No human has any rights that they would deny to others.

Thailand living the American Nightmare.

The word you’re looking for is naive, and your opinion means less than nothing to me.

Happy populations with all their needs met don’t have drug addiction, poverty, homelessness, or nearly as many impulsive violent crimes. Shit rolls downhill, but responsibility can never be delegated. The people at the top are responsible for every crime that happens within their borders because they declare what is illegal, they control the conditions, and they allocate resources to either supporting, imprisoning, enslaving, or murdering their dissident populations.

Sweden’s prime minister on Thursday said that he’s summoned the head of the military to discuss how the armed forces can help police deal with an unprecedented crime wave that has shocked the country with almost daily shootings and bombings.

Getting the military involved in crime-fighting would be a highly unusual step for Sweden, underscoring the severity of the gang violence that has claimed a dozen lives across the country this month, including teenagers and innocent bystanders.

Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said that he would meet with the armed forces’ supreme commander and the national police commissioner on Friday to explore “how the armed forces can help police in their work against the criminal gangs.”

I’m talking about this, idiot.

Are they using violence to quell dissent generated from their failure to adequately represent their population? Your answer is the same as mine, if you’re honest.

“Socialists” can be fascists too, if they’re using government violence to quell dissent caused by government failure.

“Socialists” can be fascists too, if they’re using government violence to quell dissent caused by government failure.

These fascist fucks love to pretend that gang violence and poverty just appear out of nowhere, and their immediate recourse is always escalation of very same state violence that generated the unrest.

My own what? I am posting my own doubts about the story. Do I need evidence to distrust two governments with a history of experimenting on their populations?

You understand that I’m just casting doubt on the official narrative and the people arguing are the ones vested in their narrative, right?

I’ve yet to get angry or say that I’ve been silenced. I don’t need a wall of text to tell you that you’re full of shit and you’ve exceeded your allotment of wasting my time.

You don’t need to prove or disprove a negative. You simply must allow for it to be a possibility unless evidence comes forth which proves that the doubts are unfounded. For instance, if patient zero was found and they had no contact with the lab, if a wild source of COVID-19 with the same genetic structure was found, or if it was proven than none of the samples in the lab could be the source of the infection.

The problem here is that I opened up the possibility by asking the question, and hateful, partial, non-scientific minds decided to dogpile me for threatening their beliefs and faith in authority.

So wild that people are reacting so violently to mere questioning. Makes me wonder if these comments are being astroturfed by vested parties.

Those documents you posted are ancillary to the actual experimentation. Here’s some more details for you.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21055989-understanding-risk-bat-coronavirus-emergence-grant-notice https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698

But the research on the bat viruses in Wuhan showed that infecting live animals with altered viruses can have unpredictable consequences. A report to NIH on the project’s progress in the year ending in May 2018 described scientists creating new coronaviruses by changing parts of WIV1 and exposing genetically engineered mice to the new chimeric viruses. Research published in 2017 in the journal PLOS Pathogen showed that, in cells in a laboratory, similar chimeric viruses reproduced less effectively than the original. NIH cited that research as one of the reasons the moratorium on gain-of-function research of concern didn’t apply to this experiment. “It was a loss of function, not a gain of function,” the email from NIH explained. (NIH also pointed out that the changes to the chimeric viruses “would not be anticipated to increase virulence or transmissibility in humans.”)

Inside the lungs of the humanized mice, however, the novel viruses appear to have reproduced far more quickly than the original virus that was used to create them, according to a bar graph shown in the documents. The viral load in the lung tissue of the mice was, at certain points, up to 10,000 times higher in the mice infected with the altered viruses than in those infected with WIV1. According to Deatrick, the NIH spokesperson, the difference in the rates of viral reproduction — which were particularly pronounced two and four days after the mice were infected with the virus — didn’t amount to gain of function because, by the end of the experiment, the amount of virus produced by the parent and chimeric strains evened out. “Viral titers were equivalent by the end of the experimental time-course,” Deatrick wrote. The email also said, “NIH supports this type of research to better understand the characteristics of animal viruses that have the potential to spill over to humans and cause widespread disease.”

Scientists The Intercept consulted expressed differing views on whether the increase in viral load could be translated to an increase in transmissibility, which relies on the virus’s ability to replicate. To some, the jump in viral load indicated that the modified RNA virus could replicate far more rapidly than the original in the lungs of the mice, likely leading to increased pathogenicity and spread. Rasmussen, of the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization, pointed out that viral load is not identical to reproduction rate, noting: “This shows the chimeric viruses replicated a little faster, but that tells us exactly nothing about transmissibility. Furthermore, WIV1 caught up by the end of the experiment. We see differences in the rate of viral replication all the time, but it is often not directly correlated with pathogenicity.”

Another figure in the documents suggests that at least one of the altered viruses not only enhanced viral reproduction, but also caused the humanized mice to lose more weight than those exposed to the original virus — a measure of the severity of illness.

https://theintercept.com/2021/09/09/covid-origins-gain-of-function-research/

The real question is still, "Why did you immediately jump to personal attacks, infodumping irrelevant studies, and why are you vehemently defending this lab as if you’re the one who caused the leak?

I have no idea what you’re talking about.

I haven’t posted any evidence because I’ve only posted reservations about the narrative. You have chosen to attack me personally and you FINALLY posted several studies that do not say anything about containment, lab procedure, the contents of the lab, or anything else that might assuage my doubts. What they do prove is that gain of function research was being performed on SARS in the area where the pandemic first started. You accuse me of being irrational when you’re losing your god damned mind at the very idea that the lab could be the source of the pandemic.

If so, I haven’t seen it. As far as I can tell, investigating the narrative is off limits. You can see how every person who has responded to my questioning has attacked me on a personal level.

Where did you see me attack anybody? You should be able to quote me. What seems to be happening from my perspective is a bunch of people with poor reading comprehension or no integrity attacking me for doubting the official narrative.

So you admit that China has lax protocols, and that the US and China were studying the same virus that became a problem later, but you offer me nothing but insults for wondering if that same virus leaked from that same poor quality lab.

I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.