They're not the only two alternatives. — Wayfarer

One would think so, to look around the comments here.

Chinese State Media turns on Antony Fauci for expressing openness to the Wuhan lab origin theory.

“I think we should continue to investigate what went on in China until we continue to find out to the best of our ability what happened," said the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at a fact-checking symposium on May 11. — Wayfarer

For an alternative account take a look at this passage from here:

4. The US role in funding the Wuhan Institute of Virology.[2] From June 2014 to May 2019, Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance had a grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health, to do gain-of-function research with coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Whether or not SARS2 is the product of that research, it seems a questionable policy to farm out high-risk research to foreign labs using minimal safety precautions. And if the SARS2 virus did indeed escape from the Wuhan institute, then the NIH will find itself in the terrible position of having funded a disastrous experiment that led to the death of more than 3 million worldwide, including more than half a million of its own citizens.

The responsibility of the NIAID and NIH is even more acute because for the first three years of the grant to EcoHealth Alliance there was a moratorium on funding gain-of-function research. When the moratorium expired in 2017, it didn’t just vanish but was replaced by a reporting system, the Potential Pandemic Pathogens Control and Oversight (P3CO) Framework, which required agencies to report for review any dangerous gain-of-function work they wished to fund.

The moratorium, referred to officially as a “pause,” specifically barred funding any gain-of-function research that increased the pathogenicity of the flu, MERS or SARS viruses. It defined gain-of-function very simply and broadly as “research that improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease.”

But then a footnote on p.2 of the moratorium document states that “[a]n exception from the research pause may be obtained if the head of the USG funding agency determines that the research is urgently necessary to protect the public health or national security.”

This seemed to mean that either the director of the NIAID, Anthony Fauci, or the director of the NIH, Francis Collins, or maybe both, would have invoked the exemption in order to keep the money flowing to Shi’s gain-of-function research, and later to avoid notifying the federal reporting system of her research.

“Unfortunately, the NIAID Director and the NIH Director exploited this loophole to issue exemptions to projects subject to the Pause –preposterously asserting the exempted research was ‘urgently necessary to protect public health or national security’—thereby nullifying the Pause,” Dr. Richard Ebright said in an interview with Independent Science News.

But it’s not so clear that the NIH thought it necessary to invoke any loopholes. Fauci told a Senate hearing on May 11 that “the NIH and NIAID categorically has not funded gain-of-function research to be conducted in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

This was a surprising statement in view of all the evidence about Shi’s experiments with enhancing coronaviruses and the language of the moratorium statute defining gain-of-function as “any research that improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease.”

The explanation may be one of definition. Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance, for one, believes that the term gain-of-function applies only to enhancements of viruses that infect humans, not to animal viruses. “So gain-of-function research refers specifically to the manipulation of human viruses so as to be either more easily transmissible or to cause worse infection or be easier to spread,” an Alliance official told The Dispatch Fact Check.

If the NIH shares the EcoHealth Alliance view that “gain of function” applies only to human viruses, that would explain why Fauci could assure the Senate it had never funded such research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. But the legal basis of such a definition is unclear, and it differs from that of the moratorium language which was presumably applicable.

Definitions aside, the bottom line is that the National Institutes of Health was supporting research of a kind that could have generated the SARS2 virus, in an unsupervised foreign lab that was doing work in BSL2 biosafety conditions.

In conclusion. If the case that SARS2 originated in a lab is so substantial, why isn’t this more widely known? As may now be obvious, there are many people who have reason not to talk about it. The list is led, of course, by the Chinese authorities. But virologists in the United States and Europe have no great interest in igniting a public debate about the gain-of-function experiments that their community has been pursuing for years.

Nor have other scientists stepped forward to raise the issue. Government research funds are distributed on the advice of committees of scientific experts drawn from universities. Anyone who rocks the boat by raising awkward political issues runs the risk that their grant will not be renewed and their research career will be ended.

I think you are overly certain about the efficacy and safety of the vaccines. — Janus

Mounting evidence suggests COVID vaccines do reduce transmission.
Science Brief: Background Rationale and Evidence for Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People
Coronavirus spread slowed by vaccines, study suggests

...but we should go with Janus' gut feeling, shouldn't we.

.but we should go with Janus' gut feeling, shouldn't we. — Banno

I haven't said that the vaccines are not efficacious or safe; so this is a strawman statement. I am obviously more cautious than you are in assessing the accuracy, relevance and veracity of the data to be found in articles you have no more hope than I do, due to lack of actual experience and expertise, in critically assessing.

That's why I chose territory sources. They are already assessed. But yes, I do trust science more than you, it would seem.

Yes, you trust the official reports of science more than me it seems. I trust science itself only insofar as it is free from politics.

One would think so, to look around the comments here. — Banno

Including yours.

Incidentally as we’re on the topic, I was fortuitously offered a COVID jab when I went to a medical center on other business in late April. Accepted it without a moment’s hesitation, second shot booked for July. I for one have no doubt about the safety and efficacy of them.

. I trust science itself only insofar as it is free from politics. — Janus

SO... not at all?

Must fact check the interwebs articles.

I don't agree; lack of action is a kind of action, and in any case suspension of judgement does not entail that one would have no ideas that could be followed; followed without judging them true or false or even likely to be true or false, but just to see where they lead. Action can be based merely on desire to do something, and of course there will always be expectation. But I would draw a distinction between expectation, which is found also in animals and judgement or belief self-consciously held.

Provisional hypotheses yield predictions based on drawing analogies (abductive reasoning) with what has been observed in the past. You might argue that one would be relying upon what others have recorded, which is true, and that one would be relying upon faith in the truth of what they have recorded, but that would be false. Anything and everything can be provisionally accepted without committing to any judgement as to its truth.

Having said that, I am not arguing that people always or even very often suspend judgement like that, but I am just pointing to what is possible not what is common. To anticipate another possible objection, it's also true that in everything we must have faith in our memories; we have to act on the basis of what they give us, but this is not any kind of consciously adopted faith, which is what I have been concerned with; it is entirely instinctive; even animals do it. — Janus

I can’t disagree with you here. I’m not talking about any commitment, though - just acknowledging a dimensionally structural difference between action, prediction and idea.

The line between action and lack of action (wu-wei) is conceptual, as is the line between expectation and judgement, even between faith and doubt. Where we draw them is based on the distinction of consciousness, which is uncertain - ideologically, probabilistically or provisionally determined by conceptual structures.

I think we need to recognise the implications of this in terms of science, logic and religion. Statements structured within one limited conceptual system do not readily convert to another without loss of information. Theories or claims isolated from their progress through scientific or logical methodology lack a sense of the provisional certainty structured within these systems. Likewise, statements of faith isolated from certain metaphysical structures of ‘truth’ (as constructed by religious discourse) rarely have any standing outside of it, and are designed to resist predictability or empirical testing. This is about how we bracket out uncertainty using language.

Personally, what I’m looking for is a methodological device or discourse that doesn’t need to ‘switch gauges’, but rather enables us to navigate between these human systems of provisional or ideological certainty without loss of information. Or at least to recognise and account for the limitations of each approach within a broader methodology.

I think this is where philosophy needs to be right now - in the dimensional space of uncertainty that dissolves the boundaries between science, logic and religion. Arguing for the benevolence of ‘science’ seems important right now, but it’s not the role of philosophy to throw its support behind a particular system here. It only demonstrates a weakness in one’s understanding, a resistance to information that threatens their own sense of provisional certainty.

It was terrible for the Germans after WWI. The Treaty of Versailles demanded huge reparations, while at the same time annexed the Saaland, which was Germany's main access to coal for industrial and domestic fuel. At the same time Germans had democracy forced on them - and it was proportional representation, which led to a proliferation of political parties, and weak, indecisive government. It's easy to see how Germany fell prey to the Nazi regime. — counterpunch

I'm not too much of a historian but I do know the Germans got screwed at Versailles and that led to the rise of Hitler etc. I didn't mean to get into the historical nuances of the phrase "good German" and I see your point.

When all this kicked off, I looked up the statistics on Arrest Related Deaths - and apparently, there are around 10 million arrests per year, and around 1000 end in the death of the suspect. That's 0.01%. Of those, 32% are black - which may immediately seem disproportionate, given that black people are only 13% of the US population. However, when you look more closely, it turns out that black people commit a lot more crime - and so make up a larger proportion of arrests than their numbers in the population would suggest. — counterpunch

You can get in a lot of trouble these days for pointing that out, but it's true. A set of facts that can be spun many ways.

I was on twitter at the time - and shared these statistics, and was banned from twitter for doing so.[/quote[

LOL. Not laughing at you, only commiserating. It's terrible what's happened to the concept of free speech lately. And, "Twitter is a private company" is not a valid response. The southern lunch counters that refused to server blacks in the 1950's were private businesses too, until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 defined them as public accommodations. Something similar has to eventually happen to the social media companies. They are either public accommodations or common carriers, as the phone companies are. At some point Congress needs to step up to the plate.

But for sure, if you point out that blacks have a lot more per capita contact with cops than whites because they commit more per capita crimes, that will definitely put you on SJW Santa's naughty list. Would have loved to see your Twitter feed. Myself, I am not on social media. Wouldn't be able to stand the aggravation.

— counterpunch

But wait, because the plot thickens. Data on arrest related deaths was collected by the Bureau of Justice Statistics from 2003-2012, whereupon the Obama administration shut it down, the year before BLM was formed in 2013. So, this kicking off in the weeks leading up to the Presidential election looks mighty suspicious. One has to ask why Obama would shut down data collection on the race of arrest related deaths if it was such a huge issue that forming BLM was necessary. About 300 black people die every year - which is plenty of fuel for a social media narrative, while statistically, there's no evidence of racism on the part of police, and every indication of extraordinary professionalism. — counterpunch

I'm in agreement. Obama was a race hustler who made race relations far worse than before he became president. I'm an old MLK-style liberal (content of character etc.) appalled by what's become of race relations. I have no idea where it's going, whether the present moment will die out or get worse.

What does this have to do with the issue we are discussing? — T Clark

No longer recall the specifics, but something about support for authoritarianism along with my dislike of police thuggery in the name of conformance to mask laws that don't actually have much impact on public health in the first place.

First - No, he did not admit that Covid might have a lab origin. He became open to the possibility based on new evidence. Second - In terms of how the pandemic has been handled here, what difference does it make where it came from? — T Clark

He finally admitted it after a year denying it, and there has been no new evidence. The evidence was there all along, as were the many reputable scientists pointing that out all year. All that's changed is that the MSM can no longer keep a lid on the truth.

And what difference it makes is that in 2014, the US outlawed gain-of-function research, only to re-authorize it in 2017. And if in the end it turns out that Fauci was the one who paid the Chinese to conduct that research, that is a hell of a news story. And a case can already be made. Money is fungible. We know he gave money to EcoHealth Alliance, and they gave money to the Chinese, and they spent some of it on GOF research that may have led to a covid lab leak. That's a news story and it matters. It matters a lot if in the end, the US is paying the Chinese to do bioweapons research that either accidentally or deliberately had such a profound effect on us. I'm a little puzzled as how you can even ask the question of "what difference does it make." Isn't that what Hillary said about a dead ambassador? Is this the story you're going with?

Again, what difference does it make in terms of our pandemic response? — T Clark

In terms of the response, not much difference at all. In terms of preventing the next similar incident, it makes all the difference in the world. Every advanced country in the world is doing bioweapons research, either for offensive purposes, which nobody admits to, or for defensive purposes, which they all claim. "The other guys might do it so we have to learn about it."

I regard it as naive and childish in the extreme for anyone to be in denial about bioweapons research, and to claim we shouldn't be asking these questions about who is funding it and what the consequences might be for humanity. If THIS pandemic came from bat soup, the next one will be an accidental lab leak, and the one after that will be a deliberate lab leak. And if you don't know that, I urge you to do your homework.

Maybe start here. Chinese scientists discussed weaponising coronavirus in 2015: Media report.

BEIJING: Chinese military scientists allegedly investigated weaponising coronaviruses five years before the COVID-19 pandemic and may have predicted a World War III fought with biological weapons, according to media reports referring to documents obtained by the US State Department.

"What difference does it make," indeed.

Also, "The Federalist" is a knee-jerk right-wing rag. They've spread misinformation about Covid from the start and promoted the stolen election lie. — T Clark

Can't counter the facts, so slime the publisher. Sadly, the information they print isn't being reported by Rachel Maddow and Anderson Cooper. If it was, I'd link it. The Federalist has a conservative take on the news, but I would not call them a knee-jerk right-wing rag, unless you also admitted that by the same criterion, the NYT is a knee-jerk left-wing rag.

As I wrote previously, I've been impressed by how well the US responded to the pandemic, even given the jerky start and all the zig-zags. — T Clark

Panic and hysteria are never appropriate responses. The US government did a terrible job responding to the pandemic. I believe that my opinion will be vindicated over the next few years as people get perspective, but the jury's still out at the moment. I do believe that the sudden realization that it may well have been a lab leak, after a year of suppressing and deplatforming and smearing credible advocates of that position, supports my conclusion and not yours.

A lot of those missteps came from right-wing political sources like "The Federalist." I think you are a reverse conspiracy theorist. — T Clark

Is that someone who thinks Caesar was stabbed by a lone knifeman and that 9/11 was done by a lone planeman? I am not sure how to take that but it strikes me as funny.

It's not that people are conspiring to do bad things, it's that people are conspiring not to do good things. — T Clark

The US response to covid was driven by panic, confusion, and hysteria. Trump derangement syndrome had a lot to do with it. This is already becoming clear. as the Washington Post just admitted the other day.

John Kass wrote a piece about this. The Wuhan Story That Finally Has Legs, Now That Trump Is Gone

The NY Post reported that the Biden admin actually shut down an investigation into the lab leak hypothesis, and NOW they have been forced to start it up again. Biden shut down Wuhan inquiry out of spite — and is now forced to reverse course

Finally, here's an article documenting the US government's restoration of GOF research in 2017

US government lifts ban on risky pathogen research
The National Institutes of Health will again fund research that makes viruses more dangerous.


This is very important in a thread about the goodness of science. In the old days if you were a bright young biology postdoc, you'd go into curing cancer or heart disease or otherwise finding ways to alleviate human suffering. Now? You follow the government grant money and devote your knowledge and skill to figuring out more clever ways to weaponize diseases. @Banno, any opinion?

To sum up, the question of whether covid came from bat soup or was accidentally or perhaps deliberately released from a Chinese bioweapons lab partially funded by American taxpayer dollars controlled by Dr. Fauci, is a question that goes directly to the heart of the goodness of science. This GOF research was outlawed in the US in 2014. Scientists and others who follow these issues knew all about this stuff years ago. It didn't just come into existence because people started getting sick in 2019.

Bioweapons research goes back to the great German chemist Fritz Haber, who did brilliant work on synthesizing nitrogen in order to make fertilizers that now feed billions of people; and who then, in WWI, invented nerve gas and personally went out to the battlefields to deploy it. His wife committed suicide, in part because of her opposition to his war work.

Now that's science. It can feed you or gas you to death. It can cure your disease, or give you a disease that you otherwise wouldn't have gotten. Science is a double-edged sword.

In my opinion science only knows how to make things and cure diseases. There is no way it can know what happened a million years ago from physics. Their theories say what COULD have happened, but there could have been a dragon that breathed the world out of its mouth a million are so years ago. That makes more sense then a fiery singularity. An eternal dragon. There is no real truth in science. Its about trial and error to see what we can DO, not what we know. Scientists say "this is what is in the sun" based solely on what they know COULD power a sun. They don't really know what's inside that thing and the idea that philosophy will go away while science will find the theory that explains everything is preposterous. If there was no more to search for everyone would kill each other anyway

/

Let me just add:

Saying 1) that we can rewind the clock of causality billions of years is the same logic as saying 2) "we know this can power the sun so it does. There is no metaphysics necessity to either statement. If you studied the wind patterns in a room to determine where certain papers flew to this doesn't rule out all kinds of factors that could have brought the papers to their place and put the wind into its structure. It's impossible to rule out unknown forces to create a theory of everything

Geez, no fair responding to my posts from deep in the past. I've probably changed my mind since then.

He finally admitted it after a year denying it, and there has been no new evidence. The evidence was there all along, as were the many reputable scientists pointing that out all year. All that's changed is that the MSM can no longer keep a lid on the truth. — fishfry

I'm not knowledgeable enough to respond in any detail. Here is a summary from Newsweek that summarizes Fauci's comments on the origin. His comments seem straightforward and reasonable to me. Of course Newsweek is part of the "MSM."

In terms of the response, not much difference at all. — fishfry

That's what matters to me. That's where the science has made a difference.

In terms of preventing the next similar incident, it makes all the difference in the world. — fishfry

Agreed. I am skeptical of your contention that there is any intended coverup.

The Federalist has a conservative take on the news, but I would not call them a knee-jerk right-wing rag, — fishfry

I repeat - they endorsed and promoted the stolen election story. They denied the seriousness of the Covid pandemic. Nuff said.

unless you also admitted that by the same criterion, the NYT is a knee-jerk left-wing rag. — fishfry

I do not consider the NYT an unbiased source of information on the political ramifications of this issue and others.

Panic and hysteria are never appropriate responses. — fishfry

What you call "panic and hysteria" I call a reasonable and fairly effective response to the situation. To the extent it wasn't, that was caused by political interference by the Republican Party in general and Donald Trump in particular.

John Kass wrote a piece about this. The Wuhan Story That Finally Has Legs, Now That Trump Is Gone — fishfry

I read the article and found it unconvincing. The fact that you seem to find the origin story more important than the response story does not make sense to me.

This is very important in a thread about the goodness of science. — fishfry

Now that's science. It can feed you or gas you to death. It can cure your disease, or give you a disease that you otherwise wouldn't have gotten. Science is a double-edged sword. — fishfry

I was commenting on several specific comments you made about the Covid response, not on the value of science. In my previous posts I have expressed concerns about the possible consequences of scientific "progress."

Yeah, just going to point out that this is nonsense and leave it there. Anyone who thinks it worthy of due consideration can start by explaining how the dragon snot theory explains fossil crinoids and cosmic background.

Is that "de-platforming"? I hope so.

I trust the assertions and theories of science that don't appear to be politically motivated; geology, botany, zoology, biology, chemistry, physics, human anatomy and physiology, entomology, astronomy, cosmology, evolutionary theory, climate science, much of modern medicine (the parts that have not become part of a huge money-making industry) and so on.,

That's why I chose territory sources. They are already assessed. — Banno

If you believe that those who peer review the articles in politically or economically contentious areas of science are free from bias, then you are more gullible than I thought. What you should always ask yourself is whether there is likely to be any significant vested interest motivating the views being presented. That's why I tryst climate science because there is far more benefit to vested interests in denying, than there is in affirming, it. When it comes to the vaccines, well you only have to consider how many new billionaires have reportedly joined the club on account of them. Of course this doesn't mean they are not effective or that they are dangerous, but they certainly haven't gone through the usual rigours of testing that is standard practice with vaccines; so if you trust them you are making a leap of faith, and should be able to admit that if you are intellectually honest.

Must fact check the interwebs articles. — frank

Sure, it's good to check the facts as much as it possible to get unbiased information and to be able to be reasonably assured that it is in fact unbiased. I was not presenting the article I quoted from as gospel, but merely as an alternative view. As to fact-checking; who fact-checks the fact-checkers?

Incidentally as we’re on the topic, I was fortuitously offered a COVID jab when I went to a medical center on other business in late April. Accepted it without a moment’s hesitation, second shot booked for July. I for one have no doubt about the safety and efficacy of them. — Wayfarer

Don't worry, you'll probably be fine.

I trust the assertions and theories of science that don't appear to be politically motivated; geology, botany, zoology, biology, chemistry, physics, human anatomy and physiology, entomology, astronomy, cosmology, evolutionary theory, climate science, much of modern medicine (the parts that have not become part of a huge money-making industry) and so on., — Janus

You're going to have to engage with the science, though, if you wish to have an opinion on anything from climate change through to viruses. Deliberately ignoring any science with political import would be absurd. It's not hard to see that the stuff Fishfry is using is very fringe; he's obviously spinning it. Go to WHO or Nature or some such and you can quickly get a sense of the consensus, or if there is none of the issues that are ate stake.

If you don't believe that most scientists and academics toe the line when it comes to politically or economically contentious topics, at least until the counter-evidence is so overwhelming as to become impossible to ignore, then I think you are simply naive. As laypeople, I don't believe you are any more capable of ":engaging the science" in an informed way than I am.

Just look how most of the virologists fell into line to suggest that it was completely absurd to suggest that the virus could have been (partly at least) engineered in a lab and escaped. they did that at a time when there was no clear evidence either way, and as good scientists they should have suspended judgement until more evidence became available. I think the same goes for the safety and efficacy of the vaccines; it is simply not plausible that there is enough evidence yet available to be able to form a sound rational judgement.

Labeling fishfry's opinions as "fringe" is just a convenient way of dismissing what he's saying without having to provide cogent arguments against it.

...as laypeople, I don't believe you are any more capable of "engaging the science" in an informed way than I am. — Janus

Sure - I think you can engage with the science.

Labeling Fishfry's opinions as "fringe" is just a convenient way of dismissing what he's saying without having to provide cogent arguments against it. — Janus

Make up your mind - do you examine the science or not? You are ale to judge stuff when it agrees with you, but not when it doesn't?

I'm not too much of a historian but I do know the Germans got screwed at Versailles and that led to the rise of Hitler etc. I didn't mean to get into the historical nuances of the phrase "good German" and I see your point. — fishfry

No stress but, there's a distinction between German and Nazi worth keeping in mind - particularly given that our democracies, in the US and the UK - are so polarised by populism right now, and the economic consequences of brexit and covid, are yet to fully impact the balance sheet. Could be a tricky few years ahead.

You can get in a lot of trouble these days for pointing that out, but it's true. A set of facts that can be spun many ways. — fishfry

It's the difference between statistical fact and a social media narrative. There's 350 million Americans, and 10 million arrests per year, 0.01% of which end in a fatality - but if two black people die in the same week, that's incontrovertible proof by twitter standards, that the police are Nazis, and there are plenty of people willing to exploit that correlation for political ends.

I'm in agreement. Obama was a race hustler who made race relations far worse than before he became president. I'm an old MLK-style liberal (content of character etc.) appalled by what's become of race relations. I have no idea where it's going, whether the present moment will die out or get worse. — fishfry

It's not a one way street. There are real racists, who hated that President Obama was black. I too judge people by the content of their character, and from this side of the pond, he seemed like a good President. I don't know of good reasons to criticise him, but if there were - that's what's wrong with political correctness. You can't call out a black person for being an asshole, without appearing to be attacking them based on skin colour.

Here, the Labour Party - which is like your Democrats, only more so, have been absolutely decimated at the ballot box; largely because they've turned their back on the white working class majority - they were established to represent, and thrown themselves into political correctness with abandon, leaving the majority unrepresented. I honestly think the Conservatives are having to damage their own political prospects, just to keep democracy alive. How else can one explain Dominic Cummings - turning on his own? A sudden fit of conscience? lol.

Would you guys please get back on topic? There's plenty of places to discuss race and god; this is a thread about science. At least make some attempt to relate the discussion to the OP, perhaps?

Sure - I think you can engage with the science. — Banno

What I meant was that, as non-scientists, we are not really able to engage with the science in a truly informed way, unless we are prepared to spend countless hours researching every angle, as a very good science journalist would; and they don't all agree with one another.

Make up your mind - do you examine the science or not? You are ale to judge stuff when it agrees with you, but not when it doesn't? — Banno

But I haven't presented any opinion, but merely alternative views to the official narrative; neither of which I subscribe to because I am not confident I possess sufficient evidence to judge, or even that there is sufficient evidence such that anyone could rationally judge.

What I meant was that, as non-scientists, we are not really able to engage with the science in a truly informed way, unless we are prepared to spend countless hours researching every angle, as a very good science journalist would; and they don't all agree with one another. — Janus

Of course you can - there are many reliable secondary and tertiary sources. Look at the ones that have been cited here - take a real look at their worth. You'll see a trend.

I am not confident I possess sufficient evidence to judge, — Janus

And yet judge you must. So what to do?

Would you guys please get back on topic? There's plenty of places to discuss race and god; this is a thread about science. At least make some attempt to relate the discussion to the OP, perhaps? — Banno

Yes, certainly. Test tube. My sincere apologies. Bunsen burner. On topic from now on. E=Mc2. Or at the very least, a pretence of such.

I'm not as confident as you are of the reliability of the "secondary and tertiary sources"; perhaps if I had more time to research I might be more confident, or perhaps not.

I don't have to judge; I can suspend judgement for the time being as to the origin of the virus and Fauci's involvement or lack thereof. Same goes for the effectiveness and safety of the vaccines.

If Covid was rampant I would make a risk assessment, and given that short-term ill-effects and death associated with the vaccines seem to be far less prevalent than short-term ill-effects and death associated with Covid, I would probably take the jab if I felt sufficiently at risk of catching Covid, As to possible long-term effects of both vaccines and Covid, it is too early to tell.

One thing that can be noted is the way the politics often trumps the science, especially in respect of the COVID epidemic. The arguments about vaccination, the origins of the virus, and about the means of amelioration, are often heavily impacted by political considerations even if the science is supposed to be leading. I think this is ESPECIALLY so in the United States.

Would you guys please get back on topic? There's plenty of places to discuss race and god; this is a thread about science. At least make some attempt to relate the discussion to the OP, perhaps? — Banno

I don't understand. My posts have been all about science including the response to the pandemic in particular. I don't see how that is off topic at all. I went back and checked all my posts in this thread for the last 3 days and couldn't find anything about race or god. Did I miss one?

Banno is getting off on being a dick-tator. My post was chiefly about the difference between statistical fact and social media narrative; as it played out with regard to a particular political/racial example. Apparently, examples are off topic. Explanation of the religious roots of anti-scientism - off topic.

We are required to shout:

"Nuclear weapons!"

"Antibiotics!"

...at eachother, over and over again!