it took me a while to realize it and in early 2020, i found this to be implausible because if you were going to make a bioweapon, covid would be a lousy base.
then i saw daszak's DARPA grant application and realized what probably happened. 🙀
as to why it was covered up, that seems easy: lots of powerful people funded it.
when you have the NIH and DoD funding viral hotwiring in china so they can color outside the lines and they fail to supervise it, it goes way too far, and then escapes, of course they cover it up.
the obvious tell was how many of the people involved in the research wound up on the panels to investigate the outbreak/source.
it was pure "fox commission empaneled to study henhouse murders."
the pangolins never stood a chance...
getting to the bottom of this and rooting out the people and practices than enable, abetted, and sought to hide this is an important undertaking.
fail to do so, and this is going to happen again.
let's not come up short.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
control of money is vital to the conception of the modern nation state.
if commerce, savings, and investment become opaque to government it would represent the greatest transfer of power away from the center and to "we the people" since the conception of rights
it would undermine everything they use to sustain control.
they could not regulate commerce, lending, banking, or investment.
they would not be able to see what you are paid or what you pay others.
and you cannot tax what you cannot see.
the idea that people would need to be induced to voluntarily contribute to gov't enterprises on an opt-in basis terrifies them because they know that most of what they are "selling" cannot survive consumer sovereignty and such emergence would lead to true individual sovereignty
if you keep letting bot and list votes count, you're allowing small numbers of people to determine site wide reputation and reach by rigging votes.
it's just going to be an ugly arms race to the bottom.
the point of free speech is to allow and enable controversial speech and the cure for it when such speech is wrong is not "allowing those who disagree to silence it" it's "more speech."
well, you can say this, at least she's being honest about "i'm only willing to engage with those who wish to speak about nonsense and will vilify with silly epithets those who call me out."
last refuge of the pseudoscientist.
the points she made were that "applying political pressure can make editors speak falsehoods that contradict their own scientists."
not much of a mantra for someone accusing others of "losing the scientific argument"
and "failed to show efficacy in trials" does not mean "inefficacy is proven" is tautologically correct (especially as you cannot really prove a negative) but it's logical inversion.