beneficial properties like being an anti inflammatory and altering the pH slightly. I have a prescription obtained through a US doctor and distributed by a local pharmacy but have not needed it yet. Early on, the gold-standard trial was attempted but was cancelled a month later after receiving only 20 volunteers when 2000 were needed for the trial. Clinics, pharmacies, etc. were not seeing CV-19 patients in person. Even the FDA screwed up IMO by allowing HCQ use only after hospitalization with CV-19 rather than for early outpatient treatment where it is most effective. Just read the FDA’s emergency use authorization letter.

Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  Farmer Ch E retired
June 29, 2021 8:01 am

Is there a correlation here?
USA COVID Fig 1 080820
https://youtu.be/QDHMNC9pzNg

Observer
Reply to  joe belford
June 29, 2021 2:51 am

No one claimed HCQ worked on its own – it needs to be combined with zinc (and, preferably, Azithromycin).

None of the studies that purported to show HCQ had no effect on Covid used it with zinc.

The MSM didn’t report this, of course.

Why? Because Orange Man Bad? Because every single one of the major news corporations has a board member who works for Big Pharma… and if it could be shown that there was an effective treatment, the experimental “vaccines” would never have gotten Emergency Use Authorisation?

No vaccines, no huge profits? No vaccines, no vaccine passports?

Bill Sprague
Reply to  joe belford
June 29, 2021 4:17 am

Your right Simon, let’s stand evidence and logic on its head. HCQ seems to work in reality out in the field, now let’s see if it works in theory.

Simon
Reply to  Bill Sprague
June 29, 2021 12:23 pm

It didn’t work in the field, or in theory. It’s great for malaria.

Gene
Reply to  Simon
July 2, 2021 6:03 pm

Simon… It certainly worked for the elderly couple in Newport Beach… Him, 90 with heart problems. Her, 88 with pneumonia. HCQ prescribed by their son, a doctor, along with Azithromycin. Like the climate issue… observation vs theory… I believe the observations!
https://www.ocregister.com/2020/04/16/coronavirus-elderly-oc-couple-recovers-swears-by-controversial-treatment/

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  joe belford
June 29, 2021 4:30 am

Randomized double blind trials don’t magically make drugs useful for treating disease. Just because there were no trials does not mean, in Simon’s words, “HCQ is less than worthless for covid”. Sometimes, in the real world, when things are not going well, you improvise and find a solution to a problem without the scientific method.

Joao Martins
Reply to  joe belford
June 29, 2021 4:31 am

Have you an idea of how many YEARS aspirin was used WITH GOOD RESULTS before it was submitted to double blind trials (trials, plural, here: refering to the several effects of the drug, not only pain killing)?

icisil
Reply to  joe belford
June 29, 2021 4:47 am

Which is meaningless. Dr Tyson in CA has treated thousands of symptomatic covid patients with HCQ, and not a single death. He is one among many.

RCTs are not the only evidence; they are just evidence that big (p)harma can easily manipulate and control.

Furthermore, there is not a single RCT that PEEP used in mechanical ventilation has ever saved a single life (or mechanical ventilation itself for that matter), yet it was the go-to treatment for moderate to severe covid (with disastrous results). So those who claim medicine is evidence-based and only follows RCTs is just ignorant.

Abolition Man
Reply to  joe belford
June 29, 2021 5:27 am

joe,
Are you as stupid as Simon? The information about the effectiveness of HCQ is widely available if you know how to get around the High Tech Nazis and their suppression of any data that contradicts the push for “vaccines!”
While HCQ is not nearly as powerful as ivermectin, it most certainly would have saved lives in the US if it had not been politicized by our lapdog media! Do you support mass murder by withholding medical treatment? Are you getting paid by Big Pharma? I can’t think of a more despicable way to score political points than to murder sick people! Although they are connected at the hip, it makes the widespread voter fraud look tame in comparison!

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  joe belford
June 29, 2021 6:42 am

Another idiot crawls out of the woodwork:

https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/treatments/

Simon
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 29, 2021 12:25 pm

So an advertisement for HCQ proves what?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
June 29, 2021 8:35 pm

Yer an idiot, or a paid disinfo agent, or both.

Simon
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 29, 2021 2:21 pm

Oh please… Front Line doctors are a bunch of right wing nutters. Didn’t they have that Stella Immanuel, you know the one who was saying sexually transmitted diseases can be cause by “spirit spouses?”

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
June 29, 2021 8:36 pm

I’m sure this is just another from your laundry list of lies to put out in public.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Simon
June 30, 2021 6:02 pm

Front Line doctors are a bunch of right wing nutters.””

Got any evidence for that? I think Kory said he was or had been a Democrat. I don’t know about the other four. I suspect you’re just slinging mud.

Gene
Reply to  Simon
July 2, 2021 6:06 pm

You are really stretching Simon!

Neo
Reply to  joe belford
June 29, 2021 7:06 am

… especially when they tested it with toxic levels on near-terminal patients.

TC in the OC
Reply to  Neo
June 29, 2021 7:59 am

The only way that the vaccines could get approved quickly is with an emergency use authorization (EUA). One of the criteria is that there must be no adequate approved alternative.

“FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.”

This is why nothing was approved to treat Covid-19. And nothing was approved because of the money involved in making and distributing the vaccines. It is as simple as follow the money. Think about how many trillion dollar stimulus packages were approved and how much of that money went to the companies making the vaccines.

https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emergency-use-authorization-vaccines-explained

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/13/business/business-of-covid-vaccine/index.html

Last edited 1 month ago by TC in the OC
huls
Reply to  TC in the OC
June 29, 2021 10:27 am

And this is also why the WHO changed the defintion of herd immunity. In the new defintion herd immunity is only achievable through vaccination. Utter nonsens but because of the signed treaties, almost all countries in the world have to follow this.
You are being shaken down on an massive scale. Never mind the deaths, suffering and the social torture. Big Pharma will have itś money

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  joe belford
June 29, 2021 8:20 am

JB,

My understanding is that almost all of those “randomized double blind trials” that you refer to used substantially higher dosages of HCQ than needed, thereby resulting in a HCQ-toxity finding. In turn, this overdosing directly lead to the “convenience” of many studies being terminated prematurely, and the subsequent declaration(s) that HCQ could not be used safely against SARS-CoV-2, which in turn led to it basically being banned from use as a COVID-19 preventative/treatment.

Shamefully, the medical powers-that-be stacked the deck against HCQ , most certainly because it was a extremely low cost, GRAS and effective competitor to the much more expensive “wonder vaccines” using the previously-untested mRNA-with-PEG microencapsulation approach.

Of course, the non-critical MSM bought into this hook-line-and-sinker.

This adage comes to mind: “Follow the money”

Simon
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 29, 2021 3:46 pm

My understanding is that almost all of those “randomized double blind trials” that you refer to used substantially higher dosages of HCQ than needed, thereby resulting in a HCQ-toxity finding”
That sounds like a weak excuse for the drug….

Gene
Reply to  Simon
July 2, 2021 6:09 pm

More theory!

n.n
Reply to  Simon
June 28, 2021 7:42 pm

Not by the data, which proves the HCQ protocol is an effective,
safe treatment to prevent infection and mitigate disease progression in over 80% of the cases in diverse jurisdictions globally.

joe belford
Reply to  n.n
June 28, 2021 7:46 pm

No HCQ protocol has been proven effective.

Greg
Reply to  joe belford
June 28, 2021 8:47 pm

No HCQ protocol has been proven effective…. because all studies were blocked on the basis of a FRAUDULENT paper in the Lancet and all subsequent study or use of the drug have been forbidden legally.

Raoult has reduced deaths b 50% and hospitalisations by 85%. But that’s “not statistically significant”.

Reply to  Greg
June 29, 2021 6:58 pm

Raoult chooses patients personally. So thin young people with no comorbidities get how. Fat old diabetics get placebos. Who does better?

Joao Martins
Reply to  joe belford
June 29, 2021 4:39 am

If you interrupt and forbid an experiment before it reaches its end, of course the results will be inconclusive!

Please, take some phosphorus: it is cheap, not dangerous even if you largely exceed the prescribed quantities, and it is very good to enhnace the mental capabilities of people.

Last edited 1 month ago by Joao Martins
Abolition Man
Reply to  joe belford
June 29, 2021 6:18 am

joe,
Forget my previous question about comparing you to Simon; you far exceed his ignorance!
The meta-analysis of HCQ shows that, taken early and properly, there is a 66% reduction in fatalities! Now I know you’re thinking that that pales in comparison to ivermectin, but I’ll bet you wanted to suppress that as well!
You can hold your head up and brag about being party to the biggest mass murder in American history; it’s what DemoKKKrats do!

Last edited 1 month ago by Abolition Man
Reply to  n.n
June 29, 2021 1:29 am

stop suggesting that people follow the science.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  steven mosher
June 29, 2021 2:55 am

Are you off your meds again?

icisil
Reply to  steven mosher
June 29, 2021 4:52 am

Steve, show us how doctors followed science using mechanical ventilation as early treatment for covid.

John Tillman
Reply to  Simon
June 28, 2021 8:21 pm

Clearly, you have not studied the science. Here is the science upon which Trump relied:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/

Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread

Rich Davis
Reply to  John Tillman
June 29, 2021 1:33 am

Simon doesn’t study anything, except his talking points. And by “study”, I mean memorize, not evaluate.

Climate believer
Reply to  Simon
June 29, 2021 4:38 am

“Except HCQ is less than worthless for covid….”

Stop spreading fake news just because your political sensibilities have been triggered, peoples lives are at risk for christs sake.

You’re a despicable person.

Patients under HCQ-AZ treatment for at least 3 days had a better clinical outcome, based on mortality rates among patients >60 years, less transfer to ICU and shorter length of stay at the hospital, and these patients also had a shorter duration of viral shedding than patients who did not receive this drug combination.

That is not “less than worthless”, unlike your comments @WUWT.

CoRev
Reply to  Simon
June 29, 2021 5:34 am

This site: https://c19hcq.com/ accumulating the pertinent Covid studies has been around since early 2020. It has said this:comment imagewith continuous updates as added new studies became available. As of 6/27/2021 it says there are 40 Randomized Control Studies out of a total of 260 trials.

It has put the lie to “Except HCQ is less than worthless for covid….” and “…HCQ has never proven effective in a randomized double blind trial.”

Abolition Man
Reply to  Simon
June 29, 2021 5:37 am

Simple Simon,
Are you trying to get past your complete failure as a troll to become complicit in the largest mass murder in US history? That sounds like your logic; “I’d rather be an accessory to murder, than appear to be just another stupid troll!”
While HCQ is not nearly as effective as ivermectin, it has certainly proved that it can save lives from the ChiCom virus if it is used early or prophylactically, with zinc and an antibiotic! Anyone who can’t find that information on the internet isn’t really trying!

Simon
Reply to  Abolition Man
June 29, 2021 12:29 pm

complicit in the largest mass murder in US history? ” I think you will find Trump’s inaction, mixed messages and failure to care for the people he was elected to keep safe, is responsible for this. Let’s face it, it is why he lost in November.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Simon
June 29, 2021 5:10 pm

Simple Simon,
Please stop lying, at least to yourself! Your beginning to sound rather socio- or psychopathic! The delusional world you are living in will have serious long term deleterious effects if you don’t seek professional help soon!
The suppression of therapeutics like ivermectin and HCQ caused at least 300,000 unnecessary deaths in the US; around the world the number is over 1 1/2 MILLION!! In addition tens of thousands of people in elder care facilities died due to the policy of placing infected patients in them instead of isolating them! We still don’t know the actual numbers, because the DemoKKKrat governors that ordered this insanity are hiding the figures!
Then there’s the lockdowns! Not a single study to date shows them to be beneficial when compared to the huge problems they create! I know that they were recommended by the ChiComs so you feel obligated to obey out of loyalty, but they just made a bad situation worse while decimating our economy!
Trump’s biggest mistake was listening to the lying Fauxi; the DemoKKKrats used the virus and voter fraud to get him out of office and they only had to kill a few hundred thousand Americans!

Last edited 1 month ago by Abolition Man
TonyG
Reply to  Abolition Man
June 29, 2021 5:37 pm

Abolition,

I’ll repeat an observation I made a week or two back: have you noticed the tendency of the ‘warmist’ contributors here to take exactly the same position on everything, whether it’s AGW, masks, vaccines, riots, whatever, vs. the vast differences on all those topics among the skeptics?

Seems to me it’s pretty obvious which group is more capable of independent thought.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  TonyG
June 29, 2021 8:38 pm

They are given cr*p to post, and they all obey, like ants.

Gene
Reply to  Simon
July 3, 2021 11:55 am

That’s call “deflection” Simon! You have no answer when you are proven incorrect… so you try pointing somewhere else! Trump attempted to provide a viable option… but those (like you) who are blinded by your dislike of him… try and create a false blame.

Jeffery P
Reply to  Simon
June 29, 2021 6:16 am

Incorrect. The studies that showed HCQ didn’t work were poorly designed. Many were funded by Big Pharma. Most seem designed to fail. That is, the only explanation of the poorly designed, poorly executed studies is they want to prove HCQ didn’t work. Hydroxychloroquine for covid: Lifesaving or useless? – Sebastian Rushworth M.D.

Further, you completely ignore the results of thousands of doctors throughout the world who successfully used the HCQ/Z-Pack protocol to treat Covid. A part of science is educated trial and error and those doctors tried HCQ treatment successfully.

joe belford
Reply to  Derg
June 28, 2021 7:58 pm

Trump took HCQ as a prophylatic. It didn’t work.

Simon
Reply to  joe belford
June 28, 2021 8:32 pm

More to the point, when Trump got sick, did they give him HCQ? Nope. The best doctors in the country gave him the drugs they considered had the best chance of success. HCQ was not even consider, because by then it had been shown in numerous tests to be of no use.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
June 29, 2021 6:47 am

How do you know what his treatment was, Triple-S?

Simon
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 29, 2021 12:33 pm

How do you know what his treatment was, Triple-S?”
Because I know how to use Google.
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/pharmacy/8-drugs-trump-has-been-given-for-his-covid-19-treatment.html

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
June 29, 2021 8:39 pm

Shuttup, Triple-S no one cares about your propaganda.

Gene
Reply to  Simon
July 3, 2021 11:58 am

By your other posts Simon… it seems you are very limited in your ability to use Google… or any other search engine!

Greg
Reply to  joe belford
June 28, 2021 8:48 pm

when did he take it ? what dose ? Proof of your claim?

Last edited 1 month ago by Greg
icisil
Reply to  joe belford
June 29, 2021 4:55 am

Uh, he got better. Prove HCQ didn’t help in some way. No intelligent person claims HCQ keeps people from getting infected.

TonyG
Reply to  icisil
June 29, 2021 12:56 pm

icisil
Apparently if something is not 100% effective then it’s bad.

Although by that reasoning, wouldn’t the vaccine also be bad?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  joe belford
June 29, 2021 5:27 am

I think Trump got the Wuhan virus more than 30 days after he took HCQ. So HCQ may not have been in his system at the time of infection.

Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 29, 2021 12:34 pm

I think Trump got the Wuhan virus more than 30 days after he took HCQ. So HCQ may not have been in his system at the time of infection.

He got the virus because he paraded around with infected people and didn’t take measures to minimise the risk of infection. HCQ had nothing to do with it.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
June 30, 2021 7:00 am

My reply does have something to do with what joe said.

He claimed HCQ did not work as a preventative, and I replied that I thought Trump got infected over 30 days after Trump took HCQ as a preventative, and since HCQ is only effective for about 30 days the way Trump took it, the fact that Trump got infected should not be attributed to a lack of effectiveness of HCQ as a preventative. Trump didn’t have any HCQ in his system at the time of infection.

I heard a report on tv yesterday claiming the Chinese were currently using a lot of HCQ in an effort to quell the Wuhan virus outbreak there. I don’t know if that is true or not. Going by Ivermectin’s success against the Wuhan virus in India, the Chinese ought to be jumping all over Ivermectin.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  joe belford
June 29, 2021 6:46 am

So you are President Trump’s personal physician?

Reply to  Derg
June 29, 2021 1:26 am

HCQ please.

Derg
Reply to  steven mosher
June 29, 2021 2:51 am

Sounds like a good idea

Tom Abbott
Reply to  steven mosher
June 29, 2021 5:31 am

Ivermectin, too, please.

If you want an indication of how well Ivermectin works against the Wuhan virus, look at India. The States in India that prescribed Ivermectin for their populations had drastic decreases in infections afterwards, while the Indian States that banned Ivermectin, had a huge increase in infections.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  steven mosher
June 29, 2021 6:48 am

Do you bow before the all-knowing Fraudci, mosher?

oebele bruinsma
Reply to  Derg
June 29, 2021 5:04 am

The lesson is: do not trust a scientist (who espresses opinions) but trust the science (which exclusively uses DATA).

mark from the midwest
June 28, 2021 6:16 pm

Andy:

Thank you so much. I’ve searched all over for ways to explain to people that “following the science” is naive and “unscientific.” This piece nailed it.

Reply to  mark from the midwest
June 28, 2021 7:16 pm

Not really

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  steven mosher
June 28, 2021 7:37 pm

Instead of just lobbing another of your drive-by snowballs, how about providing your considered opinion, and see if you can improve upon it. Your two-word judgement carries no weight. See if you can put together a coherent response that allows readers to judge your thought processes.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 29, 2021 1:33 am

if i thought readers here could judge my thought process i would explain.
they cant, so i wont. but the cited piece is a pile of philosophical junk

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  steven mosher
June 29, 2021 2:57 am

You can’t even judge your own “thought process”.

icisil
Reply to  steven mosher
June 29, 2021 5:05 am

Why don’t you cite the RCTs for wearing masks, (anti)social distancing, lockdowns, effectiveness of PEEP in mechanical ventilation? Then we can judge the data rather than your thought process. I don’t expect you to provide those things because they don’t exist. So basically your thought process is not evidence-based.

Abolition Man
Reply to  steven mosher
June 29, 2021 5:32 am

You made a small error in your post. You wrote ‘thought’ and ‘process’ together in the same sentence! Perhaps you meant to say ‘emotional’ instead, as you posts rarely if ever show any thought!

Jeffery P
Reply to  steven mosher
June 29, 2021 9:18 am

If science supports your thoughts, you shouldn’t have any trouble explaining. Instead you come off as an arrogant jackass.

Ever try reading “How to Win Friends and Influence People?” I found it really helpful. Seriously.

MarkW
Reply to  steven mosher
June 29, 2021 12:29 pm

I see that being proven wrong is now being interpreted as others not being able judge my thought processes.
To bad steven has decided that defending his ego is more important than defending his integrity.

Gene
Reply to  steven mosher
July 3, 2021 12:02 pm

Your though process is much like your ability to write… limited!

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 29, 2021 6:49 am

He learned from his mentor, drive-by Nitpick Nick.

Greg
Reply to  steven mosher
June 28, 2021 7:55 pm

Thanks Mosh, yet another of your outstandingly well argued rebuttals.

Reply to  Greg
June 29, 2021 1:35 am

as well argued as the orginal piece, as the rehash here and as well argued as the sycophantic comment I was responding to

MarkW
Reply to  steven mosher
June 29, 2021 12:30 pm

Once again, no thought, just random insults towards those who aren’t lucky enough to be him.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  steven mosher
June 28, 2021 8:12 pm

Hah … no more than I’d expect from Mr. Mosher, pointless wind.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Rory Forbes
June 28, 2021 8:22 pm

Hey c’mon, it’s Mr. “simple physics” Mosher to you.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  philincalifornia
June 28, 2021 8:34 pm

“You know, the thing” …

I hope to live long enough to see Mosher actually write something that matches his immense sense of entitlement and hubris.

Reply to  Rory Forbes
June 29, 2021 1:37 am

nA RORY, DIE ALREADY

Graemethecat
Reply to  steven mosher
June 29, 2021 4:55 am

Mosher: Seek medical help urgently!

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  steven mosher
June 29, 2021 6:50 am

Meltdown time already.

MarkW
Reply to  steven mosher
June 29, 2021 12:30 pm

steven is nothing if not consistent.
Consistently puerile and thoughtless.

Gene
Reply to  steven mosher
July 3, 2021 12:05 pm

Mosher doesn’t react well to valid criticisms!

Abolition Man
Reply to  Rory Forbes
June 29, 2021 5:35 am

Rory,
For Mosher to write something that matched his immense sense of entitlement and hubris he’d have to spend years, possibly decades, studying and acquiring knowledge and wisdom!
While it is technically possible, the signs are optimistic!

Abolition Man
Reply to  Abolition Man
June 29, 2021 7:14 am

NOT, NOT, NOT optimistic!

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Abolition Man
June 29, 2021 1:21 pm

Yeah … It was pretty clear you meant “NOT optimistic”. Over the years of seeing Mosher’s name, I can’t remember reading anything of any use. Who DOES he think he is?

Reply to  Rory Forbes
June 29, 2021 1:35 am

who are you Rory?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  steven mosher
June 29, 2021 10:29 am

I’m nobody. The point is; who do you think you are that you would wish death on a person you don’t even know?

Abolition Man
Reply to  Rory Forbes
June 29, 2021 5:14 pm

Rory,
It’s just a Progressive or DemoKKKrat thing! They can’t win arguments because their ideas are lousy, so they have to kill or imprison their opponents. Typical totalitarian frauds!

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Abolition Man
June 29, 2021 5:31 pm

I must say I was pretty shocked at his reaction. Gosh how could I have forgotten how important he is … or how brilliant. His I Q must be well into the high double digits … beyond hat size even.

Gene
Reply to  Abolition Man
July 3, 2021 12:07 pm

I find the term Lib-tard to be an excellent discription!

MarkW
Reply to  steven mosher
June 28, 2021 8:38 pm

I’m trying to decide which is higher, mosher’s IQ, or his word count.

Rich Davis
Reply to  MarkW
June 29, 2021 1:36 am

Word!

Abolition Man
Reply to  MarkW
June 29, 2021 7:17 am

MarkW
Unless he’s a scratch or pro golfer, he’s definitely not matching his golf score!
I’d vote for matching room temperature!

John Endicott
Reply to  Abolition Man
June 30, 2021 9:50 am

Only if we’re talking Celsius … in the dead of winter.

Reply to  steven mosher
June 29, 2021 12:01 am

I fully concur. This whole article is one heap of steaming poo. To quote:
“Scientists should not be making critical decisions; they should be in advisory roles and carefully supervised by elected political leaders…” Jeez, Louise, did he go to school for thinking that up? “…carefully supervised by elected political leaders…” indeedy! So, what’s Hillary Clinton’s view on the laws of thermodynamics, I wonder. Gads!
“SARS-CoV-2 (the COVID-19 virus) gene sequences were removed from a U.S. government database,” So, by deleting a computer file, ALL the information on that virus just disappeared? No physical samples to work with, ehhhh? Schtuff that Koch guy, amiright?
“… early viral sequences from the Wuhan seafood market…” Really? Really? So, was it from eating a damn bat, or was it created in a lab? Choose one, boyo, you cannot chop and change your theories halfway through a sentence.
To cap it all off, he finishes with the wisdom of a friggin’ comedian: “Here’s how the world ends, the last words man utters are somewhere in a lab. A guy goes, ‘Huhuh, it worked.’” Pure ignorant drivel from the type of guy that finds a job by pulling his pants down over a casting couch. Or maybe just a friggin’ joke?
This is one of those articles published just so thinking people have something to ridicule? Andy, Andy, Andy!

Rich Davis
Reply to  paranoid goy
June 29, 2021 1:43 am

You’re off your nut, pg, or your meds.

Just to rebut one of your ravings (because I am already wasting my time reacting at all), the relevance of deleting data from the wet market is that it was evidence that the story being pushed by the CCP was a lie.

And let me add, “duh!”

Reply to  Rich Davis
June 29, 2021 2:19 am

I said:

“… early viral sequences from the Wuhan seafood market…was it from eating a damn bat, or was it created in a lab? Choose one, boyo,…

Then you say:

…the relevance of deleting data from the wet market is…

You see no logical inconsistencies in any of this coronavirus bull? You are going to keep at blaming China for something you cannot prove the existence of? I see the term “wet market” fills you with fear and horror, can’t those damn Chinks eat real food, like Cheerios and McDonalds, eh what?
You are blithely going to ignore the real-world implications of:

…by deleting a computer file, ALL the information on that virus just disappeared?

You realise this implies the darn virus exists as a computer model only? No? You realise nobody has isolated this virus? No? You do realise every single “precaution” shoved down our collective throat has no relation to viruses? No? You do realise the only reason anyone would demand the deletion of such info, would be because of patent concerns? No?
I merely posted to defend your initial observation on the quality/ usefulness of the original article. I thought you objected on intellectual grounds, now I see you actually believe all the bull about a “novel coronavirus” that demands we close down all human activity not represented on the stock exchange. Only you seem upset they do not use the words you ‘know to be the absolute truth’?
Get off the artificial sugars, dude, it rots the mind, then you start speculating on other peoples’ need for the same psychomeds you are pumped with.
What can I say, but “Duh!”

Derg
Reply to  paranoid goy
June 29, 2021 2:56 am

“You are going to keep at blaming China for something you cannot prove the existence of? “

Nobody should trust anything coming from China.

Reply to  Derg
June 29, 2021 4:59 am

Ye gods! The issue is not trusting China, the issue is that idiots religiously repeat Bolshevik soundbites regarding a scamdemic for which the advertised pathogen has never been proven to exist and it absolutely demands we contaminate ourselves with chemicals never proven safe, or even effective.
Yammering on about China might make some people feel like they are adding to the conversation, but they really are just adding to the nonsense. Nonsense like “consensus science” and “follow the science” and today’s favourite piece of verbal excerement:

“Scientists should …be in advisory roles and carefully supervised by elected political leaders…”

In other words, they all are trying to sound sciency, but all that comes from their mouths, are rather childish and pathetic attempts at turning the utterances of politicians into science.
Just like this headline article does…
I see the downvotes, but not a single coherent thought on the statement that this scamdemic is nothing but a programme to close down every single human activity that cannot be turned into a stock market monopoly.
But if conspiracy against our dear glorious leaders is the only thing their mind can grasp, well, duh!

Jeffery P
Reply to  paranoid goy
June 29, 2021 9:25 am

What? You and Mosh need to both try cutting the Prozac in half next time.

Seriously, you’re making outrageous claims and you need to present evidence. BTW – a conspiracy theory is not evidence.

Reply to  Jeffery P
June 29, 2021 9:47 pm

Work on your reading comprehension skills, your comment is irrelevant

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  paranoid goy
June 29, 2021 7:04 am

Another meltdown.

Were you wearing your Tony Fraudci/CDC/WHO-approved triple mask while typing this rant?

Just checking for a friend.

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 29, 2021 9:47 pm

Ad hominem with no reference or relevance

Jeffery P
Reply to  paranoid goy
June 29, 2021 9:21 am

Idiotic. Scientists have no responsibility for policies and no accountability. The US Constitution gives Fauci or other fraudsters the power to set policy outside of their respective departments.

Reply to  Jeffery P
June 29, 2021 9:52 pm

Seems you confuse scientists with administrators, then your authority-worship causes confusion between administrators and politicians. Ya’ll keep ignoring the fact that your favourite urgent causes are driven not by scientists, but by psychologists and economists.
But if you all want to insist on calling Frauci a scientist, I can only hope you enjoy your unproven, unapproved experimental genome manipulators masquerading as vaccines…

Jeffery P
Reply to  paranoid goy
June 30, 2021 6:14 am

Authority worship? You don’t have a clue about me. I think Fauci is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths and untold economic and psychological damage.

Perhaps you replied to the wrong comment because you’re reply is largely incongruous with mine.

Last edited 1 month ago by Jeffery P
mark from the midwest
Reply to  steven mosher
June 29, 2021 1:46 am

Could care less what Mosh says, he’s proven time after time that he’s more idealogue than anything

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  mark from the midwest
June 29, 2021 8:57 am

Could care less”

So you do care.

Jeffery P
Reply to  steven mosher
June 29, 2021 9:15 am

Where did it miss? These drive-by comments don’t help those who want to learn and understand.

John Endicott
Reply to  Jeffery P
June 30, 2021 9:54 am

not surprising since those drive by comments came from someone that has proven he doesn’t want to learn and understand.

Reply to  mark from the midwest
June 29, 2021 1:32 am

they argued that the POLITICAL must “superintend” the science

pure lysenkoist thought from the conservatives.

Observer
Reply to  steven mosher
June 29, 2021 3:05 am

So, we can’t trust politicians, but we can trust the experts those politicians decide to appoint?

Haven’t you noticed that politicians only ever appoint experts who say “the” science says what those politicians want it to say?

Gene
Reply to  Observer
July 3, 2021 12:15 pm

One example that dispels that statement… Stephan E. Koonin, Obama’s Undersecretary of Science. If so inclined, his book “Unsettled” is a very good read! Perhaps Obama is sorry he made that appointment?

Rich Davis
Reply to  steven mosher
June 29, 2021 3:54 am

The argument is that those who hold the authority to make the final decisions ought not to be nameless and unaccountable bureaucrats and self-interested hacks. While most politicians are indeed human refuse, and elections are no longer free and fair, it is still preferable that decisions are seen to be taken by those who in principle at least may be voted out of office.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 29, 2021 4:41 am

Also, most scientists have little knowledge of other pressing issues and will make a decision based only on their expertise in a very small slice of a field. The epidemiologists were trying to avoid a single death by COVID-19, while neglecting mental health, cancer, heart attacks, etc. and the fact that the economy has a direct effect on the physical and mental health of citizens.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
June 29, 2021 5:08 am

Yes, as the Germans say, Fachidioten. No it doesn’t mean THAT! It means subject idiots, those who only know their narrow area and are idiots about everything else.

Yooper
Reply to  steven mosher
June 29, 2021 5:09 am

Is that why they have courses in “Political Science” in universities?

Jeffery P
Reply to  steven mosher
June 29, 2021 9:27 am

Read the Constitution. In America, the politicians are the ones with responsibility and accountability.

MarkW
Reply to  steven mosher
June 29, 2021 12:33 pm

As opposed to mosher, who believes that the science must be dictated by the political.

Observer
Reply to  mark from the midwest
June 29, 2021 3:00 am

“The” science on climate change might be settled, but so what? “The” engineering to supply the (so-called) clean energy demanded by those scientists is by no means settled, and neither is “the” economics of looking at the nett costs/savings of going carbon neutral.

In fact, every plausible engineering and economic study I’ve seen suggests that, regardless of what “the” science says, attempting to go carbon-neutral is not practicable.

Gene
Reply to  Observer
July 3, 2021 12:18 pm

Unsettled, by Steven Koonin, Obama’s undersecretary of Science. The actual science is anything but “settled”, because the left refuses to use it!

Clay Sanborn
June 28, 2021 6:33 pm

Good article. On the comment: “Most proposed answers, like man-made climate change, are furiously debated.”, I feel that there is essentially NO DEBATE. What we do have is people (some, so called experts) throwing their opinions in response to something someone esle said, and so forth. But debate, as in having knowledgeable people presenting facts, not opinion, with their opposing participants making their fact based claims, each agreeing or refuting the claims of the opposite position. NO! We have had maybe a handful of such actual debates. People representing the “alarmist” position will simply not DEBATE, because the few times they have, they were destroyed, so they will no longer debate. Instead, they use the Fake Media, Fake (actual, but fake) scientists as mouthpieces. But there is NO DEBATE.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Clay Sanborn
June 29, 2021 2:02 am

I understand your concern, but it’s somewhat of a semantic point. It isn’t strictly necessary to have a dialog, in order for ideas to be vigorously disputed. I know of no evidence that racial purity laws were debated in Germany in 1935, but surely the theories that informed those laws have lost the “debate”. (Yes, I went straight to Godwin)

The fact that the chief protagonists for the CAGW/CACC mythology steadfastly refuse to debate, only demonstrates their recognition that they have a losing case. It doesn’t prevent us from disputing and debating “in absentia”. Of course to the extent that free speech is taken away from us, that is the real problem.

June 28, 2021 6:49 pm

Does anyone see a problem in people touting “overpopulation” and mankind being the main threat to the planet, do engage in the development of deadly viruses? I mean what could go wrong..

n.n
Reply to  E. Schaffer
June 28, 2021 7:49 pm

To their credit, they have evolved from planned population (e.g. mass abortion) to planned child (e.g. one-child) to planned parenthood (e.g. selective-child). One step forward, two steps backward. Progress, of a kind.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  n.n
June 29, 2021 7:08 am

Followed by rioting, burning, looting…

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  E. Schaffer
June 28, 2021 10:24 pm

If I were the conapiracy minded type, I would wonder about the fact that two thirds of the federal budget goes to medicare and social security, and how much liability could be wiped out if the government could engineer a disease to target the old and sickly. Fortunately I know that kind of thinking is crazy. Isn’t it?

Observer
Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
June 29, 2021 3:09 am

… not to mention an experimental “vaccine” that had never been approved for human use because it had a tendency to wipe out the test subjects in the preliminary animal trials.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Observer
June 29, 2021 7:21 am

In male subjects the “vaccines” seem to predominantly attack the heart; in females they appear to affect the ovaries as well! What could go wrong?

Simon
Reply to  Abolition Man
June 29, 2021 12:44 pm

Nothing and nothing did. Very safe as can be seen by the squillions round the world who have had them.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
June 29, 2021 5:04 pm

Another party-line lie.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Simon
June 29, 2021 5:19 pm

Safe? You mean like the 82% miscarriage rate among women less than 20 weeks pregnant!
These “vaccines” have caused more fatalities and adverse reactions, many of them permanently crippling; than all other vaccines combined over the last thirty years!
Only someone completely stupid or insane would call that safe, and that doesn’t take into account their long term effects! When the inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology says its dangerous and cytotoxic, I’ll take his word for it!

Last edited 1 month ago by Abolition Man
Ardy
June 28, 2021 6:51 pm

Thanks Andy, fwd it on to my leftie mates for comment, unlikely to comment but you never know?

gringojay
Reply to  Ardy
June 28, 2021 7:08 pm

Ardy, did you forget to cover the camera on your computer at home again?

63A1F908-F795-4360-BE79-8F1B13D15674.png
jmorpuss
June 28, 2021 6:57 pm

Why cant this drug be fast tracked like the vaccines .?

Queensland researchers’ discover COVID-19 ‘heat-seeking missile’Queensland researchers’ discover COVID-19 ‘heat-seeking missile’ | coronavirus | 9 News Australia – YouTube

John Tillman
Reply to  jmorpuss
June 28, 2021 7:14 pm

Effective treatments against COVID are squelched by the powers that be for two reasons.

1) If effective treatments exist then by law the exemptions fast tracking vaccines aren’t allowed.

2) Pharmaceutical company profits, in which health bureaucrats or their agencies often participate via patents, as with Moderna vaccine and Remdesivir treatment.

Plus:

3) Trump Derangement Syndrome, since he promoted treatments, based upon strong evidence from anti-SARS studies.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  John Tillman
June 28, 2021 7:27 pm

And the powers that be control Queensland researchers? Impressive that people in Australia care so much about removing Trump that they are willing to let their fellow citizens die.

John Tillman
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 28, 2021 7:56 pm

Yes, that’s just one of the horrific effects of global TDS.

But if your goal is to reduce the number of old people of European ancestry, then it’s all good.

Simon
Reply to  John Tillman
June 28, 2021 8:35 pm

But if your goal is to reduce the number of old people of European ancestry, then it’s all good.”
OK that is officially the craziest post ever on WUWT.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Simon
June 29, 2021 2:09 am

No simple, by my count, you have that title sewn up with your (how many times have you posted?) crazier posts.

Last edited 1 month ago by Rich Davis
Simon
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 29, 2021 12:46 pm

OK name a post I have made that was crazier than the one above? Seriously, that is as crazy as crazy gets.

John Endicott
Reply to  Simon
June 30, 2021 9:59 am

It would be easier to name posts that you made that weren’t crazier.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
June 29, 2021 7:14 am

Simon the Simple Shill to the rescue!

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
June 29, 2021 12:35 pm

I don’t know about that, mosher seems to be determined to take that crown.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  MarkW
June 29, 2021 5:03 pm

He has tons more experience than Triple-S.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
June 30, 2021 10:00 am

mosh’s drive-by post tend more to the incoherent than the outright crazy.

Greg
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 28, 2021 8:11 pm

Do you think that pharma lobbyists only have influence in USA. What are you trying to say?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Greg
June 30, 2021 8:12 am

That is the common denominator: Big Pharma.

Big Pharma is in all countries. Look at the way Big Pharma tried to interfere with India’s administration of Ivermectin. Big Pharma said don’t use Ivermectin, use our drug Remdisivir instead.

The Indian States that listened to Big Pharma saw their infection rates rise dramatically. The Indian States that gave their populations Ivermectin saw their infection rate and death rate plummet dramatically.

I think Remdisivir costs several thousand dollars for a treatment. Invermectin treatment would cost less than $50.

Big Pharma is in it for the money.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 28, 2021 8:16 pm

And the powers that be control Queensland researchers?

Of course they do. As for the rest that goes without saying.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 29, 2021 7:13 am

How is Dementia Joe working out for you so far, Izaak the Idiot? Does he still make the hairs on your legs stand up?

I’ll bet yer just waiting for Cackling Kamala to step in and pretend to be president.

Simon
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 29, 2021 12:48 pm

Do you just sit around making up childish put downs so you can run people down?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
June 29, 2021 5:01 pm

Irony alert!

Greg
Reply to  jmorpuss
June 28, 2021 8:06 pm

Why cant this drug be fast tracked like the vaccines .?

A particularly stupid idea. Drug tests are there for a reason, not just to add red tape. The term “fast track” is misleading in that is suggest you are just treating the approval process in a more efficient and expeditious fashion when, in fact, you are suggesting being wreckless in not applying established checks and proceedures.

This new drug seems to be some kind of genetic therapy involving injecting nano particles, with a lot of similarity to mRNA “vaccines”.

It would be far more sensible to permit the off-label application of known safe drugs with decades of track record and known risks.

jmorpuss
Reply to  Greg
June 28, 2021 10:25 pm

Drug tests are there for a reason, not just to add red tape.

FDA is “chaotic”, “disorganised”, “not analyzing the data properly” (mRNA vaccine inventor)FDA is “chaotic”, “disorganised”, “not analyzing the data properly” (mRNA vaccine inventor) (odysee.com)

jmorpuss
Reply to  Greg
June 28, 2021 10:36 pm

Spike protein is very dangerous, it’s cytotoxic (Robert Malone, Steve Kirsch, Bret Weinstein)

Spike protein is very dangerous, it’s cytotoxic (Robert Malone, Steve Kirsch, Bret Weinstein) – YouTube

MarkW
Reply to  jmorpuss
June 28, 2021 8:46 pm

This is what I have read regarding this fast tracking.
The normal approval process goes something like this.
Stage 1 tests are done, and reports are written up and given to the regulating agencies.
Regulating agencies go over the reports, and if they are satisfied, they give the OK for state 2 testing to begin.

Under “fast tracking”, stage 2 testing starts while stage 1 reports are still being reviewed.

The drug/vaccine still can’t be released to the general public until all of the documentation is complete.

John Tillman
June 28, 2021 7:00 pm

I agree that two CGG sequences in a bat-derived virus are highly improbably, ie 0.25% (5% x 5%). But please explain what you mean by 36 different gene sequences for arginine. That amino acid is coded for by six different triplets of the four DNA nucleobases. The 20 encoded amino acids have 64 three-nucleobase combos available, but three are stop codons, so 61. One amino acid is coded by just one such three “letter” sequences. Six are the most.

The warm if not smoking gun of the lab leak hypothesis is the double CGG sequence in the four amino acid peptide at the furin cleavage site, consisting of two arginines in its middle. CGG is used in only five percent of bat arginine codings, but is most common in humans. Hence the 0.25% cited above.

A fingerprint of lab manipulation. The world’s greatest virologist, David Baltimore, labelled this fact a “smoking gun”, but later walked that back to simply evidence of lab leak. He’s co-discoverer of reverse transcriptase, for which he shared a Nobel Prize, and eponymous creator of the Baltimore classification of viruses, which is the basis of ongoing phylogenetic organiztion of RNA and DNA viruses. A giant.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
Scissor
Reply to  John Tillman
June 28, 2021 7:19 pm

Fauci fingerprints are all over places they shouldn’t be.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Scissor
June 29, 2021 7:17 am

He should be in prison for violating the bioweapons treaties.

Simon
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 29, 2021 12:49 pm

Except he didn’t.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
June 29, 2021 5:01 pm

Still feein’ good about Creepy Dememtia Joe, Triple-S?

Simon
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 29, 2021 7:12 pm

So far no sign of Dementia and if Biden is creepy Trump is positively perverted.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
June 29, 2021 8:43 pm

Wow, you really have swallowed the kool-aid.

Jeffery P
Reply to  Scissor
June 29, 2021 10:05 am

Like Bill Clinton?

AlexBerlin
Reply to  John Tillman
June 28, 2021 8:30 pm

0.25% is a chance of 1 in 400, hardly “highly improbably”.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  John Tillman
June 28, 2021 8:53 pm

RNA

June 28, 2021 7:16 pm

Science is scientific debate, with rules.

Its rarely debate

Alastair gray
Reply to  steven mosher
June 28, 2021 8:12 pm

A somewhat obscure, to the point of meaninglessness. Please post more articulately

Rory Forbes
Reply to  steven mosher
June 28, 2021 8:20 pm

It’s rarely science.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  steven mosher
June 28, 2021 8:33 pm

Hey, welcome back!!

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  steven mosher
June 28, 2021 8:42 pm

to your point Mosh…. You are wrong here. Science is a method as Andy points out. He muddles up a lot of the specifics here with SARS-2 though.

Einstein didn’t debate GR with his 100 critics in the famous letter. No one could find lab experiment or cosmic observations where it failed … to this day. Yet it is still debated vigorously.
The method is what matters. Too much energy is wasted on this debate part.

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  steven mosher
June 28, 2021 8:54 pm

That’s debatable.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
June 28, 2021 10:00 pm

Rarely

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  steven mosher
June 29, 2021 7:19 am

Can we [tinw] see another meltdown, mosh? That was entertaining.

joe belford
June 28, 2021 7:36 pm

” It seems likely that the virus that causes COVID-19 was engineered in the Wuhan Virology lab.”

It also seems likely that the virus that causes COVID-19 was zootic. 96% of it’s genetic makeup is identical to the RaTG13 bat virus.
..
Conclusive evidence for either of these statements is lacking.
..
That is the judgement of science.

John Tillman
Reply to  joe belford
June 28, 2021 7:57 pm

There is no evidnce of zoonotic origin, but abundant evidence of lab creation. Indeed, the wet market origin lie has been conclusively shown false.

Greg
Reply to  John Tillman
June 28, 2021 8:17 pm

I don’t think it can objectively said to have been “conclusively shown false”, though the absence of the slightest proof it is true is a severe problem at this stage.

In Jan 2020 it was a valid hypothesis. in June 2021 it proving to be a rather weak and unfounded one.

Jeffery P
Reply to  Greg
June 29, 2021 10:12 am

It was a weak hypothesis from the start. What makes more sense to you? Somebody brought bats to a wet market 1,000 miles away and that caused an outbreak, or a bio-lab known to be very sloppy about safety is the source of the virus?

The first is obvious disinformation. The second is highly plausible. Not the same as proof mind you, but supported by documented facts.

joe belford
Reply to  Jeffery P
June 29, 2021 4:12 pm

No the first is not “disinformation.” There are plenty of examples of zootic coronaviruses, namely the original SARS, and MERS.

Jeffery P
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 6:17 am

No, what the CCP told the world was disinformation. I never claimed viruses don’t jump between species.

RobR
Reply to  Greg
June 29, 2021 1:23 pm

The vast majority of Virologist’s reached the same conclusion several months ago. Most of the “new” information on the leak and subsequent coverup were known by June of last year.

It seems, the press and mainstream Virologist’s needed Uncle Joe’s permission to do thier jobs. Outrageous!

Izaak Walton
Reply to  John Tillman
June 28, 2021 8:47 pm

John,
there is no evidence that COVID was created in the lab. The only supposed evidence appears to be that the sequence CGG-CGG in the genome has not previously been seen in wild viruses. But since viruses are poorly sampled and animal viruses are still largely ignored nobody has any real idea how significant that claim is.

It is also highly likely that if COVID was created in a lab in Wuhan then all evidence of that would have been destroyed and there is no way of ever proving it.

Earthling2
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 29, 2021 12:24 am

“then all evidence of that would have been destroyed and there is no way of ever proving it.”

That should be your first clue.

Simon
Reply to  Earthling2
June 29, 2021 12:51 pm

““then all evidence of that would have been destroyed and there is no way of ever proving it.”
That should be your first clue.”

Huh? So no evidence is proof there was evidence?

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 29, 2021 4:52 am

I think there is significant evidence that it was created in a lab. All the alarmist trolls seem to think there is evidence that it wasn’t created in a lab, so the talking points handed out to the trolls must include this to protect the ChiComms.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
June 29, 2021 5:52 am

One thing we know for sure: The Chicoms deliberately spread the Wuhan virus around the world.

The Chicoms knew they had a highly infectious new virus on their hands and this caused them to shut down internal traffic in an effort to contain the spread of the virus inside China, while at the same time they were encouraging international traffic in and out of China, and complained loudly when that traffic was cut off by Trump and other national leaders.

The Chicom leaders deliberately perpetrated this Wuhan virus pandemic on the whole world.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 29, 2021 7:50 am

Tom,
Don’t forget that a Chinese researcher at WIV was trying to get a patent on a vaccine for the virus in FEBRUARY, 2020! That would indicate that the PLA had been developing this biological weapon for months before it (accidentally or not) escaped from the lab! That Fauxi and the Pentagon helped to fund this research is a sign of how far adrift our government has gotten!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Abolition Man
June 30, 2021 8:27 am

I had not heard that there was a Chinese vaccine awaiting approval.

I have heard that the current vaccine the Chicoms are using is only about 30 percent effective.

I still think all indications are that the Wuhan virus escaped accidentally, and was not put out there deliberately by the Chicom State. They were woefully unprepared for it when it came upon the scene, as indicated by all the drastic measures they implemented when the outbreak began.

I will note that none of the Chicom leadership seem to have come down with the disease, as far as I can determine.

But, as I said, whether the origin was accidental or deliberate, the Chicoms deliberately determined to share this virus with the whole world.

More than likely, this virus would have spread around the world anyway, but the way the Chicoms handled it caused the spread to happen much faster and much wider.

The longer it could be contained in China, the longer the rest of the world would have to deal effectively with it. But we didn’t get that chance because the Chicoms were in a hurry to share their misery with the rest of the world.

The Chicom leadership are a bunch of cold-blooded bastards, with no regard for human life. They should be punished for their many crimes against humanity.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tom Abbott
Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 29, 2021 12:55 pm

One thing we know for sure: The Chicoms deliberately spread the Wuhan virus around the world.”
Umm no we don’t. While it is possible I doubt that’s true. Do you have any credible source for that Tom?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
June 30, 2021 8:35 am

You’ve got to be kidding, Simon.

The Chicoms have a raging infection going on in their country, in November 2019, or earlier, so they know exactly what they are dealing with as far as infection rate and death rate, and yet they are telling the world clear up through January, that the virus can’t be transmitted human-to-human!

And when Trump put travel restrictions on the Chicoms in late January 2020, the Chicoms screamed their outrage.

It doesn’t take a genius to know what is going to happen when you put a highly infectious virus on an outbound airplane. The Chicoms knew exactly what they were doing.

Claiming the Chicoms are innocent of malice is absurd.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tom Abbott
Jeffery P
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 29, 2021 10:15 am

Zoonotic viruses typically jump back and forth between their hosts and humans multiple times before mutating into a strain capable of human-to-human transmission. There is no evidence of that happening.

And you must not have been paying attention, with all the reports of the Chinese government destroying all evidence of lab origins.

Neo
Reply to  John Tillman
June 29, 2021 7:14 am

I think there needs to be some elegance to the use of “engineered” and “manipulated”.
Too often folks are left to believe that “engineered”, even more so with “created”, means synthesized out of thin air. I don’t think any expert believes that.
I think the word “manipulated” is a much better word to describe the process.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Neo
June 29, 2021 9:09 am

Or Modified.

joe belford
Reply to  John Tillman
June 29, 2021 4:15 pm

How many years did it take to find the palm civets after the SARS outbreak in 2002-2003?

Scissor
Reply to  joe belford
June 28, 2021 8:01 pm

It’s often difficult to find that one piece of conclusive evidence, but understanding can advance like pieces of a puzzle. Here’s an example:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-92388-5

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  joe belford
June 28, 2021 8:47 pm

If you knew anything about RNA viral genetics, 96% homology is meaningless for determining engineering specific nucleotdes of a few dozen bases.

joe belford
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 29, 2021 4:07 pm

So Joel, tell us how different the Alpha variant is from the Delta+ variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus which of course took about 12 months to happen?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  joe belford
June 30, 2021 8:41 am

Watch out, joe! He just might tell you.

MarkW
Reply to  joe belford
June 28, 2021 8:50 pm

And human’s share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees. So what?

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  MarkW
June 29, 2021 12:50 am

According to joe, the next generation of chimps will be identical to humans.

Rich Davis
Reply to  MarkW
June 29, 2021 2:29 am

Beat me to it Mark. I was going to ask if Joe is a chimp

Abolition Man
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 29, 2021 7:51 am

Naw, chimps are MUCH smarter!

John Endicott
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 30, 2021 10:06 am

Chimps would be highly insult at the comparison.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  MarkW
June 29, 2021 4:53 am

That would explain Griff, Izzy and Mosher.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
June 29, 2021 7:21 am

This is a very profound observation, except that it omitted Simon the Simple Shill.

joe belford
Reply to  MarkW
June 29, 2021 4:04 pm

MarkW, it’s numerical, so I guess you’d have a hard time with understanding it. 96% of a 30,000 base pair virus genome is a lot smaller than 98% of 3,200,000,000 base pair human genome.

jmorpuss
Reply to  joe belford
June 28, 2021 11:58 pm

A brief, terrifying history of viruses escaping from labs: 70s Chinese pandemic was a lab mistakeA brief, terrifying history of viruses escaping from labs: 70s Chinese pandemic was a lab mistake | National Post

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  jmorpuss
June 29, 2021 7:21 am

China is in violation of the bioweapons treaties.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  joe belford
June 29, 2021 7:14 am

Yes, and humans share 90% of their genome with cats. Was there a probative contribution you were trying to make somewhere in there?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
June 29, 2021 7:46 am

Meow.

(I couldn’t resist)

Abolition Man
Reply to  joe belford
June 29, 2021 7:44 am

Hey, joe!
We’re still looking for the intermediate animals required for the ChiCom virus to evolve from bats to humans if it is zootic. Did you perhaps eat them?
Not even the CCP has been able to produce them and they lie about nearly everything!

Jeffery P
Reply to  Abolition Man
June 29, 2021 10:19 am

Ah, see, that’s because the intermediate animals were sold at a wet market and eaten. And the merchants must have made a pretty penny to haul the animals from a thousand miles away.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Jeffery P
June 29, 2021 10:43 am

Whew!
Thanks, Jeffery! It’s indeed a relief to learn that the murderous, transnational criminal gang known as the CCP could be telling the truth about the wet market origins of their pet bioweapon! I’m glad that all the money sent by Fauxi and others in the US govt didn’t have anything to do with GoF research or bat corona viruses! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha…

Nick B
June 28, 2021 7:44 pm

“It is impossible for a man to learn what he
thinks he already knows.”
– Epictetus

philincalifornia
June 28, 2021 7:50 pm

Andy, I think you meant “Two consecutive arginines can be coded for by 36 different codons”. Arginine itself, just 6 codons – AGA, AGG, CGA, CGC, CGG and CGT. Jeez after all these years, I still didn’t have to look that up. 6X6=36.

I oughta know, the lab I directed was the first to clone the full-length furin sequence, building on the prior superb Kex2 work in yeast.

Phil Rae
Reply to  philincalifornia
June 29, 2021 3:32 am

Correct! I was going to make the same point but you beat me to it…..and I’m happy you did because I was wondering if I had misunderstood something in the article.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Phil Rae
June 29, 2021 8:43 am

Yeah, I was hoping Andy would respond. He might have meant two separate arginines, but I assumed it was a potential furin cleavage site since there was some hoopla about that. When the dust settles, I might weigh in on this, but now’s not the time, even though it will only take me about 12 seconds. It’s what I do.

Greg
June 28, 2021 7:53 pm

The whole idea that there is something such as “the science” is political spin. Science is not one unified whole which you either accept ( “follow “) or reject and become a “science denier”.

Science refers to a body of knowledge which contains various, possibly conflicting, studies and opinions, especially in a relatively young and multi-disciplinary field as climatology.

What the term “the science” is actually trying to cite, in its appeal to authority, is the mythical “scientific consensus” which is contradictory to the idea a unified indivisible entity of unquestionable knowledge.

This term “the” science is relatively new and was minted in the politics of climate. It seems to have appeared about ten years ago. Before that we referred to science. The addition of “the” tries to imply a unitary, indivisible whole.

Like most of this wordsmithery its aim is to deceive by forcing acceptance of an implied conclusion without ever actually make a claim overtly and having to justify a position.

Whenever someone uses the term “the science” they are probably trying to apply political spin not science. That plus any claims to be “robust” are red flags that you are being deceived.

Claiming a scientific conclusion is “robust” is tacitly admitting it is unproven and uncertain, merely “robust”.

Alastair gray
Reply to  Greg
June 28, 2021 8:17 pm

I keep on banging away about how unscientific “the” science Is especially to my scientific family. They aren’t listening. And think i am an obstructive contrarian

philincalifornia
Reply to  Alastair gray
June 28, 2021 8:29 pm

Ask them if they’ve seen Antarctic sea ice at:

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

They’ll listen even less, but they’ll be in more deserved pain. Especially if you pick your spot to take the piss.

griff
Reply to  philincalifornia
June 29, 2021 1:18 am

And the Arctic sea ice? Currently at 3rd lowest for the date in the 42 year satellite record?

Observer
Reply to  griff
June 29, 2021 3:18 am

If Antarctic ice is growing, why should we care about arctic sea ice particularly? It’s floating so doesn’t contribute to SLR.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Observer
June 29, 2021 9:34 am

Ha ha ha yeah, I was fishing, and caught him again. I’ll throw him back, don’t worry.

He usually avoids me, but the word “Antarctic” is too juicy a worm.

Climate believer
Reply to  griff
June 29, 2021 5:39 am

From one of your favourite propaganda machines, the Gonad:

“Ice-free means the central basin of the Arctic will be ice-free and I think that that is going to happen in summer 2017 or 2018. You will be able to cross over the north pole by ship.. ” – Peter Wadhams

….only another 11 million Km² to go…

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  griff
June 29, 2021 9:13 am

What was it like 1000 years ago? Hmm? No answer? Why should we care?

MarkW
Reply to  griff
June 29, 2021 12:39 pm

1) The start of the so called satellite era also happened to be the time when arctic sea ice was the greatest since the end of the little ice age.
2) Total ice extent is still way above 2012.

Scissor
Reply to  Greg
June 28, 2021 8:24 pm

Yes, and the political spin on science does truth no favors. For whatever the reason, the lab leak theory was suppressed politically for the better part of the past 18 months.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Greg
June 28, 2021 8:29 pm

By appending “the” to the process of science it creates one closed result somehow superior to all others. Once a group lays clam to that specific result it consequently invalidates all competing attempts at success. Like “peer review” from a particular selection of periodicals such language promotes gate keeping … and enables moving goal posts.

MarkW
Reply to  Greg
June 28, 2021 8:56 pm

Science refers to a body of knowledge which contains various, possibly conflicting, studies and opinions

I’m reminded of a WUWT article from a couple of days ago about a paper that purported to find a 27 million +/- signal in the earth’s total level of volcanic activity.

A chart was given as supporting evidence.

Now that chart is data, however how to interpret that data is not clear.
Some made the claim that the total number of data points was too small to draw any conclusions from.
Others argued that there wasn’t a strong enough “signal” in the data to make such a conclusive claim.
The authors of the paper disagreed with these criticisms.

Arguing over how to treat and interpret data is what science is all about.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  MarkW
June 28, 2021 9:42 pm

And people can collect totally irrelevant data to the question being asked and not even realize it is meaningless yet argue for decades over its worth. (tree ring thickness)

niceguy
June 28, 2021 8:07 pm

Recently I heard on a French TV news channel a journalist/commentator/analyst saying that in that crisis he discovered that the medical community as a whole is NOT always saying exactly the same thing.

RobR
June 28, 2021 8:08 pm

Recent efforts by Journalists and Scientists to blame Trump for thier dereliction in not reporting the obvious nexus of the Wuhan virus and the WIV proves the bulk of both groups are incapable of objectivity.

With regards to genomic disparities between the wet market virus and the WIV (COVID2) virus, the CCP must have deliberately infected the wet market as a smokescreen for the lab leak.

Every Virologist with access to both genomic sequences must have known this for several months; yet, nary a peep from these useless turds.

This brings us to Fauci. The Hippocratic Oath MD’s take requires Doctors to do no harm and serve selflessly. When this scourge and crucible of moral courage challenged the mettle of Dr. Anthony Fauci, he failed. He lied, he witheld doubts and suspicions on the inconvenient source of the virus. By so doing, he is directly responsible for the death of millions.

Dr. Fauci did grave harm. His license must be revoked and he must be punished. Former Director of the CDC Dr. Redfield admits his biggest mistake was treating the Wuhan virus like the first COVID virus, which had a very low asymptomatic transmission rate. Fauci must have at the very least suspected that the monster he help fund was a different animal than the COVID1.

The Bat Woman and Fauci lied and millions died!

John Tillman
Reply to  RobR
June 28, 2021 8:16 pm

He did know. He wrote in 2012 that the benefits of GoF research outwighed the obvious risks. Obviously he was wrong, as so many scientists pointed out from then until now. That’s why funding was suspended in 2014, but restarted at his insistence.

FauXi, Daszac and their unindicted coconspirators are mass murderers in cahoots with the Communist Party of China.

Richard Page
Reply to  John Tillman
June 29, 2021 3:50 am

Michael Crichton was prescient – Jurassic Park was clearly a satire about modern scientists and scientific advancement without moral or ethical responsibility. And we all enjoyed it purely as entertainment!

RobR
Reply to  John Tillman
June 29, 2021 4:08 am

John,

We have no disagreement regarding Fauci’s funding of GoF research. However, it does seem plausible that the Chinese told Fauci what he wanted to hear during the early stages of the outbreak.

Nonetheless, he must have harbored a nagging suspicion that he was being lied to. His refusal to admit the possibility of lab leak in the face of overwhelming evidence, places self intrest above the greater good.

Fauci should and will be crucified.

Joel O'Bryan
June 28, 2021 8:27 pm

Let’s be clear here.

DNA and its coding has no relevance in the discussion of the + sense RNA genome of a Corona Virus. It is sloppy (at best) to say:
“Arginine can be built with 36 different gene sequences in DNA. SARS-CoV-2 contains the sequence CGG-CGG, or “double CGG.” The same lethality is achieved with any of the 36 sequences in the same site, but the double CGG sequence is the least likely to occur in nature.”

it should be “DNA or mRNA/+strand vRNA.”

Greg
June 28, 2021 8:28 pm

If no one can reproduce the result, if the underlying data aren’t available to the public, if the methodology is not clear, it is not a proper scientific theory, it is not “science.” Don’t follow it.

You seem to be confusing a paper describing and experiment and a scientific theory.

Joel O'Bryan
June 28, 2021 8:29 pm

This statement by Andy, “A virus naturally obtaining a new skill, will pick it up from similar viruses, yet no similar viruses have this combination, it was almost certainly the result of engineering.” is so wrong, I don’t even know how to begin to correct it.

Not even wrong, I guess would how Mosh would put it.

Kevin Hearle
June 28, 2021 8:38 pm

Andy, there is a flaw in your argument, it relies on a political class that is scientifically savvy enough to understand the science to a level that allows them to make rational decisions. Our Government is illiterate at the level required. In NZ ideology transcends any chance that rationality will prevail. The rent seeking bureaucrats and academia have sold out to job security and the $. We have created (as Eisenhower warned) a closed circle of government funding only research that suits the Government and its ideology. It almost needs revolution to break this self perpetuating cycle. In our case we also set up the Climate Commission papered it with ideologically acolytes of the IPCC and then said it was independent. It is such a farce and the poor and middle class will pay dearly for this ideologically driven fantasy of CAGW.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Kevin Hearle
June 28, 2021 8:51 pm

And yet in NZ the government and its ideology change every 3 years. Hard to see how researchers can quick adapt between a left wing government (Labour) and a right wing one (National) that quickly.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 28, 2021 9:08 pm

Keep believing you are offered a real choice on election day in Kiwiland there Izaak.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 28, 2021 10:38 pm

Actually compared to the US you get a real choice in NZ thanks to its
proportional representation. So every vote counts and the number of seats each party gets is proportional to the number of votes its receives. Compare that to the US where 50% of the population live in 9 states and only get 18% of the vote.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 29, 2021 4:13 am

It’s a dumb comparison. In the US, we have states, and states have rights.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 29, 2021 6:05 am

Yes, U.S. States do have Constitutional Rights.

We are going to get to see some of our States exercise their rights in the near future, in an effort to fight back against the Biden Insanity.

The Courts are going to be busy.

Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 29, 2021 1:06 pm

The Courts are going to be busy.”
They are…. isn’t Trump up for tax fraud.
And if you are referring to the election Tom. How many times have the courts ruled in favour of those trying to prove the election was stolen?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
June 29, 2021 4:56 pm

More lies from the megaphone of Simon the Simple Shill.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
June 30, 2021 9:27 am

“They are…. isn’t Trump up for tax fraud.”

Not any more. It was reported yesterday that the New York Attorney General is not going to charge Trump with anything.

She ran for office on a platform of getting Trump. But I guess Trump is still clean as the driven snow, and they can’t pin anything on him, no matter how hard they try. At least not yet.

Thanks for asking.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
June 30, 2021 9:34 am

“And if you are referring to the election Tom. How many times have the courts ruled in favour of those trying to prove the election was stolen?”

No, I wasn’t talking about the election court cases, I’m talking about the Biden administrtion suing various States when the States try to defend themselves from Biden’s negligence and dereliction of duty in not defending the U.S. southern border from foreign invaders. Hundreds of thousands of foreign invaders. Heading towards millions of foreign invaders.

As for the election court cases, none of the judges ever heard the cases on the merits. All of them were dismissed for various reasons before any evidence could be presented.

Don’t fret though. Election audits in all the Battleground States are ongoing, so we will eventually get to see some evidence, one way or another. I see where Arizona’s vote audit has been completed and the report is due out in August.

Trump is visiting the U.S. southern border today. That ought to be fun.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tom Abbott
Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 29, 2021 5:06 am

Are you referring to the Senate or to all representation? I think you will find that the House of Representatives and the Electoral College both are distributed by population. But we wouldn’t expect an intelligent comment from you, would we?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 29, 2021 7:33 am

KEK!

Drake
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 29, 2021 7:57 am

The US is a Republic, a united group of STATES, which, if the constitution had not been bastardized to allow for “direct election of Senators” would not allow the central government to do what the Democrat party is attempting to do with only 50 Senators.

The House is the PEOPLES’ house, the Senate is the STATES’ representative.

So does China and India get the proportional representation in the UN?? So the UN is as BAD as the US?

I often thought the US had a very stable form of government, but the left can’t stand to be obstructed by the filibuster an will do whatever it can to circumvent it. Notice that they are trying to force through anything they want with 50 + 1 vote. It was the Democrats and Harry Reid who blew up the filibuster for presidential appointments and judicial appointments (less the SCOTUS, which had no openings when he made the change. That came back to bite them when TRUMP! put 3 on the court without any need for Democrat support.

So, IF the Democrats do whatever they want without “bipartisanship” , the end result may be what happens in parliamentary countries, a complete reversal of policy when the Republicans have the Presidency, and 50% + 1 in the two houses of the legislature.

But, remember, the Dems thought they had Hillbillery to continue their remaking of the country. Then TRUMP! won. They don’t want to risk not getting it done NOW, so they will surely overreach.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Drake
June 29, 2021 9:12 am

The filibuster-bipartisan structure depended on both sides being sane, this is clearly gone now.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Drake
June 29, 2021 1:25 pm

What goes around, comes around. They’ll rue the day!

Richard Page
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 29, 2021 3:54 am

Why not? All organisations that may be subject to change when a different government ideology takes power learn to adapt and change with it; most anticipate the change and take action beforehand to secure funding and survival. Why should Universities and researchers be any different?

MarkW
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 29, 2021 12:42 pm

Governments may change, the ideology remains constant.
It really amazes me how some socialists get so bent out of shape over the minor differences between two socialist parties.

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
June 30, 2021 9:45 am

Yes, it is hard to tell the difference when it comes to ideology, in most of the Western Democracies. The U.S. has the starkest contrast between right and left.

RobR
Reply to  Kevin Hearle
June 29, 2021 4:21 am

Kevin

Yet, we know Obama ordered a moratorium on GoF research. If K. T MCfarland is to believed, Fauci clandestinely refunded GoF reserch during the turmoil of the Trump transition.

The point is, Politician’s needn’t understand every facet of a field of scientific inquiry to grasp its implications.

Christopher Hanley
June 28, 2021 8:47 pm

Dan Rather is appalled:
“… Stewart is playing into the trope of the mad scientist at a time when we need science more than ever to solve our more pressing problems — most notably climate change
I remember when we didn’t understand how our climate worked …”.
Gosh way back then, like half a second ago, the man is obviously a nincompoop.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Christopher Hanley
June 28, 2021 8:56 pm

Dan Rather is either a hopeless partisan masquerading as journalist who can’t even do basic fact checking to save his own career and/or he is liar.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 29, 2021 2:42 am

It’s both/and rather than either/or.

Observer
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 29, 2021 3:24 am

Why does it have to be one or the other?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 29, 2021 6:07 am

Rather is both.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Christopher Hanley
June 29, 2021 6:07 am

“the man is obviously a nincompoop.”

Rather is worse than that. He’s a Liar.

Joel O'Bryan
June 28, 2021 9:05 pm

On the cover picture for this Opinion Piece by Andy,

The funniest part of the Colbert-Maher exchange was how Colbert literally schat himself over Bill Maher’s clear (but very purile) explanation of logic on COVID origins theories.

The only come-back Colbert could muster was a jab that his friend Maher was on Senator Ron Johnson’s payroll. This was clear Cognitive Dissonance in action where Colbert was hallucinating things (imagining a rationalization) in order to try and keep his universe view intact.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 29, 2021 4:01 am

Actually, that is Jon Stewart, not Bill Maher.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 29, 2021 7:35 am

I am so glad I do not expose my brain to this creatures.

Mark E Shulgasser
June 28, 2021 9:51 pm

But really, the idea that the world will be destroyed by scientists is quite plausible and not new. So what actually happened? A consortium of ‘top scientists’ decided that they could cooperate in secret research on viruses to develop vaccines or cures in case of a natural pandemic, and oops, they caused one instead! That seems like the simplest explanation. The fact is that most of the fundamental discoveries have been made (during the so-called ‘age of discovery’) and now science is mostly just make-work to keep the trade going, employ the excess of PhD.s and patch up the problems that science has created.

Vincent Causey
June 28, 2021 11:58 pm

This is all so obviously true, it is remarkable it need to be said. But said it must be, over and over until people understand it.

June 29, 2021 1:25 am

Moral and political judgment must always superintend science.

nonsense.

we dont want political and moral judgment overseeing the science.


Bruce Cobb
Reply to  steven mosher
June 29, 2021 3:28 am

We don’t want “the science” at all, just actual science.

Observer
Reply to  steven mosher
June 29, 2021 3:31 am

“the” science? Lulz.

So you want scientists making policy, do you Mosh? Because that’s what this debate is about.

And – given that not all scientists agree with each other – who gets to appoint the decision-making scientists? The politicians you don’t want overseeing them? Voters? (in which case the “scientists” they appoint will in fact be politicians).

Or perhaps we could have a mighty council of scientists who vote on which policies should be implemented? But who appoints those scientists?

You really are a buffoon.

Last edited 1 month ago by Observer
MarkW
Reply to  Observer
June 29, 2021 12:46 pm

You have to remember that mosher defines scientist, as only those people who agree with him.

Richard Page
Reply to  steven mosher
June 29, 2021 3:59 am

Actually we do. Somebody has to provide moral and ethical oversight as it has been proven than most scientists find it difficult to provide it themselves. Who was it who said something like; “just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do it”.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  steven mosher
June 29, 2021 5:09 am

We don’t want politics interfering with science, but we don’t want idiot scientists running our governments.

Richard Page
Reply to  steven mosher
June 29, 2021 5:29 am

Tell me how “I was just following orders” and “I was just following The Science” are in any way different? Both are abrogating a personal sense of morality, of right and wrong, in adopting a ’cause’ with a collective morality that frees the follower from guilt or responsibility. It’s flawed, dangerous thinking that leads to ‘the end justifying the means, any means’.

mkelly
Reply to  steven mosher
June 29, 2021 5:32 am

Yup, what we need is more Tuskegee studies, eugenics, and the aborting of Downs Syndrome children because science should not be morally judged.

MarkW
Reply to  mkelly
June 29, 2021 12:47 pm

I’m reminded of various Democrats, who define partisanship as being the act of opposing a Democrat.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  steven mosher
June 29, 2021 7:24 am

“Science” would suggest that the best way to reduce genetic abnormalities in the general population would be to eliminate all the carriers. Much cheaper than trying to find a cure. So, by all means, let’s not let moral or political judgements interfere with the culling. /sarc, in case anyone was wondering.

MarkW
Reply to  steven mosher
June 29, 2021 12:45 pm

Now mosher is pushing the belief that scientists are moral giants who should be left alone to do whatever they want to do.

Rich Davis
Reply to  steven mosher
June 29, 2021 2:48 pm

As soon as we hear an extraneous definite article modifying science, we know that we’re dealing with a vapid left-winger.

And I guess you’re right mosh, imagine if we had had moral judgement over that famous genetics researcher Dr. Mengele?

jmorpuss
June 29, 2021 3:08 am

“It is worth noting that many media outlets in the US-led Western world, which hyped the lab-leak theory, are only willing to focus on the Chinese labs though they have been thoroughly investigated by the World Health Organization (WHO), while turning a blind eye to the more suspicious American biological research institutions, such as the infamous US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) at Fort Detrick, Maryland.”
Suspect No.1: Why Fort Detrick lab should be investigated for global COVID-19 origins tracing (globaltimes.cn)

Shocking revelations’ on gain-of-function research ‘raise questions’ about CSIRO‘Shocking revelations’ on gain-of-function research ‘raise questions’ about CSIRO (news.com.au)

RobR
Reply to  jmorpuss
June 29, 2021 4:40 am

Puss,

Cut the BS and
Repeat after me: The Wuhan Novel Coronavirus leaked from the Wuhan Novel Coronavirus Laboratory.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  jmorpuss
June 29, 2021 9:56 am

“It is worth noting that many media outlets in the US-led Western world, which hyped the lab-leak theory, are only willing to focus on the Chinese labs though they have been thoroughly investigated by the World Health Organization (WHO),”

Yeah, right.

MarkW
Reply to  jmorpuss
June 29, 2021 12:51 pm

Is there any evidence of the virus coming from the American lab, or are you just desperate to deflect blame from your masters?

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
jmorpuss
Reply to  MarkW
June 29, 2021 3:27 pm

This is for the 3 blind mice above, The west has outsourced just about everything to china to do the heavy lifting and their dirty work for over 40 years, eg Nike should quit lecturing on social justice — and atone for using slave labor in ChinNike should quit lecturing on social justice — and atone for using slave labor (nypost.com)
Steven W. Mosher @StevenWMosher is the President of the Population Research Institute and the author of “Bully of Asia: Why China’s ‘Dream’ is the New Threat to World Order.

30 Iconic U.S. Brands That Aren’t Made in America

Made in America? Nope. | 30 Products Not Made in the USA | Cheapism.com

I think Fauci outsourced covid gain of function research to china because of Chinas slack heath and safety regulations , that’s my opinion.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  jmorpuss
June 30, 2021 9:50 am

“I think Fauci outsourced covid gain of function research to china because of Chinas slack heath and safety regulations , that’s my opinion.”

I think Fauci did it in China because he could not do it in the United States.

Rich Davis
Reply to  jmorpuss
June 29, 2021 2:53 pm

Oh you’re right. Checked out by the VERY thorough WHO, not at all compromised by the CCP.

It must have been that rascal Trump who done it!

Bruce Cobb
June 29, 2021 3:25 am

Take masks. Please. First, they said that, for the general population, wearing masks was of little to no use, and might even be counter-productive. But that was before “the science” said that everyone should wear masks everywhere, wash and sanitize their hands until they bled, and wipe down and sanitize all surfaces of everything you touched, because it might have “germs” (Eeeek!). And sheeple, being sheeple, believed every word. It was (and still is) a religion, not science at all.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 29, 2021 9:57 am

I haven’t seen any replicated studies that show cloth masks slow the spread of an airborne virus in any way.

Last edited 1 month ago by Jeff Alberts
AWM
June 29, 2021 4:16 am

COPD, Emphysema, Rheumatoid Arthritis and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE), showed unusually high rates of survival from Covid-19, particularly surprising in the case of the lung patients.
What did these patients take that the other elderly victims of the disease did not?
HCQ or Inhaled Steroids.

“They” claim HCQ is so dangerous but the US Military administers 40 to 50 thousand doses per day.

joe belford
Reply to  AWM
June 29, 2021 3:41 pm

Most members of the military don’t have COPD, Emphysema, Rheumatoid Arthritis or SLE.

Carlo, Monte