3 ms·
Nobody associates it with a conspiracy theory just because it gets mentioned. That happens because the people most aggressively pushing it online often make tha
by notacoward 5y ago
Nobody associates it with a conspiracy theory just because it gets mentioned. That happens because the people most aggressively pushing it online often make that association themselves. In between demands for expensive new investigations, they often veer off into talk of Dasczak is part of a vast gain-of-function underground and Fauci is helping them cover it up, and Big Pharma is pushing vaccines because they can't make a profit from ivermectin, and something something about discouraging masks at the start of the pandemic, and mask/vaccine mandates are somehow part of a plot to destroy America, and so on ad nauseam. Seen plenty of it right here. Such people might be a small minority of the people who think we should look more closely at virus research standards, but they're an incredibly visible minority and their stridency causes the whole issue to be framed in conspiracy-theory terms.
- dnautics 5y agoWhat? Unless I'm mistaken, There is no GOF underground with Dasczak, it's very above ground (to be clear, the NIH didn't fund GOF on SARS-Cov2, just on... adjacent viruses). Don't know if Fauci is covering it up, but he certainly hasn't stepped forward to condemn Dasczak, even though the NIH already has condemned EcoHealthAllicance. It's also kind of insane that Dasczak was a lead signatory to the "this is not a lab leak" opinion piece without disclosing a MAJOR conflict of interest. He should have stayed out of it.
- merpnderp 5y agoIf you don't think a lot of people died early on in the US because the Surgeon General went on TV and said masks were basically useless for the average person, with every talk/news show running pieces about how you'd just touch a doorknob then your eye, and thus are more likely to get infected by wearing a mask, then you either can't remember what happened or are ideologically driven.
- lazyasciiart 5y agoBut that's totally irrelevant to where the virus came from, unless you're arguing that there's a massive global conspiracy.
- merpnderp 5y agoI was just pointing out that in his etc etc ad nausea example, at least one point the people he disagreed with were making was right. And they’re partially right about the vaccine motivations which is to make money. Ivermectin doesn’t need big pharma to make it look bad, but if ivermectin worked it wouldn’t be a big change from historical norms for large corporate competition to downplay it. It’s not some weird conspiracy theory to say big pharmaceutical companies have done shady stuff and broken laws to push their drugs.