5 ms·

> try going to https://www.nih.gov/ https://www.nih.gov/ and putting gender in the search box Compared to their other actions of censorship, this is such a sma

> try going to https://www.nih.gov/ https://www.nih.gov/ and putting gender in the search box Compared to their other actions of censorship, this is such a small thing, but for some reason this in particular makes me distressed. Possibly because it shows how paranoid they are about letting out any information that goes against their narrative; that they're willing to do stupid, reckless things to control the narrative; that they enforce obedience to their ideology at all levels. It just seems like the entrance to a dark future. It feels like they're trying to rewrite history... Which is a term I searched the Internet for, and funnily enough the first result was a blog post from the current White House administration. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/restoring-truth-and-sanity-to-american-history/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/rest... (My other worry is that everything they accuse of others is a projection of their own intentions onto others. This seems less absurd every passing day. Otherwise this would be laughable.) So I guess the White House is explicit in they they're rewriting history to the True history. Thank you so much. Finally, we can be united under ONE Nation, ONE Truth, and ONE God. Sorry, I got a bit over-excited there. For time travelers: searching for "gender" just directs you back to nih.gov, instead of directing you to the search results page.

trhway 1y ago
[flagged]
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  You don't know what the real source of COVID is, nor does anyone else, and this is what NIH has said the entire time. > when they censored and thrown all their weight into suppression of [the lab leak theory] Can you state plainly what you mean by this? What precisely did the NIH do that constitutes "censored and thrown all their weight into suppression" in your mind?
  - ckw 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      This entire thing is derived from the vibes of the Internet. You should consider looking into the specifics with your own eyes. What happened is that scientists who believed a theory advocated for it over competing theories... which is how science happens. Granted it so happened that some of those advocates were very notable and well-regarded scientists, but again: this is literally the story of science. It's constantly a question of when someone's prior success and credibility hits a wall and gets successfully challenged — which is always difficult. And yes, one consideration was their (IMO entirely legitimate) concern that statements on the generous end of true rather than the cautious end of true (i.e. "we don't know but it looks zoonotic" vs "we don't know but it doesn't look synthetic") would have gigantic negative consequences including prompting military action against China. The funding note toward the end would be a bit worrying except that NIH also didn’t fund any study examining the zoonotic origin. Scientists publishing a paper with their assertion that they find the lab leak theory implausible is not "censorship" or "throwing their full weight" behind squashing alternatives, lol. Anyone else was free to publish their paper arguing the opposite.
      - ckw 1y ago
        I’m familiar with the specifics, and if anything gpt-4o is underselling the egregious behavior. It doesn’t mention for example, that those scientists who immediately changed their views concurrently received millions of dollars in new grants, which looks incredibly suspicious in retrospect. It also doesn’t discuss rank self-interest as a possible motive for suppression, namely that Fauci was responsible for funding research at WIV which could plausibly have lead to the creation of SARS-COV-2. I’ll ask 03 to summarize and provide sources: ‘As director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Anthony Fauci oversaw grant R01AI110964—channeled through EcoHealth Alliance to the Wuhan Institute of Virology—that financed experiments creating chimeric bat coronaviruses whose enhanced growth in human-ACE2 mice met the federal definition of gain-of-function, a fact NIH conceded only in an October 2021 letter after Fauci had publicly denied such funding . A 2023 HHS-OIG audit later found NIH “did not effectively monitor or take timely action” on this award, missing chances to mitigate its risks . On 1 February 2020, e-mails show Fauci was warned the pandemic virus might have leaked from WIV; he then “prompted” authors of the influential Proximal Origin paper and worked with NIH leadership to “put down” the lab-leak hypothesis—actions that, if successful, would deflect scrutiny from his own institute’s funding decisions . A 2024 House Select Subcommittee report further concluded that EcoHealth “used taxpayer dollars to facilitate gain-of-function research…contrary to previous public statements, including those by Dr. Anthony Fauci,” underscoring his personal and institutional stake in suppressing the lab-leak narrative .’ Inline sources are provided in the result, but missing in the copy.
- biophysboy 1y ago
  If anybody is reading this comment, I would recommend that you look at Michael Worobey's series of papers on COVID's origins; they are much more well thought out than this horseshit.
gradientsrneat 1y ago
Trump's social media is literally named "Truth" Social. Incredibly Orwellian. I don't understand how people thought him being president a second time was a good idea.

trhway 1y ago

[flagged]

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
You don't know what the real source of COVID is, nor does anyone else, and this is what NIH has said the entire time. > when they censored and thrown all their weight into suppression of [the lab leak theory] Can you state plainly what you mean by this? What precisely did the NIH do that constitutes "censored and thrown all their weight into suppression" in your mind?
- ckw 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    This entire thing is derived from the vibes of the Internet. You should consider looking into the specifics with your own eyes. What happened is that scientists who believed a theory advocated for it over competing theories... which is how science happens. Granted it so happened that some of those advocates were very notable and well-regarded scientists, but again: this is literally the story of science. It's constantly a question of when someone's prior success and credibility hits a wall and gets successfully challenged — which is always difficult. And yes, one consideration was their (IMO entirely legitimate) concern that statements on the generous end of true rather than the cautious end of true (i.e. "we don't know but it looks zoonotic" vs "we don't know but it doesn't look synthetic") would have gigantic negative consequences including prompting military action against China. The funding note toward the end would be a bit worrying except that NIH also didn’t fund any study examining the zoonotic origin. Scientists publishing a paper with their assertion that they find the lab leak theory implausible is not "censorship" or "throwing their full weight" behind squashing alternatives, lol. Anyone else was free to publish their paper arguing the opposite.
    - ckw 1y ago
      I’m familiar with the specifics, and if anything gpt-4o is underselling the egregious behavior. It doesn’t mention for example, that those scientists who immediately changed their views concurrently received millions of dollars in new grants, which looks incredibly suspicious in retrospect. It also doesn’t discuss rank self-interest as a possible motive for suppression, namely that Fauci was responsible for funding research at WIV which could plausibly have lead to the creation of SARS-COV-2. I’ll ask 03 to summarize and provide sources: ‘As director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Anthony Fauci oversaw grant R01AI110964—channeled through EcoHealth Alliance to the Wuhan Institute of Virology—that financed experiments creating chimeric bat coronaviruses whose enhanced growth in human-ACE2 mice met the federal definition of gain-of-function, a fact NIH conceded only in an October 2021 letter after Fauci had publicly denied such funding . A 2023 HHS-OIG audit later found NIH “did not effectively monitor or take timely action” on this award, missing chances to mitigate its risks . On 1 February 2020, e-mails show Fauci was warned the pandemic virus might have leaked from WIV; he then “prompted” authors of the influential Proximal Origin paper and worked with NIH leadership to “put down” the lab-leak hypothesis—actions that, if successful, would deflect scrutiny from his own institute’s funding decisions . A 2024 House Select Subcommittee report further concluded that EcoHealth “used taxpayer dollars to facilitate gain-of-function research…contrary to previous public statements, including those by Dr. Anthony Fauci,” underscoring his personal and institutional stake in suppressing the lab-leak narrative .’ Inline sources are provided in the result, but missing in the copy.
biophysboy 1y ago
If anybody is reading this comment, I would recommend that you look at Michael Worobey's series of papers on COVID's origins; they are much more well thought out than this horseshit.

gradientsrneat 1y ago

Trump's social media is literally named "Truth" Social. Incredibly Orwellian. I don't understand how people thought him being president a second time was a good idea.