3 ms·
And maybe liability on the offending party?
by bko 5y ago
And maybe liability on the offending party?
- CamouflagedKiwi 5y agoThere's no possibility to get that kind of money paid back if a party was found responsible. At this point it must be trillions.
- noofen 5y agoLiable in the hundreds of billions? Too big to fail. Liable in the trillions? Too big to speak about.
- JohnWhigham 5y agoI agree. We should start looking at Anthony Fauci himself, who most likely pushed for this type of research via his influence at the NIAID/NIH [0]. [0] https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/ https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-peop...
- JadeNB 5y ago> We should start looking at Anthony Fauci himself, who most likely pushed for this type of research via his influence at the NIAID/NIH [0]. This seems like a reach. There's a big difference in liability between "mismanaged deadly pathogens, caused a pandemic" and "said that someone should study deadly pathogens".
- fffawe 5y agoIt isn't a reach - it was funded by the NIAID/NIH: https://www.usaspending.gov/award/ASST_NON_R01AI110964_7529 https://www.usaspending.gov/award/ASST_NON_R01AI110964_7529
- Izkata 5y ago> and "said that someone should study deadly pathogens". In 2014 when the US stopped gain-of-function research for being too risky, Fauci started funding it in Wuhan through EcoHealth. That's a lot more than just "said someone should study deadly pathogens".