It’s the “gain of function” euphemism that bothers me so much. The purpose of gain-of-function research is to see if we are able to alter the efficacy of viruses in an efficient manner, by creating the conditions under which it might adapt functions by existing and replicating in the kinds of environments that created those functions in other viruses. It’s pretty fucking dangerous, and yet everyone wants to use this euphemism instead of discussing what it was: weaponization. Even if the argument becomes that this work was necessary for the furthering of vaccines — which vaccines? How? And how does that justify the weaponization of viruses and the great risks that that entails — even greater, considering the nation funded to perform the research.

Why in fucks’ name would any government want a virus they can’t control or vaccinate against? Or were they expecting to create something they could control? Was it hubris, expecting the research would be far enough along that vaccination would already exist in the literature by the time something like this happened? Or could it have been desperation, considering just how secretive they had to be to maintain this from the earliest days of the Trump admin — very likely kept from him just as much as anyone else. Not that that clears Trump; we saw very little of The Apprentice in the White House in those four years.

I’ll continue to be patient but I think the pitchforks and torches are long overdue. Let’s bring it back to Jefferson and Spooner, question everything and re-evaluate where we stand as free people, if those two pieces of paper are worth anything.


@sev I got suspended from Twitter for suggesting Fauci, et al, should be tried & executed (actually using the word "executed")... you know shit's fucked when psychopath virologists are celebrated & common folk are regulated...

"The benefits of the research in preventing future epidemics have so far been nil, the risks vast."

· · Web · 2 · 5 · 10

@johnww2 not sure how those quackademics/policy wonk/ideologues are any better than the one I heard giving a lecture at the college I use to work at proclaiming the increase in demand on energy from HVAC in developing countries will be offset by more efficient HVAC units, completely ignoring that demand will be orders of magnitude larger than any efficiency gains "because science"

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Free Speech Safe Space.