DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Fauci Emails

We have had watchdog scientists in China for over 30 years, during that span, they have had multiple pandemics including SARS and Bird Flu that originated there.. nothing intentional that we know of but it's not "BOOM" pandemic as if there had never been a pandemic out of China while they were there.

I certainly don't think that having those officials there would have prevented the pandemic or that it is the fault of why COVID spread.

One of the biggest issues that happened early on with COVID is that nobody really knew anything about it, or how serious it was. My speculation on that front is because China isn't exactly forthcoming about sharing information when it screws something up. They are a huge face-saver.

I would have been curious to know if having those officials over there could have at least gathered enough data at the forefront to definitively say "Oh crap, this is serious," potentially leading to better preparedness and less deaths. I can't imagine it would have hurt on that front.

IMO, you're approaching the correct line of thinking on this (I'm not the authority on who's right/wrong, just saying there should be a certain train of thought to get from 0 to "China is waging bio-war on the world").

Step 1 is determining where it came from (China). This was known from the get-go.

Step 2 is where in China, which leads you to the how. This is where we are right now, and I'm not sure everyone will agree that we can move behind this step. Biden is calling for investigation.

Assuming the newest and oldest theory is true, and it did come from the Wuhan lab, then you can start getting into the 'why'. IMO, I don't think the Chinese intentionally did this. Questionable lab practices that have been reported throughout seem to point to good 'ol incompetence and lack of oversight. Seems like a much simpler and more logical explanation than some coordinated and nefarious Chinese plot.


Parallel to this train of thought is critiquing Trump's (lacking) federal response to the pandemic. We had the virus taking hold here while Trump was blaming China, which at the time wasn't the least bit productive in terms of protecting American citizens. It's also extremely ironic that he harped on blaming China when he himself removed the people tasked with oversight for this exact scenario.

Yet we do know the origin of those. With people on the inside, just as you explained we "used to have", we may very well know the truth of it's origin, just like we knew the origin of both SARS and Bird Flu.

Then we would not all be here trying to place blame and guess what happened.

Except for the people in the Wuhan lab; studying it, mutating it, testing the infectiousness on "humanized" rats.

I'm sure if we had more people from the CDC camped out 800 miles away they would have been transparent, forthcoming, and alerted us quickly to any possible breach.

And yet we knew the origin of both SARS and the bird flu when those people were there.

We did? That's news to me...

“One decade has passed by,” says Dr. Jianfeng He with emotion, “We have better disease control system, we have better communication platforms, and the general public’s knowledge and awareness of the prevention and control of infectious disease have dramatically improved. However, the source of SARS virus remains a myth.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3747529/

Got any receipts for that statement??

This sums up my thoughts pretty well.

I can't say for certainty whether they would have or not, but your sarcastic inference can't be certain either.

To counter your point, though, Beijing is the country's capital, and you can bet that their centralized government has everything so that Beijing absolutely knows what goes on anywhere else in China, within a moment's notice. If symptoms, signs of outbreak, etc. bubbled their way up to wherever the CDC was plugged into in Beijing, we could have had more info. Pit raised the point about other instances.

Agree. I keep getting disappointed as to the commingling of the two.

This is from an article at NIH, published 10 years after the SARS outbreak.

Where did the SARS virus come from? — Still a myth
“One decade has passed by,” says Dr. Jianfeng He with emotion, “We have better disease control system, we have better communication platforms, and the general public’s knowledge and awareness of the prevention and control of infectious disease have dramatically improved. However, the source of SARS virus remains a myth.” A recent report denied the role of civets in transmitting SARS virus and argued that bat is the real culprit. According to Dr. He, however, this is not a new story: early in 2005, some scientists had made the same conclusion. However, up to now there has been no final conclusion.

10 years later and they still weren't 100% sure what caused it. Pretty sure it was 1 of 2 animals.. but not certain.

And isn't that all it takes for a good conspiracy theory these day?

We're not 100% certain.

It's pretty well known. It widely accepted. But since it isn't "100% certain' there must be something else. A relative degree of certainty just isn't enough i suppose.

Never said that -- keep trying champ.


Receipts yet? Still digging?

I'm not digging a rabbit hole for you. Most all of the scientific community accepts it was originated in animals. So you keep on going and buck the vast majority of the scientific community. It's worked so well thus far with how America has done that with Covid 19.

j/c:

Watch: Fauci Pal Daszak Admits "Chinese Colleagues" Developing "Killer" Coronaviruses

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/watch...r-coronaviruses

Again, stating things I never said. How am I bucking the scientific community? You said if we "had people on the inside, like we did before, we may very well know the origin".

Sooo... it took over a decade to surmise how SARS originated, but yet, if Trump would have left the other 40 people in Beijing, we would have magically (and instantly) known the origin of Covid. And then, once we knew it came from bat guano, we could have nipped this whole thing in the bud!

Gotcha.

Any chance you have the winning powerball numbers? You seem to have great psychic powers.

What’s the fascination Republicans seem to have with emails? What’s the crime? Got a problem with Fauci…sue em. Anything to prop up your orange turd and to tear down a decent human like Fauci. Pffft trump supporters are truly sick. Seek help.

Sure, if you believe that NIH and the chief expert of the Guangdong Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the director of Guangdong Institute for Infectious Disease Control and Prevention.. are in the business of peddling conspiracy theories.

My sarcasm is pointed to the baseless statements about "how different things would have been". There is no evidence to support either extreme, thus the sarcasm.

As for the rest... The CDC was in Beijing, and did provide info. I'm not sure how the size of the staff in Beijing would have any bearing on how fast or what info would be provided. China was forthright about the fact that there was an outbreak from the beginning... Health officials in Wuhan, China, post a notice that says they’re investigating a pneumonia outbreak that is spreading in their city. The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledges that it “was informed of a cluster of cases of pneumonia of unknown cause.” That was on December 31, 2019.

As far as investigating anything in Wuhan under the understanding that there was a chance to "get to the bottom of things", or "identify the origin"; leaders of the CDC said they were still waiting for permission from the Chinese government to join the WHO delegation to Wuhan weeks after the outbreak. There would be no joint "fact finding mission" until late February, nearly two months after the outbreak started.

Please tell me how 40 more stuffed shirts in Beijing would have changed any of that? That's what everyone seems to be arguing. Heck, some people are even saying the pandemic would have never happened, I'm guessing the CDC also has a flux capacitor at it's disposal in Beijing... Well, it did, until Trump.

I get that we need to know. Period.

TBH I think stopping the ongoing insurrection and the traitors who brought us January 6th is more important to the health of our democracy though. Can I get all you GOPers wanting China punished (for something that is as of now unproven) to help me punish THOSE PEOPLE?

You obviously have no clue what "may very well know" means. Try again Weedhopper.

So you think "not 100% certain" means they're promoting something?

Umm, no. I think it means they still believe there is a question as to what caused it. You are the one who suggested we should just accept popular opinion and move on.. and disregard the fact that we don't actually know.

Here is the whole article if you want to read it.

Near as I can tell over 500 people have been arrested and their fate rests in the hands of the court system now... what else would you like to do?

And for the record, I don't necessarily want China punished, UNLESS they did it on purpose.... I just want to know what happened and why there is this big shroud of secrecy and the appearance of a cover up.

No thanks, Kung Fluke. You want me to psycho-analyze the structure of your sentence while you march around here screaming "context" when someone makes an absurd statement that has nothing to do with the conversation anyway? Pffftt... You crack me up.

I don't even need to "expose" you, you do that yourself... post after post.

Thanks for the entertainment.

Already read it. I think we should trust the volume of the evidence over the slight possibility it may turn out otherwise.

There are many things in this world that nobody can be "100%certain of" that have a wealth of evidence and support of being true. Until at least some evidence surfaces that may dictate otherwise I guess we should just question everything? Even you yourself believe in things that if asked for irrefutable evidence you would be hard pressed to prove without saying that it's by faith alone.

So yes, until someone shows some reasonable hypothesis to the contrary, which in the case of SARS there has been none, I would say the overwhelming evidence you have dictates far more than, well it might be something else but we have no idea what that something else might be.

Wah. It has to do with the definitions of words in the English language. Try looking at the word "may" for starters. If you can't grasp that one it's no wonder you think you made a point.

I'll help you out since you obviously need it.

may; used to indicate possibility or probability

So what does the volume of evidence say caused SARS? Bats? Is the answer that simple?

I already made it clear that it would not prevent the pandemic. Also, signs showing pneumonia in people doesn't speak to the gravity of what COVID was. I don't think it's debatable that COVID wasn't well understood as the pandemic began spreading.

As far as you using the term "stuffed shirts" to further your point, here is an article from the horse's mouth:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-healt...k-idUSKBN21910S

You have your counterargument at the end of the article. The undisputed facts are that this position to detect outbreaks was eliminated, COVID happened, and we didn't fully learn about the virus until it was too late.

I will concede that I don't know for certain that this position would have helped our understanding and preparedness for what was actually happening when someone was infected with COVID to gain a better understanding of the gravity of the disease, but I can say with certainty it wouldn't have hurt.

Like oober mentioned, if you have someone tasked with doing something like monitoring for toxic waste spills, and then you eliminate that position and then there's a toxic waste spill, there will at least be some scrutiny borne by logic.

You make a lot of good points. The b**ch of the whole thing is arguing dumb things like "wouldn't have mattered" and "sure couldn't hurt". Of course it couldn't hurt to have more people there, it seems to me, though, that everything being discussed in this article (and everywhere else, for that matter) is mostly "hindsight 20/20" type of examples.

Let's be realistic here and apply a little common sense. The article says this:

As an American CDC employee, they said, Quick was in an ideal position to be the eyes and ears on the ground for the United States and other countries on the coronavirus outbreak, and might have alerted them to the growing threat weeks earlier.

Weeks earlier than what?? The Chinese government alerted the world when there were a mere cluster of cases. Can you honestly tell me anybody on the planet would have suspected we were facing the severity of a once a century pandemic at that point? I guess you can go back to the "well, couldn't hurt" argument, but please tell what you think would have been different? Nobody on the planet was taking this seriously until numbers were exploding. People looking back and trying to create a narrative that reaction would be any different "if we knew a couple weeks earlier" are wishful thinkers at best.

I'm also a little confused by her role and how it would have made an impact... "resident adviser to the U.S. Field Epidemiology Training Program in China". She trained other scientist to examine potential outbreaks, so I guess there's a possibility her ear may have been closer to the ground than others? There were other Americans at the CDC there... were they not qualified?

Seems like a lot of question marks. Then there's this...



So it was the CDC itself that eliminated her position? And the same CDC says her being there wouldn't have made a difference? Then I don't know what I'm supposed to surmise by the end of the article trying to push the "because Trump" agenda.

For me, it's not even about blaming Trump. It's about just the act. If it weren't for discussing historical context, counterarguments, or for the fact that he is - for whatever reason - still controlling the Republican party, I would move on like I did with most other administrations.

As far as "wouldn't hurt" I was bringing that up in the context of just naming what the facts are, not implying that it was a compelling argument for keeping the position or fallout resulting from a lack of having that team over there. You're asking me now what I would think, so that implies delving more into the speculation aspect, which I'm glad to do.

So, where I think the impact could have been had is the following:

- China notoriously obfuscates situations where it makes it look like their government is in control, even where it's clear that it is not.

- I would imagine creating the position in China had to do with recent past incidents of disease-spreading, as well as the aforementioned point about China's obfuscation. To me, creating that position would make sense.

- Given what the woman had said about the duties of the position, I think that we would have had an earlier pulse that COVID was not just the flu, or not just pneumonia, but that it was life-threatening, and extremely contagious.

- If we had a team in place who could come up with that amount of information, I think that the administration could have used the information as more objective, empirical data to shut down travel earlier to hopefully buy more time to at least investigate the virus. Instead, it became a discussion on xenophobia - and some fault there lies with the Democrats.

- As it was, when the pandemic began, I don't think many of us really feared that it would be as contagious as it was, so I believe this team could have spread that type of information, based upon the infection rates being witnessed. I think a lot of us - myself included - expected it to be like SARS or West Nile. One of those things you hear about, but never really come across. Had we gotten more in-depth data regarding the contagious-factor up front, we likely could have come to an earlier conclusion on masks and social distancing. Instead, what we had was a whole lot of uncertainty at the forefront as we were trying to gather more information from a place that wasn't really giving any.

- I think, based upon the uncertainties up front - Trump gambled and/or stuck his head in the sand, hoping that it would amount to something like West Nile or one of the other diseases that didn't have a COVID-degree of impact. When he realized he was wrong, he double, triple, and quadrupled down on how he was not wrong and it was China's fault. More speculation again on my part - if his administration was given more data up front and he was given more point blank information up front, perhaps he would have gambled the other way in hopes of being the person who "saved the U.S. from COVID." I'll admit that's a stretch, though, because I think his biggest concern was the economy.

Basically, I think the team over there could have obtained more information up front that could have improved our awareness up front, and saved more lives. We all heard about the doctor, Li Wenliang, who was the whistleblower that first raised the COVID alarm in China. He was rebuked and investigated by the police for spreading "false rumors." We had nothing to verify whether or not he was correct. If we could have had a team pull on his thread more, or even bring him in for discussion, that also could have helped our preparedness.

It's been the end of a very long day, so my thoughts are disjointed, but I think that delves into some of the rationale behind my assertions.

That was me that said that, Not Pit.... Try and keep up will ya.

I find it interesting.. we had watchdogs there, nothing happened. watch dogs are removed and BOOM,, Pandemic

What part of that do you NOT understand...

lmao. Mostly how your mind works if you think watchdogs prevent pandemics. That's some sci-fi, fairy tale, 7 & 9 b.s. Furthermore, we had watchdogs there, but apparently the CDC removed the wrong ones... I get it... good help is hard to find.

And I know it was you, duh, actually, you could blindfold us all and read it aloud, and most of us would know it was you. Pit just has a penchant for defending dumb statements, if stupid is on his side of the playground -- he'll throw down the gauntlet with some smoke and mirrors. He said your crazy opinion was FACT.

Dumb statements like if we would have had boots on the ground in China it wouldn't have made any difference?

But we had watchdogs there when SARS and the bird flu happened. They never got close to the level of COVID-19, but they happened.

Fact is that your entire premise is an unprovable hypothetical that you are treating as fact based solely on the timing of events. If we had not pulled 30 CDC people out of Beijing when we did, would this have played out any different? I don't know and neither do you.

Yep. Not only would it have made a differnce, Covid would have been nipped in the bud!

Boots on the ground. Super-sleuths, actually. The Chinese gov't would have been like... "If we could only get rid of the meddling kids from the CDC!"

Keep living your fantasy, it's good to have a caricature here to entertain us all.

Yes, you are entertaining.

That's what we're down to? "I know you are, but what am I??"

LMAO. Have a good day Pit.