U.S. Investing $3.2 Billion in COVID-19 Pill - Update (6/21): Trials Being Held

[LBDamned]

Quiet peasants!

Hand over your money and take the government vitamins.

For the greater good.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Oh you had to go and quote him didn't you.


To add to your story Merck.....the company that stands to profit so hugely in this new pill deal was the company that developed Ivermectin 40 some years and 4 billion doses ago.

Sadly it's out of patent now.



Anyone catch Maria's segment on Fox this morning?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5UVgYueS-w

Well that seems kinda harsh,

could our "scientific" community really be directly responsible for over 100,000 deaths in America?

Wait till they start counting "vaccines" in that total.

Yeah. I did.

Unlike the guests on Bartiromo's program (this link, given that it's from FOX News, for the relevant segment might last longer than the YouTube video), I haven't, quite, 'convicted' Fauci of 'criminal' (or potentially criminal) acts. as_rocketman is right. I am suspicious that Fauci, et al. are complicit in using COVID to their own ends; although "their own ends" might not be strictly financial.

Unfortunately, as I've posted in the past, this whole COVID episode has been used by a variety of 'actors' to push myriad agendas. It's a major part of what has blurred the actual 'hazards' (not limited to the virus itself) and the needed information regarding treatment (not just for the virus); creating mixed messaging which has left people askance and opened the door to conspiracy theories. The problem is, not all such 'theories' are as problematic as most and, some of them, are based in a certain, factual reality.

Will we ever be able to expand on that 'certain, factual reality' to 'bona fide fact,' enabling us to take appropriate action? Doubtful. Too much time has passed and, thus, too much has been allowed to be covered up, evidence destroyed/obscured, etc. Add to the mix that some of this is and has been a legitimate 'judgment call' on the part of "actual experts," meaning that retroactively proving 'hunches' regarding things like Hydroxychloroquine, Remdesivir, and other medications are/aren't useful (within certain parameters) isn't the same as proving that there was an overt and nefarious cover-up (regardless of how 'apparent' such might seem).

It should, however, raise questions surrounding things such as...

• Mandatory vaccination
• Fauci as an omniscient 'saint'
• Protocols regarding medications during a pandemic/epidemic
• Big Pharmacy and their role in pandemics/epidemics
• Government reliance on "certain experts" rather than "Science" in the context of how actual Science works
• Media's responsibilities in an 'emergency'
• Big Tech's responsibilities in an 'emergency'
• More...

The problem is that, as it stands now and as it has been working throughout much of the pandemic, simply raising such questions is portrayed as 'anti-humanity,' psychopathic, and idiotic. To be fair, some of the 'accusations' made were... uh... less than 'helpful' and just added to the cacophony. Such should have been expected and was predictable.

However, to lump the legitimate experts into that group, decry them as "ignorant," dismiss 'legitimate' Scientific evidence, and blindly follow through with the narrative/policies pushed by the agenda-fervent is not only Government (not to mention some of We the People)... ummm... not at its/their best, it leaves the door open to even more questions, some of them quite legitimate.

[stonefly-2]

Yeah. I did.

Unlike the guests on Bartiromo's program (this link, given that it's from FOX News, for the relevant segment might last longer than the YouTube video), I haven't, quite, 'convicted' Fauci of 'criminal' (or potentially criminal) acts. as_rocketman is right. I am suspicious that Fauci, et al. are complicit in using COVID to their own ends; although "their own ends" might not be strictly financial.

Unfortunately, as I've posted in the past, this whole COVID episode has been used by a variety of 'actors' to push myriad agendas. It's a major part of what has blurred the actual 'hazards' (not limited to the virus itself) and the needed information regarding treatment (not just for the virus); creating mixed messaging which has left people askance and opened the door to conspiracy theories. The problem is, not all such 'theories' are as problematic as most and, some of them, are based in a certain, factual reality.

Will we ever be able to expand on that 'certain, factual reality' to 'bona fide fact,' enabling us to take appropriate action? Doubtful. Too much time has passed and, thus, too much has been allowed to be covered up, evidence destroyed/obscured, etc. Add to the mix that some of this is and has been a legitimate 'judgment call' on the part of "actual experts," meaning that retroactively proving 'hunches' regarding things like Hydroxychloroquine, Remdesivir, and other medications are/aren't useful (within certain parameters) isn't the same as proving that there was an overt and nefarious cover-up (regardless of how 'apparent' such might seem).

It should, however, raise questions surrounding things such as...

• Mandatory vaccination
• Fauci as an omniscient 'saint'
• Protocols regarding medications during a pandemic/epidemic
• Big Pharmacy and their role in pandemics/epidemics
• Government reliance on "certain experts" rather than "Science" in the context of how actual Science works
• Media's responsibilities in an 'emergency'
• Big Tech's responsibilities in an 'emergency'
• More...

The problem is that, as it stands now and as it has been working throughout much of the pandemic, simply raising such questions is portrayed as 'anti-humanity,' psychopathic, and idiotic. To be fair, some of the 'accusations' made were... uh... less than 'helpful' and just added to the cacophony. Such should have been expected and was predictable.

However, to lump the legitimate experts into that group, decry them as "ignorant," dismiss 'legitimate' Scientific evidence, and blindly follow through with the narrative/policies pushed by the agenda-fervent is not only Government (not to mention some of We the People)... ummm... not at its/their best, it leaves the door open to even more questions, some of them quite legitimate.

Firstly thank you for the proper use of the word myriad...a pet peeve of mine.


I hear what you're saying and understand the wisdom.

I just question whether taking a course of apparent statesman like reason will serve us well or not having failed so miserably and repeatedly when taken by those who profess to oppose the left in our recent past.

[denpython]

Soma by any other name.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Firstly thank you for the proper use of the word myriad...a pet peeve of mine.


I hear what you're saying and understand the wisdom.

I just question whether taking a course of apparent statesman like reason will serve us well or not having failed so miserably and repeatedly when taken by those who profess to oppose the left in our recent past.

You're welcome.

As to your last, that is a question which goes back to antiquity and, so far as I know, has never generated a one-size-fits-all-occasions answer.

I think in the context of our System and the current batch of 'players,' the question isn't whether "statesman like reason" has failed. I think it more a question of whether the players ever intended it to work and/or utilized "reason" at all. There is evidence that even the Republican Governors didn't necessarily rely on "Science" as their sole motivation for 'staying open;' even if we accept the idea that they were more closely aligned with the "actual Science" than most of the Democrat Governors.

But, as I argued with duenor last year, "actual Science" was never going to be the sole arbiter, nor should it be. What has to be guarded against, however, is the misuse of "science" (note the lower case) to achieve agenda. It's precisely why I and many, many, many others have been so frustrated with the mixed, garbled, and 'misinformed' messaging that has been pushed.

It's why I try to steer clear of "conspiracy theory" threads, but do raise questions such as I have with this thread and suspect that's why as_rocketman appears to agree that such "bears closer inspection;" an analysis which is not only being resisted by those in power, in the media, and in Government, but is actively being denied/fought by those same forces. It's not 'conspiracy theory' to, once again, wonder what such resistance might suggest unto itself.

[stonefly-2]

You're welcome.

As to your last, that is a question which goes back to antiquity and, so far as I know, has never generated a one-size-fits-all-occasions answer.

I think in the context of our System and the current batch of 'players,' the question isn't whether "statesman like reason" has failed. I think it more a question of whether the players ever intended it to work and/or utilized "reason" at all. There is evidence that even the Republican Governors didn't necessarily rely on "Science" as their sole motivation for 'staying open;' even if we accept the idea that they were more closely aligned with the "actual Science" than most of the Democrat Governors.

But, as I argued with duenor last year, "actual Science" was never going to be the sole arbiter, nor should it be. What has to be guarded against, however, is the misuse of "science" (note the lower case) to achieve agenda. It's precisely why I and many, many, many others have been so frustrated with the mixed, garbled, and 'misinformed' messaging that has been pushed.

It's why I try to steer clear of "conspiracy theory" threads, but do raise questions such as I have with this thread and suspect that's why as_rocketman appears to agree that such "bears closer inspection;" an analysis which is not only being resisted by those in power, in the media, and in Government, but is actively being denied/fought by those same forces. It's not 'conspiracy theory' to, once again, wonder what such resistance might suggest unto itself.

The "conspiracy theorist" label has it's intended purpose,

it's the same purpose fact checking and debunking have.

A year or more ago I was a conspiracy theorist for hammering away at people here that asserted that as a matter of fact this bioweapon emanated from a wet market.

I haven't changed, what has changed is the sustainability of the lie.

You represent the problem as close to insurmountable or that it has a time limit after which time will be called.

I disagree on both counts and would offer that the finding of what is true is to be had by understanding what is a lie.

Better headway is made once you can identify the difference between who is lying as opposed to simply confused.

If a guy draws to himself the gravitas of being a scientist to support his (giving the benefit of the doubt)
personal opinion yet starts a thread on the subject of the possibility the lab being the source of the bioweapon right on time as the prog narrative shifts in that direction it's time to look for similar alignment.

Ivermectin is such an alignment .

Choose for yourself who you think is right but fixing blame for all this is secondary.....the way to defeat this attack is to render the bioweapon harmless.

That time is at hand at least for this first salvo and unless I miss my guess the "vaccine" is the second salvo.

"Proof" and the need to assume the worst can find their own balance given the situation being rife with disinformation as you mention.

now we should begin to reflect on terms like mass murder, genocide, negligent homicide and depopulation to decide if or how they might apply to some of our men of science.

Considering what I believe the scale of the heinous acts to be things like motive, whether they were following orders or if they were unaware doesn't really interest me.

Many of them swore an oath or held positions of authority that come with a higher standard for treason and crimes against humanity.

I maintain that even if the entire thing were a comedy of errors,
a perfect storm of mistakes our existence as a species depends on heads rolling.

Question: Has the Covid-19 virus been isolated and replicated?

I've heard it both ways,
it stands to reason that it must have been for all the attention it has received
and I saw what was purported to be a microbiologists examination of the hand of man in it's makeup early on but that seems to be in a "don't ask, don't tell" file right now.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

The "conspiracy theorist" label has it's intended purpose...

Labels have their purpose and are often used for other purposes. It's not a singularly 'good' or 'bad' proposition.

...it's the same purpose fact checking and debunking have.

There's fact, truth, "our truth," etc. It's not about a label, even in today's "market of ideas," meaning the opposite of what it's supposed to mean. It doesn't mean "I'm right" and anyone who calls me "X" is part of the "conspiracy" against the Truth. It means that one needs to evaluate ALL SIDES and that's the frustration here. How does one do that when no side provides definitive evidence; just partial truths mixed with agenda and undocumented opinion?

A year or more ago I was a conspiracy theorist for hammering away at people here that asserted that as a matter of fact this bioweapon emanated from a wet market.

I haven't changed, what has changed is the sustainability of the lie.

The sustainability isn't what is at issue. What is at issue is what a given individual believes. Why? Because, logically, the wet market never made rational sense and even proponents were hard pressed, from the beginning, to keep their arguments 'factual' rather than almost solely reliant on a series of assumptions.

To them, for a variety of reasons (some legitimate; some, potentially, not so legitimate), it was easier to believe in a 'naturally occurring' process than an "accident." Just as you seem to find it easier to believe that "bioweapon" is more credible than "accident," where the latter actually happens on a more regular basis than we would like to admit? As an example, from 2015...



I'd hate to be the intelligence analyst required to make that call based on what is public knowledge. Could the above simply be CYA for the NIH? Sure. Could COVID have been intended as a bioweapon? Sure.

Then again, another 'spin' could be what I have alluded to as a possibility, based on the 'facts' as they have come out and some reasonable inferences given the paucity of the actual 'evidence.' Fauci has been working on a vaccine/treatment/cure for HIV/AIDS for over 40 years. He's tied his reputation and the NIAID's/NIH's to it. Could the "gain of function" research have been tied to HIV/AIDS research? Again, absolutely.

It's the very reason I've raised the question given Fauci's recent 'admission' or 'statements' that COVID-19 vaccines could 'ultimately help us to develop a successful and highly effective HIV vaccine.' Could such explain the funding itself and why Fauci is now so 'concerned' with 'hiding' the reasoning behind it? Could the "COVID pill" be another part of that whole thing; i.e., part and parcel of HIV/AIDS and the pursuit of an "universal antiviral," be it vaccine or treatment or both? You bet.

As I noted, a "personal benefit" resulting from such an innovation or the attempt to develop one, doesn't, by necessity, strictly mean "financial gain."

You represent the problem as close to insurmountable or that it has a time limit after which time will be called.

I didn't say "insurmountable." I said "doubtful."

We know about Hillary's e-mails. There may still be a 'copy' of them... somewhere. Are we likely to find them, if they exist? Doubtful. I wonder... Why might that be? Is it possible they will be found? Anything is possible. Even if, at some point in the future, they are found, how will they be of use "now" as opposed to 'rewriting' History in a more 'factual' manner?

I disagree on both counts and would offer that the finding of what is true is to be had by understanding what is a lie.

Better headway is made once you can identify the difference between who is lying as opposed to simply confused.

But, therein lies the rub. Even if an absolute "truth" were discovered and revealed, the issue would be whether it would be universally accepted as "the truth." Is someone "lying" when what they say/claim is something they honestly believe is "true," even if, ultimately, it is proven not to be? If their statements, beliefs, and actions are based on the "best information they have available," are they lying, nefarious agents, and/or simply incompetent fools?

In short, be careful not to confuse them with the truly nefarious; i.e., actors such as Newsom, who had better information available, clearly demonstrated a belief in something different than what he was demanding the public believe, and acted for purposes other than 'public health' and/or 'the public's interest.' That's not just a belief. That's a demonstrable fact in many respects. Though one would be hard pressed to 'prove' it in court, it reached a level where we'll now get to see what voters believe.

There's a great line in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade...



Whatever your take on the character and series, that line represents one of the greatest 'controversies' surrounding actual Science. Without getting too far out into the weeds, actual Science claims to use inductive logic; facts are gathered/analyzed, from which a provisional conclusion is drawn, with that conclusion being subject to change with the revelation of new facts. In short, what is taught as 'true' (fact based) today, could very well be debunked tomorrow. One of the more famous examples is Continental Drift.

When put forth by Wegener in 1912 and, again, in 1915, it was denounced and he was nearly run out of the scientific community. The theory was debunked... Until... "knowledge evolved." Put another way, new facts became revealed and Plate Tectonics became the accepted fact that is taught today. The problem? Plate Tectonics is, in many ways which count, Continental Drift. Wegener just didn't have 'enough' to make his theory 'stick' within the scientific community and work out all the mechanisms accurately.

Is Plate Tectonics/Continental Drift... True? Who knows? It is simply accepted by Science as the most fact-based theory we have based on our observations to date.

If a guy draws to himself the gravitas of being a scientist to support his (giving the benefit of the doubt) personal opinion yet starts a thread on the subject of the possibility the lab being the source of the bioweapon right on time as the prog narrative shifts in that direction it's time to look for similar alignment.

Such is an indictment based on the same thing Wegener was castigated over. It's not about whether a "lab" was the source. It was about the factual evidence available to support the proposition. That's the way I took the thread; assuming you mean Reassessing the case for laboratory escape. Note use of the word "reassessing." Science is constantly 'reassessing' their facts, theories, methods, et al. As I said, conclusions are provisional, pending new facts.

Ivermectin is such an alignment .

Which is precisely why I said...

...some of this is and has been a legitimate 'judgment call' on the part of "actual experts," meaning that retroactively proving 'hunches' regarding things like Hydroxychloroquine, Remdesivir, and other medications are/aren't useful (within certain parameters) isn't the same as proving that there was an overt and nefarious cover-up (regardless of how 'apparent' such might seem)...

The question is and has been all along: "Were the determinations of 'ineffectiveness' and, in the case of the EUA, a 'lack of alternatives,' based on the facts as known or was there something else in play, weighting those determinations in favor of vaccines and an eventual 'pill' or treatment?"

Choose for yourself who you think is right but fixing blame for all this is secondary.....the way to defeat this attack is to render the bioweapon harmless.

Yet, here you are, casting aspersions or 'suggesting' nefarious intent (whether "lying" or "confused") while pushing your own, unproven, theory of COVID being a "bioweapon." A theory? Yes. Fact-based? Sorta/kinda. Plausible? Possibly. "Truth?" At this point, only if you believe it to be; otherwise, you don't have enough... yet.

"Proof" and the need to assume the worst can find their own balance given the situation being rife with disinformation as you mention.

Assumption is one thing. Acting on that assumption is something different. "The worst" is a relative concept and differs depending on the individual and their perspective.

If one believes it to be a bioweapon, then "the worst" could means billions dead, generational mutations, and continued "salvos" which must not only be defended against, but a "counter" be developed and implemented.

If one believes it to be an accidental release from a lab or a naturally occurring virus or similar, "the worst" is what many in the media and among the politicians have preached for a year; i.e., thousands, if not millions dead, with a populace uncooperative in stemming the tide and allowing sufficient time to achieve some form of group immunity.

If one believes it to be a 'cover' for nefarious political actions, then "the worst" is a whole series of other things; some of which we are actually witnessing and some of which are 'in the works' to be implemented.

But, that brings us back to assumptions and acting on them...

...now we should begin to reflect on terms like mass murder, genocide, negligent homicide and depopulation to decide if or how they might apply to some of our men of science.

Considering what I believe the scale of the heinous acts to be things like motive, whether they were following orders or if they were unaware doesn't really interest me.

Many of them swore an oath or held positions of authority that come with a higher standard for treason and crimes against humanity.

You are assuming a 'moral equivalence' based solely on your assumption; that assumption having turned into a personal belief. You are proffering an indictment of those individuals you assume are culpable or who you will come to assume share culpability.

I maintain that even if the entire thing were a comedy of errors, a perfect storm of mistakes our existence as a species depends on heads rolling.

I agree. Where we disagree is in "knowing" which heads are in need of rolling. You have your beliefs and I'm waiting on more facts.

...and I saw what was purported to be a microbiologists examination of the hand of man in it's makeup early on but that seems to be in a "don't ask, don't tell" file right now.

There are several individuals who have put such out there; including former CDC director Redfield...



But, carefully note that he believes based on the evidence available to him. Also note the caveats and his affirmation that: "Science will eventually figure it out." Eventually? Yep. Believe/accept it or not, for the same reasons I just noted. The 'facts' are not, yet, available and the issue is whether they will be. Part of that is looking in the right place(s) and part of that is contingent upon evaluating the possibilities and eliminating them as "implausible" or "less likely." Doing so relies on framing/investigating the questions correctly.

Which is why I expressed the opinion of "doubtful." The facts that are needed may no longer be available or may never be accessible. In addition, too many are pushing their personal beliefs as the only plausible possibility and are unwilling to accept any alternative explanation as 'reasonable.' Such context makes it exceedingly difficult for actual Science to do "it's thing" properly.

[stonefly-2]

"Science" is a method...a method for determining just what the truth is.

True these truths are not static or ever "settled" and also very true they aren't pure in the sense we should consider them free from avarice, jealousy or corruption.

I think if you look closely you will recognize that my approach to considering this subject follows the 6 steps of the scientific process exactly.

As far as what I might do if I knew the truth for certain I would say that problem solving has a method of it's own.

The first step is to identify the problem.

some problems are simple and static,
others are dynamic and multidimensional replete with a campaign of obfuscation.

The obfuscation itself is an indicator of what the problem is in addition to being a real good reason why no leniency should be tendered if we are able to prevail.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

"Science" is a method...a method for determining just what the truth is.

True these truths are not static or ever "settled" and also very true they aren't pure in the sense we should consider them free from avarice, jealousy or corruption.

I think if you look closely you will recognize that my approach to considering this subject follows the 6 steps of the scientific process exactly.

As far as what I might do if I knew the truth for certain I would say that problem solving has a method of it's own.

The first step is to identify the problem.

some problems are simple and static,
others are dynamic and multidimensional replete with a campaign of obfuscation.

The obfuscation itself is an indicator of what the problem is in addition to being a real good reason why no leniency should be tendered if we are able to prevail.

Be careful not to confuse 'scientific truth' with 'the truth.' They aren't synonymous terms, even if one's "religion" is science. Without getting lost in the philosophical weeds, you might want to take a look at... Nature of Science and the Scientific Method... by the Geological Society of America.

Science is a methodical approach to studying the natural world. Science asks basic questions, such as how does the world work? How did the world come to be? What was the world like in the past, what is it like now, and what will it be like in the future? These questions are answered using observation, testing, and interpretation through logic.

Most scientists would not say that science leads to an understanding of the truth. Science is a determination of what is most likely to be correct at the current time with the evidence at our disposal...

The scientific method, it could be said, is a way of learning or a process of using comparative critical thinking. Things that are not testable or falsifiable in some scientific or mathematical way, now or in the future, are not considered science. Falsifiability is the principle that a proposition or theory cannot be scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false...

Science is, however, a human endeavor and is subject to personal prejudices, misapprehensions, and bias...

Suffice to say that "science" (lower case) is a spectrum with numerous points. It can become 'confusing' when terms such as truth, belief, faith, etc. are injected into a discussion; but, those terms do not mean the same thing at each point in the spectrum. Belief in science and faith in the scientific method are not the same as belief in God and His ways. In a simplistic sense, it's the difference between induction and deduction where, according to the rules of logic, one cannot 'mix' the two; which, in some ways, is a conundrum in Science in that such actually suggests the 'limits of Science' and paradoxes within Science.

Insofar as the obfuscation being an indicator of 'the problem,' it's an indicator of the problem(s) associated with gathering the facts; not necessarily an indicator of what 'the problem' is with regard to how the virus 'got loose' or began. It might be suggestive and it might simply be suggestive of other things. We don't know and it's something even the intelligence analysts struggle with; particularly so when dealing with Eastern cultures as there are differences from Western culture in terms of the thought processes involved.

When it comes to the basic steps involved in The Scientific Method of Problem Solving...

1. State the Problem - A problem can't be solved if it isn't understood.
2. Form a Hypothesis - This is a possible solution to the problem formed after gathering information about the problem. The term "research" is properly applied here.
3. Test the Hypothesis - An experiment is performed to determine if the hypothesis solves the problem or not. Experiments are done to gather data. It is very important that good observations and records are made during an experiment.
4. Collect the Data - This is where you record your observations, measurements, or information from experiment.
5. Analyze the Data - Just what does all that data indicate about answering the problem you are solving?
6. Draw Conclusions - After examining the data from the experiment, conclusions can be drawn. In it's simplest form, the conclusion will be "yes" the hypothesis was correct, or "no" the hypothesis was not correct.

Bear in mind that it's not sufficient unto itself to say: "I followed the steps." Again, without getting lost in the weeds, there are many things which come into play, including (but not limited to) problem identification, hypothesis formulation, the type of hypothesis testing, the data itself, but also the manner of collection/analysis, and the factors influencing your conclusions.

If you go back through my previous post, you'll find where I am calling attention to all these things... truth, scientific truth, problem identification, beliefs and how they influence assumptions, etc.

As of now, the public simply does not have enough information and no way to properly test hypotheses. What the clip from Redfield indicates is that while the scientists (and the analysts) have more information, even they have 'data gaps' which can exert a great influence on the analysis process. Which is why he stated what he believes based on the evidence available to him, but adds the caveat "Science will eventually figure it out." In short, an admission by the former head of the CDC that even he does not have sufficient data to rely on the conclusions he is working from vis a vis his own, personal analysis.

At some point, even scientists have to 'move forward' and 'go with what they have.' But, that goes back to what I was referencing when I said...

Assumption is one thing. Acting on that assumption is something different.

Going with what you have or, more to the point, going with what you think you have, making decisions and implementing policies is an hazardous undertaking. As I said, when arguing with duenor, he never quite grasped that; i.e., that "Science," particularly 'hard Science,' was incapable of being the sole determiner in how the U.S. (or any other country) dealt with the pandemic. The same thing applies to determining the origins of the virus and how various nations will/should respond.

There's simply too much which is currently "unknown" and, frankly, it's "doubtful" if full knowledge will ever be able to be gleaned. Lacking that, you begin to venture outside the realm of 'actual Science' and into a fuzzier arena. In that context, what you want Science to provide is "the most likely" scenario with a level of reliability that suggests an appropriate level of confidence to act upon.

You are asking us to act on a 'justified belief' rather than an ascertained 'truth;' bearing in mind that even a true and justified belief itself isn't, of necessity, synonymous with "the Truth." (see The Gettier Problem as an example) But, as I said, we don't want to get too lost in the weeds here. A "bioweapon" is one of a number of possibilities; but, you have some work to do to create a level of reliability (as opposed to a personal belief) that it is "the most likely" scenario to have the necessary level of confidence to act upon.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

COVID-19 treatment in pill form tested in Triangle could shorten infection time

therapeutics locator map. It shows health care facilities around the country where therapies are available.

For those who don't know, "The Triangle," I believe, is reference to "The Research Triangle" in North Carolina.



Here is an history of posted at the NIH.

[stonefly-2]

You know,

it's only fair fair to tell you that I'm going to have to ignore "flood the zone" tactic to dilute a topic when you have nothing to say just as I do with the hammer.

You seem perfectly capable of condensing your thoughts and making a concise remark.

[LBDamned]

You know,

it's only fair fair to tell you that I'm going to have to ignore "flood the zone" tactic to dilute a topic when you have nothing to say just as I do with the hammer.

You seem perfectly capable of condensing your thoughts and making a concise remark.

It's a lost trait it seems.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

You know,

it's only fair fair to tell you that I'm going to have to ignore "flood the zone" tactic to dilute a topic when you have nothing to say just as I do with the hammer.

You seem perfectly capable of condensing your thoughts and making a concise remark.

I thought the topic of the thread is a COVID-19 pill, not COVID as a "bioweapon."

Or, more broadly, how development of the COVID-19 pill (treatment) and COVID vaccines (preventives) may have opened a window into a medical elite or cadre in pursuit of what they deem a "Holy Grail" of what is loosely referred to as "universal" antivirals, a pursuit that has intrinsic potential dangers (COVID being one example) and involves BIG money; not just in terms of individual financial gain, but in terms of job security and prestige. A pursuit which, to this point, has proven to be almost as much a "MacGuffin" as the "Holy Grail" in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade; but, viewed by that medical elite/cadre as a similar 'religious quest' as some of the characters in the film viewed that film's "Holy Grail."

The "bioweapon" discourse seems to be the only topic I "diluted," not via the size of my post, but by demonstrating that you ain't got enough, yet, to make that argument; scientifically or even colloquially.

Then again...

It's a lost trait it seems.

...the 'lost trait' seems to be keeping a thread on topic rather than infused with tangential irrelevancies.

Speaking of the thread topic, this was posted yesterday... Colorado doctors praise plan to develop COVID-19 antiviral pill

Such suggests that big money is being seen as 'available' and momentum is growing to jump on the band wagon lest one "misses out."

[TrappedinCalifornia]

By the way, you might want to take a look at a piece that came out in Scientific American last week...

Why Scientists Tweak Lab Viruses to Make Them More Contagious

calls for the investigation of a SARS-CoV-2 lab spillover as one of several possible explanations for the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. He points to the difficulties of studying viruses for the development of vaccines and treatments without doing experiments in a mouse or in other nonhuman animals.

Note the part I placed in bold.

As I said above, the discourse surrounding the COVID-19 pill (treatment) and COVID vaccines (preventives) may have opened a window into a medical elite in pursuit of what they deem a "Holy Grail" of what is loosely referred to as "universal" antivirals. Since "gain of function" is often seen as a critical step in the development of such 'countermeasures,' isn't it possible (even likely) that this was the reason the NIH (Fauci) funded such research; despite the denials/legerdemain now?

Is it possible the lack of transparency involved in this pursuit has led to what many perceive as efforts at a 'cover up' in terms of denying involvement in funding, the wet market theory, hesitancy to properly investigate, etc.?

If we accept that the pursuit of an "universal" antiviral was deemed by the medical elite to be sufficiently valuable for public health that it outshines the risk to public health in doing it and now that the 'risk' has become reality and the risk/reward 'debates' didn't happen or didn't happen with input from the public, they now don't want to be seen or held 'responsible' and, instead, are continuing to cloak their efforts so as to further pursue their "Holy Grail?"

The pieces do seem to fit, even if only superficially and certainly appear reasonably joined, at least more so than conspiracy theories regarding bioweapons, Bill Gates tracking devices, Fauci being a reincarnation of Mengele, etc. (Remember, don't confuse how a 'crisis' is used with the reason the crisis exists; i.e., "don't let a good crisis go to waste" doesn't necessarily mean that a crisis is overtly created as opposed to being taken advantage of.)

As I said earlier, there are questions which should be raised and actual Science (or scientists) would be willing to address most of the legitimate ones - IF - they weren't more concerned with a perceived 'greater good.' (Think about the rationale Fauci used for lying about masks last year.)

[stonefly-2]

By the way, you might want to take a look at a piece that came out in Scientific American last week...

Why Scientists Tweak Lab Viruses to Make Them More Contagious



Note the part I placed in bold.

As I said above, the discourse surrounding the COVID-19 pill (treatment) and COVID vaccines (preventives) may have opened a window into a medical elite in pursuit of what they deem a "Holy Grail" of what is loosely referred to as "universal" antivirals. Since "gain of function" is often seen as a critical step in the development of such 'countermeasures,' isn't it possible (even likely) that this was the reason the NIH (Fauci) funded such research; despite the denials/legerdemain now?

Is it possible the lack of transparency involved in this pursuit has led to what many perceive as efforts at a 'cover up' in terms of denying involvement in funding, the wet market theory, hesitancy to properly investigate, etc.?

If we accept that the pursuit of an "universal" antiviral was deemed by the medical elite to be sufficiently valuable for public health that it outshines the risk to public health in doing it and now that the 'risk' has become reality and the risk/reward 'debates' didn't happen or didn't happen with input from the public, they now don't want to be seen or held 'responsible' and, instead, are continuing to cloak their efforts so as to further pursue their "Holy Grail?"

The pieces do seem to fit, even if only superficially and certainly appear reasonably joined, at least more so than conspiracy theories regarding bioweapons, Bill Gates tracking devices, Fauci being a reincarnation of Mengele, etc. (Remember, don't confuse how a 'crisis' is used with the reason the crisis exists; i.e., "don't let a good crisis go to waste" doesn't necessarily mean that a crisis is overtly created as opposed to being taken advantage of.)

As I said earlier, there are questions which should be raised and actual Science (or scientists) would be willing to address most of the legitimate ones - IF - they weren't more concerned with a perceived 'greater good.' (Think about the rationale Fauci used for lying about masks last year.)

Fauci has stated that the risk of just what it turns out has happened now was worth it for the reasons you outline here.

Do you agree? (preferably in 30 words or less)