https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/1fgpeky/should_we_blame_fauci_for_the_covid_pandemic/

Should We Blame Fauci for the COVID Pandemic?
America's COVID celebrity is facing scrutiny for funding risky research
that may have sparked the pandemic—and for allegedly covering it up.
Christian Britschgi | From the October 2024 issue

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly
versionCopy page URL
An illustration of Anthony Fauci and some viruses | Illustration: Joanna
Andreasson
(Illustration: Joanna Andreasson)
In June 2024, Anthony Fauci appeared before the House Select
Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic for a contentious confrontation
with congressional Republicans. But it opened on what might have sounded
like an amicable note, as the subcommittee's chairman, Rep. Brad
Wenstrup (R–Ohio), played up Fauci's sainted status: "There were drinks
named after you. You got bobbleheads made in your likeness. You were on
the cover of Vogue. You threw out the first pitch at a Washington
Nationals game."

Fauci was the closest thing the world of public health had to a rock
star. For nearly 40 years prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Fauci had
served as the influential but unassuming director of the National
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a subsidiary of
the National Institutes of Health (NIH) housed within the sprawling U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

That post made Fauci the federal government's de facto top pandemic
expert across the dozens of agencies—from the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) to the Food and Drug Administration to the
Office of the Surgeon General—that share responsibilities for preventing
and responding to disease outbreaks. Fauci steered the U.S. government's
response to AIDS, Zika, Ebola, and swine flu. He oversaw billions in
annual research grants aimed at stopping the next disease outbreak.

When COVID struck, Fauci was the face of public health when public
health was all anyone was talking about.

His celebrity also made him a partisan lightning rod. Democrats saw him
as a steady, straight-talking scientist who struck a pleasing contrast
to a chaotic Donald Trump recommending crank COVID cures in White House
press conferences. For many conservatives, he was a hate figure
responsible for locking down the country without regard for civil
liberties or collateral damage. But by that June 2024 congressional
hearing, Fauci was at the center of a new array of controversies.

In 2023, the incoming Republican House majority had reorganized the
coronavirus subcommittee to investigate the origins of the COVID-19
pandemic. The information they'd uncovered, supplemented by years of
dogged investigative journalism, was damning for Fauci and his agency.

Fauci had long denied his agency had ever funded controversial
gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in
Wuhan, China, where the COVID-19 pandemic originated. But weeks before
Fauci's testimony, a senior NIH official admitted that the NIAID had
funded such research. Days later, President Joe Biden's administration
would strip EcoHealth Alliance—the nonprofit that the NIAID had paid to
do that gain-of-function research—of its federal funding, citing the
organization's lack of transparency and oversight failures at the WIV.

Soon after, the select subcommittee revealed that Fauci's senior
scientific adviser, David Morens, told EcoHealth scientists in emails
that Fauci would "protect" the group from public scrutiny about the
pandemic's origins and that Morens could pass any needed communications
from EcoHealth to Fauci via a private back channel that was safe from
public records requests.

The day of Fauci's testimony, the Harvard- and MIT–affiliated biologist
Alina Chan argued in The New York Times that a lab leak at the WIV was
the probable cause of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Together, the revelations painted a picture of Fauci as a dissembling,
denying, power-grabbing bureaucrat who repeatedly used slippery
arguments to dodge public oversight of a controversial, high-risk
agenda—an agenda that may have led to the very pandemic his job was to
prevent.

Fauci argued it was all much ado about nothing. At the hearing, he said
the gain-of-function research the NIAID had funded in Wuhan wasn't of
concern and couldn't have sparked the pandemic; that he had no back
channel with his senior scientific adviser, who he didn't even work that
closely with; and that while a lab leak wasn't a conspiracy theory, he
couldn't be expected to know everything that happened in China. His
story was that he had acted in good faith, in the name of science, and
that he wasn't culpable.

Yet when one considers Fauci's record and the accumulated evidence about
a lab leak origin of COVID-19, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that
he is probably at least partially culpable for the pandemic itself and
actively worked to obscure that fact. As Richard Ebright, a Rutgers
University molecular biologist and fierce Fauci critic, says of the
series of choices that led to dangerous pandemic research being
conducted in Wuhan with U.S. tax dollars: "There are few decisions that
are so centrally linked to a single person and that person's
pathologies, and that person is Anthony Fauci."

We may never know the full story of the pandemic's origin. But if this
were a bureaucratic whodunit, the most likely suspect would be Fauci.
COVID-19 was Fauci's pandemic.

Pushing Risky Research
Prior to COVID-19, Fauci had long supported funding pandemic research
that other scientists found risky, if not downright dangerous.

In 2005, as NIAID director, he praised researchers who'd used a grant
from his agency to resurrect the virus that had caused the Spanish flu
pandemic. Better understanding that virus would help prevent future
diseases, he argued. "The certain benefits to be obtained by a robust
and responsible research agenda aimed at developing the means to detect,
prevent and treat [future pandemics] far outweigh any theoretical
risks," he said in an October 2005 statement co-authored with then–CDC
Director Julie Gerberding.

This wasn't a universal opinion at the NIAID. The agency's chief
scientist described this approach to pandemic prevention as "looking for
a gas leak with a lighted match."

Fauci would continue to praise and fund this kind of research. In 2011,
researchers at the University of Wisconsin and at Erasmus University
Medical Center in the Netherlands managed to manipulate the virus H5N1
(which had been responsible for a 2004 bird flu epidemic in Asia) to
transmit between mammals, a "gain of function" for a virus that had
heretofore only been able to pass from infected birds to humans. One of
the researchers involved in the work would say the enhanced pathogen
they'd created was "very, very bad news" and "probably one of the most
dangerous viruses you can make." Fauci was more sanguine, telling The
New York Times that "there is always a risk. But I believe the benefits
are greater than the risks."

When the influenza research community adopted a temporary moratorium on
gain-of-function research in response to the H5N1 experiments, Fauci
begrudgingly accepted it as necessary to calm public opinion. He still
insisted this work's potential to stop the next pandemic far outweighed
any "theoretical risks" it posed.

Deadly outbreaks of bird flu and severe acute respiratory syndrome
(SARS) in the early 2000s, and the anthrax mailings that followed the
September 11 terror attacks, had both the public health and the national
security establishments attuned to "biosecurity" threats.

At the same time, researchers were rapidly improving their ability to
create and manipulate viruses in the lab. This offered the potential for
creating new vaccines, therapeutics, and pest control measures. It also
raised the risk that a new pandemic might be accidentally released from
a lab.

In the mid-2000s, President George W. Bush's administration commissioned
reports on how "dual-use research of concern" might be subjected to some
sort of risk-benefit analysis. But Fauci consistently argued against the
idea that their agencies should have to abide by additional guardrails
when funding risky research into pandemic pathogens.

"It's safe to say NIH is always on the 'more science, less regulation'
side. That was definitely true in this debate," Gregory Koblentz, a
biosafety expert at George Mason University who's been a longtime
participant in debates about how to regulate dual-use research, tells
Reason.

There are very good reasons to be wary about regulating scientific
research. But the equation changes when the government itself is funding
the research in question. Indeed, Matt Ridley—a science writer who
co-authored Alina Chan's book Viral, about the origins of
COVID-19—suggests that government funding itself is a big part of the
problem. A profit-seeking private sector would never touch the kinds of
research that was being done by EcoHealth Alliance in Wuhan, he argues.
The odds that such research will identify the next pandemic virus and
develop a profitable vaccine or therapeutic for it, he says, are too low
for even the most starry-eyed venture capitalist.

Andrew B. Chung Ph.D (plagiarised) MD (revoked)about an hour ago
> ReplyPermalinkOn Sat, 14 Sep 2024 09:16:59 -0700, NOT Michael Ejercito
>> https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/1fgpeky

>>/should_we_blame_fauci_for_the_covid_pandemic/
>> Should We Blame
> <b'ris>
>
> YES, we SHOULD! You hideous slant eyed subhumans developed it and
> spread it to EVERY country in the WORLD!
Mangina, there is nothing hideous nor subhuman about slant eyes!

As a matter of fact, billions of people across the world wake up to
slant eyes every morning, like the woman in this picture.

https://www.instagram.com/p/C4yvA69yG4Y/

Mark Zuckerberg is another person who wakes up to slant eyes every
morning.

You are a Nazi.

As a Nazi, you are, above all else, a craven coward.

You are afraid to compete with others as equals because you know you
can not measure up.

You are afraid of your own inadequacy, so you want to murder your
betters.

You are afraid of the truth, so you want to murder those who would
tell it.

You are afraid of history, so you want to murder the past, to wipe
out the knowledge of the degeneracy, cowardice and failure of National
Socialism.

Finally, you are afraid of the power of educated, informed adults.
Freedom of choice terrifies you… which is why you choose minor children
as sexual partners. You can not interact with competent adults in a
consensually sexual way. You need to be able to impose yourself on a
helpless victim, be it a prepubescent boy, or a patient in a mental
hospital.

That is what you are, a Nazi, and there is nothing polite or honest
about it.

Michael

<Fauci> 09/14/24 Andrew/KK again vainjangling (1 Tim 1:6) ...

https://narkive.com/GHNKXeiE.10

Link to post explicating vainjangling by the eternally condemned:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/O23NguTslhI/-xLGqnNjAAAJ

"Like a moth to flame, the eternally condemned tragically return to be
ever more cursed by GOD."

Behold in wide-eyed wonder and amazement at the continued fulfillment
of this prophecy as clearly demonstrated within the following USENET
threads:

(1) Link to thread titled "LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth is our #1
Example of being wonderfully hungry;"

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/_iVmOb7q3_Q/m/E8L7TNNtAgAJ

(2) Link to thread titled "Being wonderfully hungry;"

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.med.cardiology/uCPb3ldOv5M

(3) Link to thread titled "A very very very simple definition of sin;"

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.bible.prophecy/xunFWhan_AM

(4) Link to thread titled "The LORD says 'Blessed are you who hunger
now;'"

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.bible.prophecy/e4sW8dr44rM

(5) Link to thread titled "Being wonderfully hungry like LORD Jesus;"

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.bible.prophecy/xPY1Uzl-ZNk/QeKLDNCpCwAJ

.... for the continued benefit (Romans 8:28) of those of us who are
http://WonderfullyHungry.org like GOD ( http://bit.ly/Lk2442 ) with
all glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to the LORD.

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/O23NguTslhI/pIZcsOCJBwAJ

Laus DEO !

While wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 ) in the Holy
Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy 8:3) me to hunger right now (Luke
6:21a), I pray (2 Chronicles 7:14) that GOD continues to curse
(Jeremiah 17:5) you, who are eternally condemned (Mark 3:29), more
than ever in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.

Laus DEO ! ! !

Bottom line:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/O23NguTslhI/h5lE-mr0DAAJ

<begin trichotomy>

(1) Born-again (John 3:3 & 5) humans - Folks who have GOD's Help (i.e.
Holy Spirit) to stop (John 5:14) sinning by being
http://WonderfullyHungry.org (Philippians 4:12) **but** are still
able to choose via their own "free will" to be instead
http://bit.ly/terribly_hungry (Genesis 25:32) trapped in the
entangling (Hebrews 12:1) deadly (i.e. killed immortals Adam&Eve) sin
of gluttony (Proverbs 23:2).

(2) Eternally condemned (Mark 3:29) humans - Folks who will never have
GOD's Help (i.e. Holy Spirit) to stop being
http://bit.ly/terribly_hungry (2 Kings 6:29) as evident by their
constant vainjangling (1 Timothy 1:6) about everything except how to
stop (John 5:14) sinning.

(3) Perishing humans - The remaining folks who may possibly (Matthew
19:26) become born-again (John 3:3 & 5) as new (2 Corinthians 5:17)
creatures in Christ.

<end trichotomy>

Suggested further reading:
http://T3WiJ.com

+++

someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD wrote:
> HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
>> Subject: The LORD says "Blessed are you who hunger now ..."

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.bible.prophecy/e4sW8dr44rM/NSkTJxvFBAAJ

>Shame on andrew, look at his red face.

LIE.

The color of my face in **not** visible here on USENET nor is the
color of my face red for those who can see me.

>He is trying to pull a fast one. His scripture bit is found among these:
>
>'14 Bible verses about Spiritual Hunger'

Such are the lies coming from the lying pens of the
http://bit.ly/terribly_hungry (Genesis 25:32) commentators.

That which is "spiritual" is independent of time so that there
would've been no reference to "now."

Therefore, the LORD is referring to physical hunger here instead of
the spiritual "hunger and thirst for righteousness" elsewhere in
Scripture.

Indeed, physical hunger can **not** coexist with physical thirst
because the latter results in the loss of saliva needed for physical
hunger.

It is when we hunger for food "now" (Luke 6:21a) that we are able to
eat food "now."

No such time constraints exist for "spiritual hunger."

Moreover, the perspective of Luke 6:21a through the eyes of a
physician (i.e. Dr. Luke) would be logically expected to be physical
instead of spiritual.

All glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD for His compelling you
to unwittingly demonstrate your ever worsening cognitive condition
which is tragically a consequence of His cursing (Jeremiah 17:5) you
more than ever.

Laus DEO !

+++

someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD perseverated:
(in a vain attempt to refute posts about being wonderfully hungry)

>Psalms
>81:10 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt:
>open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.

Indeed, receiving a mouthful (Psalm 81:10) of manna from GOD will only
make His http://WDJW.great-site.net/Redeemed want even more, so that
we're even http://bit.ly/wonderfully_hungrier with all glory (
http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD.

Laus DEO !

>Proverbs
>13:25 The righteous has enough to satisfy his appetite, But the stomach of
>the wicked is in need.

Indeed, the righteous know to be satisfied (Luke 6:21a) with an omer
(Exodus 16:16) of manna, while the wicked need (Proverbs 13:25) this
knowledge as evident by their eating until they are full (i.e.
satiated).

>Joel
>2:26 And ye shall eat in plenty, and be satisfied, and praise the name of
>the LORD your God, that hath dealt wondrously with you: and my
>people shall never be ashamed.

Indeed, an omer (32 ounces per Revelation 6:6) of manna is plenty
(Joel 2:26) with all glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD and to
the shame of you, who are eternally (Mark 3:29) condemned.

Laus DEO ! !

>Psalms
>107 For he satisfies the thirsty and fills the hungry with good things.

Indeed, being filled (Psalm 107:9) with an omer (Exodus 16:16) of
manna is a Wonderful (Isaiah 9:6) thing while being satiated (i.e.
full) is evil.

>Acts
>14:17 "Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by
>giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying
>your hearts with food and gladness."

In the interim, you, who are eternally (Mark 3:29) condemned, will
never be satisfied (Acts 14:17) because you are ever more cursed
(Jeremiah 17:5) by GOD.

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/uCPb3ldOv5M/KgM8NFKuAQAJ

+++

> someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD perseverated:
>> HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>
>> Subject: a very very very simple definition of sin ...

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/mXmFD9kIocc/y8GNXircBQAJ

>> Does andrew's "definition" agree with scripture? Let's see in 1 John:

Actually, sin is **not** defined in 1 John 1:8-10

>> John wrote this to christians. The greek grammer (sic) speaks of an ongoing
>> status. He includes himself in that status.

John was a Jew instead of a Greek so there is really no reason to
think that Greek grammar is relevant here.

>> 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is
>> not in us.
>>
>> 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins,
>> and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
>>
>> 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is
>> not in us.

John also wrote earlier at John 5:14 that LORD Jesus commands:

"Now stop sinning or something worse may happen to you." (John 5:14)

And, indeed, your being eternally condemned (Mark 3:29) & ever more
cursed (Jeremiah 17:5) by GOD, as evident by your ever worsening
cognitive deficits, is really worse.

Now again, here's how to really stop sinning as LORD Jesus commands
(John 5:14):

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.bible.prophecy/2-Qpn-o81J4/ldGubKEZAgAJ

While wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 ) in the Holy
Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy 8:3) me to hunger right now (Luke
6:21a), I again pray (2 Chronicles 7:14) that GOD continues to curse
(Jeremiah 17:5) you, who are eternally condemned (Mark 3:29), more
than ever in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.

Laus DEO ! ! !

Again, this is done in hopes of convincing all reading this to stop
being http://bit.ly/terribly_hungry (2 Kings 6:29) where all are in
danger of becoming eternally condemned (Mark 3:29) just as had
happened to Ananias and Sapphira and more contemporaneously to Bob
Pastorio.

Again, the LORD did strike dead http://bit.ly/Bob_Pastorio on Fool's
day just 9+ years ago:

http://bobs-amanuensis.livejournal.com/8728.html

Again, this is done ...

http://bit.ly/HeartDocAndrew touts hunger (Luke 6:21a) with all glory
( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD, Who causes us to hunger
(Deuteronomy 8:3) when He blesses us right now (Luke 6:21a) thereby
removing the http://WDJW.great-site.net/VAT from around the heart

Michael Ejercito wrote:

>https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/1fgpeky/should_we_blame_fauci_for_the_covid_pandemic/
>
>Should We Blame Fauci for the COVID Pandemic?
>America's COVID celebrity is facing scrutiny for funding risky research
>that may have sparked the pandemic—and for allegedly covering it up.
>Christian Britschgi | From the October 2024 issue
>
>Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly
>versionCopy page URL
>An illustration of Anthony Fauci and some viruses | Illustration: Joanna
>Andreasson
>(Illustration: Joanna Andreasson)
>In June 2024, Anthony Fauci appeared before the House Select
>Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic for a contentious confrontation
>with congressional Republicans. But it opened on what might have sounded
>like an amicable note, as the subcommittee's chairman, Rep. Brad
>Wenstrup (R–Ohio), played up Fauci's sainted status: "There were drinks
>named after you. You got bobbleheads made in your likeness. You were on
>the cover of Vogue. You threw out the first pitch at a Washington
>Nationals game."
>
>Fauci was the closest thing the world of public health had to a rock
>star. For nearly 40 years prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Fauci had
>served as the influential but unassuming director of the National
>Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a subsidiary of
>the National Institutes of Health (NIH) housed within the sprawling U.S.
>Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
>
>That post made Fauci the federal government's de facto top pandemic
>expert across the dozens of agencies—from the Centers for Disease
>Control and Prevention (CDC) to the Food and Drug Administration to the
>Office of the Surgeon General—that share responsibilities for preventing
>and responding to disease outbreaks. Fauci steered the U.S. government's
>response to AIDS, Zika, Ebola, and swine flu. He oversaw billions in
>annual research grants aimed at stopping the next disease outbreak.
>
>When COVID struck, Fauci was the face of public health when public
>health was all anyone was talking about.
>
>His celebrity also made him a partisan lightning rod. Democrats saw him
>as a steady, straight-talking scientist who struck a pleasing contrast
>to a chaotic Donald Trump recommending crank COVID cures in White House
>press conferences. For many conservatives, he was a hate figure
>responsible for locking down the country without regard for civil
>liberties or collateral damage. But by that June 2024 congressional
>hearing, Fauci was at the center of a new array of controversies.
>
>In 2023, the incoming Republican House majority had reorganized the
>coronavirus subcommittee to investigate the origins of the COVID-19
>pandemic. The information they'd uncovered, supplemented by years of
>dogged investigative journalism, was damning for Fauci and his agency.
>
>Fauci had long denied his agency had ever funded controversial
>gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in
>Wuhan, China, where the COVID-19 pandemic originated. But weeks before
>Fauci's testimony, a senior NIH official admitted that the NIAID had
>funded such research. Days later, President Joe Biden's administration
>would strip EcoHealth Alliance—the nonprofit that the NIAID had paid to
>do that gain-of-function research—of its federal funding, citing the
>organization's lack of transparency and oversight failures at the WIV.
>
>Soon after, the select subcommittee revealed that Fauci's senior
>scientific adviser, David Morens, told EcoHealth scientists in emails
>that Fauci would "protect" the group from public scrutiny about the
>pandemic's origins and that Morens could pass any needed communications
>from EcoHealth to Fauci via a private back channel that was safe from
>public records requests.
>
>The day of Fauci's testimony, the Harvard- and MIT–affiliated biologist
>Alina Chan argued in The New York Times that a lab leak at the WIV was
>the probable cause of the COVID-19 pandemic.
>
>Together, the revelations painted a picture of Fauci as a dissembling,
>denying, power-grabbing bureaucrat who repeatedly used slippery
>arguments to dodge public oversight of a controversial, high-risk
>agenda—an agenda that may have led to the very pandemic his job was to
>prevent.
>
>Fauci argued it was all much ado about nothing. At the hearing, he said
>the gain-of-function research the NIAID had funded in Wuhan wasn't of
>concern and couldn't have sparked the pandemic; that he had no back
>channel with his senior scientific adviser, who he didn't even work that
>closely with; and that while a lab leak wasn't a conspiracy theory, he
>couldn't be expected to know everything that happened in China. His
>story was that he had acted in good faith, in the name of science, and
>that he wasn't culpable.
>
>Yet when one considers Fauci's record and the accumulated evidence about
>a lab leak origin of COVID-19, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that
>he is probably at least partially culpable for the pandemic itself and
>actively worked to obscure that fact. As Richard Ebright, a Rutgers
>University molecular biologist and fierce Fauci critic, says of the
>series of choices that led to dangerous pandemic research being
>conducted in Wuhan with U.S. tax dollars: "There are few decisions that
>are so centrally linked to a single person and that person's
>pathologies, and that person is Anthony Fauci."
>
>We may never know the full story of the pandemic's origin. But if this
>were a bureaucratic whodunit, the most likely suspect would be Fauci.
>COVID-19 was Fauci's pandemic.
>
>Pushing Risky Research
>Prior to COVID-19, Fauci had long supported funding pandemic research
>that other scientists found risky, if not downright dangerous.
>
>In 2005, as NIAID director, he praised researchers who'd used a grant
>from his agency to resurrect the virus that had caused the Spanish flu
>pandemic. Better understanding that virus would help prevent future
>diseases, he argued. "The certain benefits to be obtained by a robust
>and responsible research agenda aimed at developing the means to detect,
>prevent and treat [future pandemics] far outweigh any theoretical
>risks," he said in an October 2005 statement co-authored with then–CDC
>Director Julie Gerberding.
>
>This wasn't a universal opinion at the NIAID. The agency's chief
>scientist described this approach to pandemic prevention as "looking for
>a gas leak with a lighted match."
>
>Fauci would continue to praise and fund this kind of research. In 2011,
>researchers at the University of Wisconsin and at Erasmus University
>Medical Center in the Netherlands managed to manipulate the virus H5N1
>(which had been responsible for a 2004 bird flu epidemic in Asia) to
>transmit between mammals, a "gain of function" for a virus that had
>heretofore only been able to pass from infected birds to humans. One of
>the researchers involved in the work would say the enhanced pathogen
>they'd created was "very, very bad news" and "probably one of the most
>dangerous viruses you can make." Fauci was more sanguine, telling The
>New York Times that "there is always a risk. But I believe the benefits
>are greater than the risks."
>
>When the influenza research community adopted a temporary moratorium on
>gain-of-function research in response to the H5N1 experiments, Fauci
>begrudgingly accepted it as necessary to calm public opinion. He still
>insisted this work's potential to stop the next pandemic far outweighed
>any "theoretical risks" it posed.
>
>Deadly outbreaks of bird flu and severe acute respiratory syndrome
>(SARS) in the early 2000s, and the anthrax mailings that followed the
>September 11 terror attacks, had both the public health and the national
>security establishments attuned to "biosecurity" threats.
>
>At the same time, researchers were rapidly improving their ability to
>create and manipulate viruses in the lab. This offered the potential for
>creating new vaccines, therapeutics, and pest control measures. It also
>raised the risk that a new pandemic might be accidentally released from
>a lab.
>
>In the mid-2000s, President George W. Bush's administration commissioned
>reports on how "dual-use research of concern" might be subjected to some
>sort of risk-benefit analysis. But Fauci consistently argued against the
>idea that their agencies should have to abide by additional guardrails
>when funding risky research into pandemic pathogens.
>
>"It's safe to say NIH is always on the 'more science, less regulation'
>side. That was definitely true in this debate," Gregory Koblentz, a
>biosafety expert at George Mason University who's been a longtime
>participant in debates about how to regulate dual-use research, tells
>Reason.
>
>There are very good reasons to be wary about regulating scientific
>research. But the equation changes when the government itself is funding
>the research in question. Indeed, Matt Ridley—a science writer who
>co-authored Alina Chan's book Viral, about the origins of
>COVID-19—suggests that government funding itself is a big part of the
>problem. A profit-seeking private sector would never touch the kinds of
>research that was being done by EcoHealth Alliance in Wuhan, he argues.
>The odds that such research will identify the next pandemic virus and
>develop a profitable vaccine or therapeutic for it, he says, are too low
>for even the most starry-eyed venture capitalist.
>
>There was also the downside risk of a lab accident.
>
>In 2014, there was a series of embarrassing safety lapses at U.S.
>government labs, highlighting this risk.
>
>Dozens of CDC employees were potentially exposed to live anthrax samples
>shipped by mistake to labs not equipped to handle them. At another CDC
>lab, a less dangerous version of bird flu was accidentally contaminated
>with deadly H5N1. Vials of smallpox capable of infecting people were
>stashed in a cabinet at an NIH lab, where they'd apparently been sitting
>for decades. None of these incidents were direct results of
>gain-of-function research. But they heightened the concern that
>researchers working to enhance deadly pathogens might do so in unsafe
>settings.
>
>Oversight Avoidance
>In October 2014, President Barack Obama's administration paused federal
>funding of gain-of-function research that could make flu, SARS, or
>Middle East respiratory syndrome viruses transmissible via the
>respiratory route in mammals. It also started crafting a regulatory
>framework for vetting these experiments.
>
>In 2017, the White House produced the laboriously titled HHS Framework
>for Guiding Funding Decisions about Proposed Research Involving Enhanced
>Potential Pandemic Pathogens, which became known as the P3CO framework.
>
>Under P3CO, the NIH would forward grant proposals involving research on
>known pandemic pathogens or research that might create or enhance such
>pathogens to a new P3CO committee within HHS for a department-level
>risk-benefit analysis. The debates leading to the framework stressed the
>value of performing those risk-benefit assessments publicly and
>transparently. But the committee's deliberations would be kept secret.
>
>This framework also gave the NIH considerable autonomy to decide which
>grant proposals it would—and wouldn't—forward to the HHS for review.
>
>To date, the P3CO committee has vetted just three research proposals
>involving so-called enhanced potential pandemic pathogens, out of
>potentially dozens that should have been examined. Two out of three were
>allowed to go forward unaltered. The committee required the other to
>adopt additional safety mitigation measures, and the NIAID ultimately
>chose not to fund it.
>
>Fauci and NIH Director Francis Collins, also an advocate of
>gain-of-function research, found a way to skirt the oversight process.
>They "realized that if they don't [forward proposals to HHS for review],
>there is no review," says Ebright, the Rutgers biologist and a longtime
>critic of gain-of-function research. "By willfully violating the policy,
>they could nullify the policy."
>
>This gap in the oversight system would become apparent when the NIAID
>failed to stop gain-of-function research being performed at the WIV.
>
>Dangerous Exceptions
>During his June 2024 testimony, Fauci said that he signed off on every
>grant the NIAID funded but didn't individually review each one. In a
>2022 deposition, he admitted that he also might have signed off on some
>exceptions to the Obama administration's gain-of-function pause. But he
>couldn't recall specific examples.
>
>So it's possible that one exception Fauci might have signed off on was
>the work being performed by EcoHealth Alliance in Wuhan, China, and that
>work might have led directly to the COVID-19 pandemic.
>
>EcoHealth Alliance is a New York–based nonprofit that specializes in
>research on pandemic risk from emerging "disease hotspots" in the
>developing world. In 2014, it received a five-year, $3.7 million NIAID
>grant to collect virus samples from human beings and bats in China and
>then sequence and experiment on these viruses at the Wuhan Institute of
>Virology.
>
>This type of research was the passion project of EcoHealth's president,
>Peter Daszak. Daszak, who Vanity Fair has called "one part salesman, one
>part visionary," was known in D.C. circles for his invite-only cocktail
>parties for senior government officials involved in funding scientific
>research. He pitched this research as crucial for finding viruses that
>were likely to "spill over" from animals to humans. Once identified,
>vaccines and therapeutics could be developed preemptively to stop any
>outbreak.
>
>Critics argued this work was an inefficient way of spotting which of the
>thousands upon thousand of viruses circulating in nature might cause the
>next pandemic. But in 2016, EcoHealth revealed it was engaged in far
>more alarming work.
>
>In its second annual progress report to the NIAID, EcoHealth announced
>that it intended to create "chimeric" or hybrid viruses out of spike
>proteins, the part of a virus that allows it to enter and infect hosts
>cells, from SARS-like coronaviruses discovered in the wild and the
>backbone of another, already-known SARS virus.
>
>EcoHealth wanted to use these viruses to infect "humanized" mice—animals
>genetically manipulated to have human lung cells—to see whether any of
>them posed a pandemic risk. It proposed doing the research at the WIV,
>where many U.S. researchers considered the biosafety standards much too lax.
>
>This was exactly the kind of dangerous research that the
>gain-of–function pause and P3CO framework were intended to control. Upon
>receipt of EcoHealth's 2016 progress report, the NIAID program officer
>overseeing the grant told the nonprofit that its work appeared to
>violate the then-active pause on gain-of-function research. EcoHealth
>wouldn't receive its next tranche of grant money unless it could explain
>why it didn't.
>
>Daszak responded that the viruses they were working with hadn't been
>shown to infect people yet and were unlikely to do so, given how
>genetically different they were from the original SARS virus.
>
>Yet the plain text of the pause policy never required that viruses being
>experimented with already be shown to infect human beings. The idea that
>it would is "laughable," says Ebright. "The whole point of a policy that
>operates at the proposal stage, before the research has been done, is to
>prevent the construction and creation of such a pathogen."
>Illustration: Joanna Andreasson
>(Illustration: Joanna Andreasson)
>Nevertheless, in July 2016 the NIAID told EcoHealth it could proceed
>with its work on the condition that the chimeric viruses it had created
>didn't demonstrate higher growth rates than their naturally occurring
>cousins.
>
>Experiments run by EcoHealth in 2017 showed that its hybrid SARS-like
>coronaviruses exhibited much greater viral growth, and were much more
>pathogenic, in the humanized mice compared with natural variants. But
>EcoHealth didn't pause its work as promised. It also didn't report these
>results to the NIAID immediately. It only revealed them in a fourth
>annual progress report submitted April 2018.
>
>EcoHealth was plainly violating the terms imposed on its research in
>2016. Its work had also not been forwarded to the P3CO committee for
>review. Yet the NIAID renewed its grant for another five years. In this
>second grant phase, EcoHealth proposed making more chimeric SARS-like
>coronaviruses containing features with "high spillover risk" to human
>beings.
>
>EcoHealth was scheduled to start this work in 2019. That year, the
>nonprofit should have submitted a fifth annual progress report to the
>NIAID. It didn't, claiming the NIAID's reporting -system had "locked
>them out"—a claim subsequently found false.
>
>When EcoHealth's year five report was eventually submitted two years
>late, in 2021, it showed that additional chimeric viruses created in
>Wuhan demonstrated both enhanced transmission and lethality in humanized
>mice.
>
>By that time, the COVID-19 pandemic was already well underway.
>
>'Not Following the Policy'
>In 2021, Fauci said the NIH "has not ever and does not now fund
>gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology." That
>wasn't true. What EcoHealth was doing in Wuhan clearly met the widely
>understood definition of gain-of-function research.
>
>In his June 2024 testimony, Fauci dodged accusations that he lied by
>saying that while EcoHealth's work might have met a generic definition
>of gain-of-function research, it didn't meet the precise definition
>established in the P3CO framework.
>
>Fauci said that every time he mentioned gain-of-function research, "the
>definition that I use is not my personal definition; it is a codified,
>regulatory and operative definition." That definition, he said, "had
>nothing to do with me."
>
>On the contrary, regulatory definitions had quite a bit to do with
>Fauci. They were designed with the expectation that he and his fellow
>public health bureaucrats would use discretion and good judgment when
>making decisions. The relevant regulatory language included lots of
>"likelys and highlys and reasonably anticipated," says Gerald Epstein, a
>former director at the White House Office of Science and Technology
>Policy who wrote the P3CO policy. "These words are inherently
>subjective. You can't not be. You've got to be making judgment calls on
>something that does not yet exist." Those subjective definitions gave
>Fauci and his NIAID underlings considerable room to decide what research
>required additional review.
>
>Was the agency complying with the spirit of the policy? Epstein points
>to the total number of projects the NIH sent to the P3CO committee. "The
>fact that they found one project in seven years [that needed additional
>safety measures] tells me they were being too conservative," he says.
>
>Koblentz is more blunt. When the NIAID allowed EcoHealth to proceed with
>its work under novel conditions, he says, it "wasn't for them to decide.
>That was them not following the policy."
>
>Smoking Gun?
>The NIAID's failure to forward EcoHealth's experiments to the P3CO
>committee was, at minimum, a serious process failure. That failure may
>well have allowed for the creation of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Wuhan
>lab.
>
>In 2018, the same year that the NIAID renewed EcoHealth's grant for
>another five years, Daszak submitted a $14 million grant proposal to the
>Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), called DEFUSE.
>
>Once again, he proposed creating chimeric SARS-like coronaviruses
>selected for their ability to infect human beings. Early drafts of the
>DEFUSE proposal, uncovered by U.S. Right to Know reporter Emily Kopp,
>show that Daszak envisioned creating viruses with features present in
>SARS-CoV-2 and which do not appear in naturally discovered coronaviruses
>of the same family, including features that primed the virus to infect
>and spread in humans.
>
>Kopp's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests also revealed notes
>from Daszak and his collaborators on DEFUSE project drafts that
>suggested the EcoHealth president was deliberately trying to obscure the
>fact that these novel viruses would be created in Wuhan by omitting the
>names of Chinese researchers from the proposal. An early draft of DEFUSE
>also proposed creating novel coronaviruses in Wuhan because it used
>lower biosafety precautions than what would be used in the U.S.,
>describing the lower safety standards as "highly cost-effective."
>
>In a note on this early draft, University of North Carolina
>epidemiologist and pioneer gain-of-function researcher Ralph Baric, a
>proposed collaborator, said that U.S. researchers would "freak out" were
>such research done at Wuhan's typical biosafety levels.
>
>DARPA ended up rejecting the DEFUSE proposal. But it remains possible
>that the Chinese researchers secured separate funding for the work.
>Ebright suggests that EcoHealth could also have used NIH funding from
>its renewed grant for the work, given how much overlap there was between
>the two proposals.
>
>Ebright is unequivocal in his assessment that the research described in
>EcoHealth's progress reports, its 2018 grant renewal application, and
>the DEFUSE proposal, including the early draft and notes, combine into
>"smoking gun" evidence in favor of the COVID pandemic having been
>created at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
>
>"It all falls together. We know what they were doing in the years
>preceding 2019. We know what they proposed to do in 2019. We knew how
>they proposed and where they proposed to do it," says Ebright. "It is
>exactly what the virus' emergence tells us."
>
>Poisoned Debate
>We probably won't ever definitively discover the origins of COVID-19.
>Officials in both the U.S. and China ensured that.
>
>Chinese officials obstructed any investigation into the Wuhan Institute
>of Virology. In September 2019, the Associated Press reported, the
>institute took its database of viruses offline. It also hasn't made
>public lab notebooks and other materials that might shed light on
>exactly what kinds of work it was doing in the lead-up to the pandemic.
>In late 2019, the Chinese government also exterminated animals and
>disinfected the Wuhan wet market. If COVID did leap from animal to human
>in the Wuhan market, as many natural origin proponents argue, that
>evidence is gone.
>
>What we're left with is studying the structure of the SARS-CoV-2 virus
>itself and whatever information can be gleaned from the U.S.-funded
>research that went on at Wuhan leading up to the pandemic.
>
>On both fronts, Fauci, his underlings at the NIAID, and NIAID-funded
>scientists involved with work at Wuhan have worked to conceal
>information and discredit notions that COVID might have leaked from a lab.
>
>In late January 2020, Fauci's aides flagged the NIAID's support of
>EcoHealth's Wuhan research in emails to their boss. A few weeks later,
>Fauci and Daszak would go on Newt Gingrich's podcast to dismiss the idea
>that COVID-19 came from the Wuhan lab, calling such arguments
>"conspiracy theories."
>
>Both men also worked to shape the discourse behind the scenes away from
>any focus on a lab leak. Daszak organized a group letter of scientists
>in The Lancet, the U.K.'s top medical journal, declaring that they
>"stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that
>COVID-19 does not have a natural origin." Daszak did not disclose his
>relationship to the Wuhan lab when organizing this letter; The Lancet's
>editor would eventually concede that this was improper.
>
>In testimony to the House coronavirus subcommittee in May 2024, Daszak
>would claim the "conspiracy theories" mentioned in the Lancet letter
>referred only to such wild early pandemic notions that COVID had pieces
>of HIV or snake DNA inserted into it. He said a word limit prevented him
>from being more precise.
>
>Fauci, meanwhile, would help corral virologists into publishing the
>widely cited "proximal origin" paper in early 2020. In the paper, the
>authors flatly declared that "we do not believe any type of
>laboratory-leak scenario is plausible."
>
>Yet troves of private messages and emails released by the House
>subcommittee's investigation show that the authors privately expressed
>far more openness to a lab leak theory.
>
>One of the paper's authors, Scripps Research evolutionary biologist
>Kristian Andersen, privately rated a lab leak as "highly likely." But
>Andersen had a pending $8.9 million grant application with the NIAID as
>the paper was drafted. That grant was later approved. In an email, one
>of the paper's authors, Edward Holmes, references "pressure from on
>high" during the drafting process.
>
>The authors of the proximal origin paper say they merely had their minds
>changed while drafting the paper. They were just following the
>scientific method.
>
>Ridley, the science writer, has a much less charitable assessment of
>their behavior.
>
>"That's scientific misconduct at the very least," he says, "to write a
>paper that says one thing and to think it's wrong in private."
>
>
>
>Hiding the Evidence
>There may be more we don't—and won't ever—know about Fauci's own
>communications with Daszak and other NIH officials about EcoHealth's
>work in Wuhan.
>
>In May 2024, the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic
>released a tranche of emails between Fauci's senior scientific adviser
>David Morens and Daszak, in which the two strategized about how to get
>EcoHealth's federal grant reinstated (after it was terminated by the
>Trump administration in 2020) and how the nonprofit should respond to
>NIH investigations into its grant work.
>
>Across multiple emails to Daszak, Morens mentioned that he frequently
>had conversations with Fauci about Daszak and EcoHealth. He said Fauci
>was trying to "protect" Daszak.
>
>Throughout these emails, Morens urged Daszak to email him on a personal
>email account to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests, openly
>admitted to deleting emails to shield them from FOIA, and said that the
>NIH's FOIA staff had advised him on how to hide information from records
>requests through deletions and strategic misspellings.
>
>Most conspicuously, Morens sent a brief reply to Daszak in April 2021 in
>an email chain in which the two had been discussing mounting scrutiny
>from Republicans and some scientists of EcoHealth's Wuhan work.
>
>"PS, i forgot to say there is no worry about FOIAs," Morens wrote. "I
>can either send stuff to Tony [Fauci] on his private gmail, or hand it
>to him at work or at his house. He is too smart to let colleagues send
>him stuff that could cause trouble." In another email, Morens mentioned
>having a "backchannel" to Fauci.
>
>Asked about Morens' comments at the June hearing of the coronavirus
>subcommittee, Fauci denied having substantive conversations about
>EcoHealth with Morens and said that his senior scientific adviser was
>not someone he worked terribly closely with, outside collaborating on
>scientific papers.
>
>The Next Pandemic
>Fauci's best defense is that he ran a sprawling agency that doled out
>billions of dollars in grants. Even the most detail-obsessed
>administrator couldn't possibly keep track of every single program and
>project. And U.S. officials had limited control over what happened in
>the distant, opaque Wuhan lab.
>
>But even if that's true, it's an admission of administrative negligence,
>since the oversight protocols weren't followed. It also implies a
>dramatic failure of the risky research that Fauci championed for
>pandemic prevention. As Ridley says, the pandemic "occurred with the
>very viruses that there was the most attention paid to, in the very area
>where there was the most research going on, where there was the biggest
>program looking for potential pandemic pathogens, and yet they failed to
>see this one coming." At a minimum, gain-of-function research didn't
>protect the public from the pandemic.
>
>Meanwhile, the more direct case against Fauci is strong: Not only was he
>an ardent supporter of research widely believed to be risky, but he
>manipulated bureaucratic protocols in order to avoid scrutiny of that
>research, then responded evasively when called to account for his
>actions. At least one of the programs born out of Fauci's risky research
>crusade was pursuing exactly the type of viral enhancements that were
>present in COVID-19, and that research was conducted at the Wuhan
>virology lab in the very same city where the virus originated. Lab leak
>proponents cite the virus's transmissibility as evidence for a Wuhan
>leak: After all, EcoHealth was trying to create pathogens primed to
>spread rapidly in humans.
>
>The evidence is not fully conclusive. But it seems reasonably likely
>that Fauci pushed for what his peers repeatedly said was dangerous
>research, that some of that dangerous research produced a deadly viral
>pathogen that escaped the lab, and that Fauci helped cover up evidence
>and arguments for its origins.
>
>It is more than a little bit ironic that, throughout his career, Fauci
>fought against restrictions on gain-of-function research, casting those
>restrictions as counterproductive shackles on scientific progress. When
>a pandemic did finally break out, he would also be an ardent supporter
>of imposing the most restrictive controls on the general public.
>
>"Elderly, stay out of society in self-isolation. Don't go to work if you
>don't have to," Fauci told Science in March 2020. "No bars, no
>restaurants, no nothing. Only essential services." When asked in July
>2022 what he might have done differently during the pandemic, Fauci said
>he'd have recommended much stiffer restrictions.
>
>Did Fauci, so revered as a man of science, have any evidence to support
>his program of lockdowns and social controls? His eventual admission in
>congressional testimony that the federal government's social distancing
>guidance was a guesstimate that "sort of just appeared"—and one that
>turned out to be ineffective at controlling the pandemic—bolsters the
>conclusion that the pandemic restrictions that shuttered schools,
>churches, businesses, and countless social gatherings were, in fact,
>ineffective tools of control. Indeed, most American efforts to control
>the pandemic proved ineffective: not just lockdowns and capacity
>restrictions, but also mask mandates, testing, and contact tracing.
>
>If nothing else, Fauci's role in the pandemic—as a public health rock
>star with suspicious links to the virus's origin—is a lesson in the
>dangers of resting too much power and authority in the hands of any one
>official. Throughout the pandemic, Fauci's mantra was "follow the
>science." But in practice, that seems to have meant "follow Fauci." Too
>often, America did.
>
>This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Fauci’s
>Pandemic."

(Joanne) 09/14/24 Again not a LoosePeeledSeymourMemoryQuackBigot...

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/Ai33hw5PINI/m/wytVpY68MwAJ

Instead be "woke" to the sin of racial prejudice:

https://tinyurl.com/JesusIsWoke (i.e. not a Nazi bigot) *and* risen!!!

Andrew B. Chung Ph.D (plagiarised) MD (revoked)about 6 hours ago
> ReplyPermalinkOn Sat, 14 Sep 2024 11:11:36 -0700, NOT Michael Ejercito
>> Mangina, there is nothing hideous nor subhuman about slant eyes!
> Needledick, slant eyes ARE hideous and they DEFINE you as subhuman!
Nithing, your character is hideous!

>> As a matter of fact, billions of people across the world wake up to
>> slant eyes every morning, like the woman in this picture.
>> https://www.instagram.com/p/C4yvA69yG4Y/
> As a REAL matter of fact, Asian subwomen spend BILLIONS of $$$ on
> blapheroplasties (eyelid surgery) every year to get RID of slant eyes
> and TRY to LOOK halfway HUMAN!
Not that you can show.

you are just jealous of the woman in that picture, for not only does
she wake up regularly to a pair of slant eyes, she has two sons because
of a man with slant eyes!
>> Mark Zuckerberg is another person who wakes up to slant eyes every
>> morning.
> Zuckersteen is just a jew.
Zuckerberg is just better than you.

> All he DESERVES is another subhuman!

>> You are a Nazi.
> You are a gook,
That would be better than being a Nazi nithin.

> - -
>
> Wonderfully hungry? Check out this morbidly obese
> Asiatic slug:
> https://www.instagram.com/p/Cy3sTCuxtlf/?hl=en
>
> Boedicea said about the gook: Actually, it is obvious
> he's not all there. Most wannabes are short on IQ and
> have severe mental problems. I have yet to see a post
> from this cretin that makes sense. Usually, he just
> does his "You are a Nazi........." and even *that* he
> aped from some other imbecile. His other attempts at
> posting in usenet usually consist of one line or even
> one word drivel. IMO he's using the computer in the
> therapy room of his local nutfarm.
Boedicea is another one of those dreckvolk we dominated, we
humiliated, and we pwned.

You are a nithing- homo sapiens by birth, subhuman BY CHOICE. The
key word is CHOICE. You were born with the same human nature as the
rest of us. Your CHOICES made you a nithing.

Bill explains what nithings are.

http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=9446

Define and Dehumanize the Enemy: Jihadists as Nithings or Nidings

by Bill Levinson
It is an ancient principle of magic (which modern people recognize as
stories that reflect a society’s culture and psychology) that
knowledge of a person’s real or True Name delivers power over that
person. What it really means is that, if you know the person’s
psychology, you can gain an advantage over him. It is also well known
that the side that controls the language of an argument controls the
argument. As an example, Hamas terrorists and their enablers refer to
Israel’s military as an “occupation force” and terrorisitic violence
against civilians as “resistance.”

We have long sought a single word that strips the enemy of all
humanity, and reduces him to something less than an animal that is
worthy of nothing less than extermination. As far as we know, the
English language contains no such word, although “dreck” (garbage or
refuse) comes close. “Homo sapiens by BIRTH, subhuman by CHOICE”
describes Islamic supremacists perfectly, but it is a phrase and not a
word. We now propose to refer to Islamic supremacists as nithings or
nidings: a Scandinavian word that strips its object of all humanity.
Webster’s dictionary (1913) defines it as “A coward; a dastard; — a
term of utmost opprobrium.”

We remind readers who object to the dehumanization of Islamic
supremacists that those enemies are already attempting to dehumanize
Jews, and to a lesser degree Christians, with images that could have
come directly from Adolf Hitler. As they have chosen to sow the
dragon’s teeth, our position is that they must now reap their rightful
harvest: the complete hatred and loathing of all civilized human
beings.
nithings

Nithing or niding was more than a common insult, because Scandinavian
culture required its subject to fight a duel with the accuser or
become an outlaw: totally devoid of rights, honor, and even
recognition as a human being. Per the Wikipedia entry,

The actual meaning of the adjective argr or ragr [= Anglo-Saxon
earg] was the nature or appearance of effeminacy, especially by
obscene acts. Argr was the worst, most derogatory swearword of all
known to the Norse language. According to Icelandic law, the accused
was expected to kill the accuser at once. …If the accused did not
retort by violent attack yielding either the accuser to take his words
back or the accuser’s death, he was hence proven to be a weak and
cowardly nithing by not retorting accordingly.

A nithing was devoid of all human rights, and he was considered the
enemy of civilized humanity: a perfect depiction of Islamic
supremacists. The word therefore strips the enemy of all humanity, and
degrades him to the status of a wolf or strangler (per Scandinavian
tradition) or a virulent disease like the Black Plague. Black Plague
is a deadly and contagious disease whose vector consists of plague-
carrying rats, while the Green Plague of militant “Islam” is a deadly
and contagious ideology that is spread by bipedal rats: nidings or
nithings, non-humans that raise violent hands to all of civilized
Humanity.

The immediate consequence of being proven a nithing was
outlawing. The outlawed did not have any rights, he was exlex (Latin
for “outside of the legal system”), in Anglo-Saxon utlah, Middle Low
German uutlagh, Old Norse utlagr. Just as feud yielded enmity among
kinships, outlawry yielded enmity of all humanity.[63] …”Yet that is
but one aspect of outlawry. The outlaw is not only expelled from the
kinship, he is also regarded henceforth as an enemy to mankind.”

T he actual definition of a nithing is somewhat more involved and
complex, and it gets into sexual perversions and zoomorphical
transformations (Loki’s transformation of himself into a mare to have
sexual intercourse with a stallion, and thus beget Odin’s horse
Sleipner is probably an example), but the following line is pertinent:
“The nithing used its malicious seid magic to destroy anything owned
and made by man, ultimately the human race and Midgard itself[6], due
to its basically unlimited envy, hate, and malice that were nith.”

"Destruction of everything owned and made by Man” (the Palestinians’
destruction of the greenhouses in Gaza comes to mind immediately) and
“unlimited envy, hate, and malice” describe militant “Islam”
perfectly, and further underscore the application of nithing or niding
to describe it. The propensity for mindless destruction also appears
in Orson Scott Card’s Alvin Maker series, in which a supernatural
enemy is known as the Unmaker: a personification of evil that is the
total antithesis of God the Creator.

The Unmaker is the main antagonist in Orson Scott Card’s
alternate history/fantasy series The Tales of Alvin Maker. Never
directly confronted, it is a supernatural force that breaks apart
matter and aims to destroy and consume everything and everyone. …To
make something is to oppose the Unmaker, but a point often made is
that this is futile. By natural law the Unmaker can tear down faster
than any man can build.

This also is an outstanding definition of militant “Islam” or Islamic
supremacy: an ideology that seeks to destroy everything into which it
comes in contact, and with which no reason, negotiation, or compromise
is possible.

In summary, a nithing or niding is the enemy of Civilization, a
subhuman (through its behavioral choices, and emphatically NOT due to
its racial or ethnic origin) monster with total hatred and malice
toward all human industry and arts, and worthy of nothing but
extermination like any virulent disease. This is the word we will now
apply to Islamic supremacists and their enablers, and we encourage
others to do likewise.

HeartDoc Andrew wrote:
> Michael Ejercito wrote:
>
>> https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/1fgpeky/should_we_blame_fauci_for_the_covid_pandemic/
>>
>> Should We Blame Fauci for the COVID Pandemic?
>> America's COVID celebrity is facing scrutiny for funding risky research
>> that may have sparked the pandemic—and for allegedly covering it up.
>> Christian Britschgi | From the October 2024 issue
>>
>> Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly
>> versionCopy page URL
>> An illustration of Anthony Fauci and some viruses | Illustration: Joanna
>> Andreasson
>> (Illustration: Joanna Andreasson)
>> In June 2024, Anthony Fauci appeared before the House Select
>> Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic for a contentious confrontation
>> with congressional Republicans. But it opened on what might have sounded
>> like an amicable note, as the subcommittee's chairman, Rep. Brad
>> Wenstrup (R–Ohio), played up Fauci's sainted status: "There were drinks
>> named after you. You got bobbleheads made in your likeness. You were on
>> the cover of Vogue. You threw out the first pitch at a Washington
>> Nationals game."
>>
>> Fauci was the closest thing the world of public health had to a rock
>> star. For nearly 40 years prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Fauci had
>> served as the influential but unassuming director of the National
>> Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a subsidiary of
>> the National Institutes of Health (NIH) housed within the sprawling U.S.
>> Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
>>
>> That post made Fauci the federal government's de facto top pandemic
>> expert across the dozens of agencies—from the Centers for Disease
>> Control and Prevention (CDC) to the Food and Drug Administration to the
>> Office of the Surgeon General—that share responsibilities for preventing
>> and responding to disease outbreaks. Fauci steered the U.S. government's
>> response to AIDS, Zika, Ebola, and swine flu. He oversaw billions in
>> annual research grants aimed at stopping the next disease outbreak.
>>
>> When COVID struck, Fauci was the face of public health when public
>> health was all anyone was talking about.
>>
>> His celebrity also made him a partisan lightning rod. Democrats saw him
>> as a steady, straight-talking scientist who struck a pleasing contrast
>> to a chaotic Donald Trump recommending crank COVID cures in White House
>> press conferences. For many conservatives, he was a hate figure
>> responsible for locking down the country without regard for civil
>> liberties or collateral damage. But by that June 2024 congressional
>> hearing, Fauci was at the center of a new array of controversies.
>>
>> In 2023, the incoming Republican House majority had reorganized the
>> coronavirus subcommittee to investigate the origins of the COVID-19
>> pandemic. The information they'd uncovered, supplemented by years of
>> dogged investigative journalism, was damning for Fauci and his agency.
>>
>> Fauci had long denied his agency had ever funded controversial
>> gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in
>> Wuhan, China, where the COVID-19 pandemic originated. But weeks before
>> Fauci's testimony, a senior NIH official admitted that the NIAID had
>> funded such research. Days later, President Joe Biden's administration
>> would strip EcoHealth Alliance—the nonprofit that the NIAID had paid to
>> do that gain-of-function research—of its federal funding, citing the
>> organization's lack of transparency and oversight failures at the WIV.
>>
>> Soon after, the select subcommittee revealed that Fauci's senior
>> scientific adviser, David Morens, told EcoHealth scientists in emails
>> that Fauci would "protect" the group from public scrutiny about the
>> pandemic's origins and that Morens could pass any needed communications
>>from EcoHealth to Fauci via a private back channel that was safe from
>> public records requests.
>>
>> The day of Fauci's testimony, the Harvard- and MIT–affiliated biologist
>> Alina Chan argued in The New York Times that a lab leak at the WIV was
>> the probable cause of the COVID-19 pandemic.
>>
>> Together, the revelations painted a picture of Fauci as a dissembling,
>> denying, power-grabbing bureaucrat who repeatedly used slippery
>> arguments to dodge public oversight of a controversial, high-risk
>> agenda—an agenda that may have led to the very pandemic his job was to
>> prevent.
>>
>> Fauci argued it was all much ado about nothing. At the hearing, he said
>> the gain-of-function research the NIAID had funded in Wuhan wasn't of
>> concern and couldn't have sparked the pandemic; that he had no back
>> channel with his senior scientific adviser, who he didn't even work that
>> closely with; and that while a lab leak wasn't a conspiracy theory, he
>> couldn't be expected to know everything that happened in China. His
>> story was that he had acted in good faith, in the name of science, and
>> that he wasn't culpable.
>>
>> Yet when one considers Fauci's record and the accumulated evidence about
>> a lab leak origin of COVID-19, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that
>> he is probably at least partially culpable for the pandemic itself and
>> actively worked to obscure that fact. As Richard Ebright, a Rutgers
>> University molecular biologist and fierce Fauci critic, says of the
>> series of choices that led to dangerous pandemic research being
>> conducted in Wuhan with U.S. tax dollars: "There are few decisions that
>> are so centrally linked to a single person and that person's
>> pathologies, and that person is Anthony Fauci."
>>
>> We may never know the full story of the pandemic's origin. But if this
>> were a bureaucratic whodunit, the most likely suspect would be Fauci.
>> COVID-19 was Fauci's pandemic.
>>
>> Pushing Risky Research
>> Prior to COVID-19, Fauci had long supported funding pandemic research
>> that other scientists found risky, if not downright dangerous.
>>
>> In 2005, as NIAID director, he praised researchers who'd used a grant
>>from his agency to resurrect the virus that had caused the Spanish flu
>> pandemic. Better understanding that virus would help prevent future
>> diseases, he argued. "The certain benefits to be obtained by a robust
>> and responsible research agenda aimed at developing the means to detect,
>> prevent and treat [future pandemics] far outweigh any theoretical
>> risks," he said in an October 2005 statement co-authored with then–CDC
>> Director Julie Gerberding.
>>
>> This wasn't a universal opinion at the NIAID. The agency's chief
>> scientist described this approach to pandemic prevention as "looking for
>> a gas leak with a lighted match."
>>
>> Fauci would continue to praise and fund this kind of research. In 2011,
>> researchers at the University of Wisconsin and at Erasmus University
>> Medical Center in the Netherlands managed to manipulate the virus H5N1
>> (which had been responsible for a 2004 bird flu epidemic in Asia) to
>> transmit between mammals, a "gain of function" for a virus that had
>> heretofore only been able to pass from infected birds to humans. One of
>> the researchers involved in the work would say the enhanced pathogen
>> they'd created was "very, very bad news" and "probably one of the most
>> dangerous viruses you can make." Fauci was more sanguine, telling The
>> New York Times that "there is always a risk. But I believe the benefits
>> are greater than the risks."
>>
>> When the influenza research community adopted a temporary moratorium on
>> gain-of-function research in response to the H5N1 experiments, Fauci
>> begrudgingly accepted it as necessary to calm public opinion. He still
>> insisted this work's potential to stop the next pandemic far outweighed
>> any "theoretical risks" it posed.
>>
>> Deadly outbreaks of bird flu and severe acute respiratory syndrome
>> (SARS) in the early 2000s, and the anthrax mailings that followed the
>> September 11 terror attacks, had both the public health and the national
>> security establishments attuned to "biosecurity" threats.
>>
>> At the same time, researchers were rapidly improving their ability to
>> create and manipulate viruses in the lab. This offered the potential for
>> creating new vaccines, therapeutics, and pest control measures. It also
>> raised the risk that a new pandemic might be accidentally released from
>> a lab.
>>
>> In the mid-2000s, President George W. Bush's administration commissioned
>> reports on how "dual-use research of concern" might be subjected to some
>> sort of risk-benefit analysis. But Fauci consistently argued against the
>> idea that their agencies should have to abide by additional guardrails
>> when funding risky research into pandemic pathogens.
>>
>> "It's safe to say NIH is always on the 'more science, less regulation'
>> side. That was definitely true in this debate," Gregory Koblentz, a
>> biosafety expert at George Mason University who's been a longtime
>> participant in debates about how to regulate dual-use research, tells
>> Reason.
>>
>> There are very good reasons to be wary about regulating scientific
>> research. But the equation changes when the government itself is funding
>> the research in question. Indeed, Matt Ridley—a science writer who
>> co-authored Alina Chan's book Viral, about the origins of
>> COVID-19—suggests that government funding itself is a big part of the
>> problem. A profit-seeking private sector would never touch the kinds of
>> research that was being done by EcoHealth Alliance in Wuhan, he argues.
>> The odds that such research will identify the next pandemic virus and
>> develop a profitable vaccine or therapeutic for it, he says, are too low
>> for even the most starry-eyed venture capitalist.
>>
>> There was also the downside risk of a lab accident.
>>
>> In 2014, there was a series of embarrassing safety lapses at U.S.
>> government labs, highlighting this risk.
>>
>> Dozens of CDC employees were potentially exposed to live anthrax samples
>> shipped by mistake to labs not equipped to handle them. At another CDC
>> lab, a less dangerous version of bird flu was accidentally contaminated
>> with deadly H5N1. Vials of smallpox capable of infecting people were
>> stashed in a cabinet at an NIH lab, where they'd apparently been sitting
>> for decades. None of these incidents were direct results of
>> gain-of-function research. But they heightened the concern that
>> researchers working to enhance deadly pathogens might do so in unsafe
>> settings.
>>
>> Oversight Avoidance
>> In October 2014, President Barack Obama's administration paused federal
>> funding of gain-of-function research that could make flu, SARS, or
>> Middle East respiratory syndrome viruses transmissible via the
>> respiratory route in mammals. It also started crafting a regulatory
>> framework for vetting these experiments.
>>
>> In 2017, the White House produced the laboriously titled HHS Framework
>> for Guiding Funding Decisions about Proposed Research Involving Enhanced
>> Potential Pandemic Pathogens, which became known as the P3CO framework.
>>
>> Under P3CO, the NIH would forward grant proposals involving research on
>> known pandemic pathogens or research that might create or enhance such
>> pathogens to a new P3CO committee within HHS for a department-level
>> risk-benefit analysis. The debates leading to the framework stressed the
>> value of performing those risk-benefit assessments publicly and
>> transparently. But the committee's deliberations would be kept secret.
>>
>> This framework also gave the NIH considerable autonomy to decide which
>> grant proposals it would—and wouldn't—forward to the HHS for review.
>>
>> To date, the P3CO committee has vetted just three research proposals
>> involving so-called enhanced potential pandemic pathogens, out of
>> potentially dozens that should have been examined. Two out of three were
>> allowed to go forward unaltered. The committee required the other to
>> adopt additional safety mitigation measures, and the NIAID ultimately
>> chose not to fund it.
>>
>> Fauci and NIH Director Francis Collins, also an advocate of
>> gain-of-function research, found a way to skirt the oversight process.
>> They "realized that if they don't [forward proposals to HHS for review],
>> there is no review," says Ebright, the Rutgers biologist and a longtime
>> critic of gain-of-function research. "By willfully violating the policy,
>> they could nullify the policy."
>>
>> This gap in the oversight system would become apparent when the NIAID
>> failed to stop gain-of-function research being performed at the WIV.
>>
>> Dangerous Exceptions
>> During his June 2024 testimony, Fauci said that he signed off on every
>> grant the NIAID funded but didn't individually review each one. In a
>> 2022 deposition, he admitted that he also might have signed off on some
>> exceptions to the Obama administration's gain-of-function pause. But he
>> couldn't recall specific examples.
>>
>> So it's possible that one exception Fauci might have signed off on was
>> the work being performed by EcoHealth Alliance in Wuhan, China, and that
>> work might have led directly to the COVID-19 pandemic.
>>
>> EcoHealth Alliance is a New York–based nonprofit that specializes in
>> research on pandemic risk from emerging "disease hotspots" in the
>> developing world. In 2014, it received a five-year, $3.7 million NIAID
>> grant to collect virus samples from human beings and bats in China and
>> then sequence and experiment on these viruses at the Wuhan Institute of
>> Virology.
>>
>> This type of research was the passion project of EcoHealth's president,
>> Peter Daszak. Daszak, who Vanity Fair has called "one part salesman, one
>> part visionary," was known in D.C. circles for his invite-only cocktail
>> parties for senior government officials involved in funding scientific
>> research. He pitched this research as crucial for finding viruses that
>> were likely to "spill over" from animals to humans. Once identified,
>> vaccines and therapeutics could be developed preemptively to stop any
>> outbreak.
>>
>> Critics argued this work was an inefficient way of spotting which of the
>> thousands upon thousand of viruses circulating in nature might cause the
>> next pandemic. But in 2016, EcoHealth revealed it was engaged in far
>> more alarming work.
>>
>> In its second annual progress report to the NIAID, EcoHealth announced
>> that it intended to create "chimeric" or hybrid viruses out of spike
>> proteins, the part of a virus that allows it to enter and infect hosts
>> cells, from SARS-like coronaviruses discovered in the wild and the
>> backbone of another, already-known SARS virus.
>>
>> EcoHealth wanted to use these viruses to infect "humanized" mice—animals
>> genetically manipulated to have human lung cells—to see whether any of
>> them posed a pandemic risk. It proposed doing the research at the WIV,
>> where many U.S. researchers considered the biosafety standards much too lax.
>>
>> This was exactly the kind of dangerous research that the
>> gain-of–function pause and P3CO framework were intended to control. Upon
>> receipt of EcoHealth's 2016 progress report, the NIAID program officer
>> overseeing the grant told the nonprofit that its work appeared to
>> violate the then-active pause on gain-of-function research. EcoHealth
>> wouldn't receive its next tranche of grant money unless it could explain
>> why it didn't.
>>
>> Daszak responded that the viruses they were working with hadn't been
>> shown to infect people yet and were unlikely to do so, given how
>> genetically different they were from the original SARS virus.
>>
>> Yet the plain text of the pause policy never required that viruses being
>> experimented with already be shown to infect human beings. The idea that
>> it would is "laughable," says Ebright. "The whole point of a policy that
>> operates at the proposal stage, before the research has been done, is to
>> prevent the construction and creation of such a pathogen."
>> Illustration: Joanna Andreasson
>> (Illustration: Joanna Andreasson)
>> Nevertheless, in July 2016 the NIAID told EcoHealth it could proceed
>> with its work on the condition that the chimeric viruses it had created
>> didn't demonstrate higher growth rates than their naturally occurring
>> cousins.
>>
>> Experiments run by EcoHealth in 2017 showed that its hybrid SARS-like
>> coronaviruses exhibited much greater viral growth, and were much more
>> pathogenic, in the humanized mice compared with natural variants. But
>> EcoHealth didn't pause its work as promised. It also didn't report these
>> results to the NIAID immediately. It only revealed them in a fourth
>> annual progress report submitted April 2018.
>>
>> EcoHealth was plainly violating the terms imposed on its research in
>> 2016. Its work had also not been forwarded to the P3CO committee for
>> review. Yet the NIAID renewed its grant for another five years. In this
>> second grant phase, EcoHealth proposed making more chimeric SARS-like
>> coronaviruses containing features with "high spillover risk" to human
>> beings.
>>
>> EcoHealth was scheduled to start this work in 2019. That year, the
>> nonprofit should have submitted a fifth annual progress report to the
>> NIAID. It didn't, claiming the NIAID's reporting -system had "locked
>> them out"—a claim subsequently found false.
>>
>> When EcoHealth's year five report was eventually submitted two years
>> late, in 2021, it showed that additional chimeric viruses created in
>> Wuhan demonstrated both enhanced transmission and lethality in humanized
>> mice.
>>
>> By that time, the COVID-19 pandemic was already well underway.
>>
>> 'Not Following the Policy'
>> In 2021, Fauci said the NIH "has not ever and does not now fund
>> gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology." That
>> wasn't true. What EcoHealth was doing in Wuhan clearly met the widely
>> understood definition of gain-of-function research.
>>
>> In his June 2024 testimony, Fauci dodged accusations that he lied by
>> saying that while EcoHealth's work might have met a generic definition
>> of gain-of-function research, it didn't meet the precise definition
>> established in the P3CO framework.
>>
>> Fauci said that every time he mentioned gain-of-function research, "the
>> definition that I use is not my personal definition; it is a codified,
>> regulatory and operative definition." That definition, he said, "had
>> nothing to do with me."
>>
>> On the contrary, regulatory definitions had quite a bit to do with
>> Fauci. They were designed with the expectation that he and his fellow
>> public health bureaucrats would use discretion and good judgment when
>> making decisions. The relevant regulatory language included lots of
>> "likelys and highlys and reasonably anticipated," says Gerald Epstein, a
>> former director at the White House Office of Science and Technology
>> Policy who wrote the P3CO policy. "These words are inherently
>> subjective. You can't not be. You've got to be making judgment calls on
>> something that does not yet exist." Those subjective definitions gave
>> Fauci and his NIAID underlings considerable room to decide what research
>> required additional review.
>>
>> Was the agency complying with the spirit of the policy? Epstein points
>> to the total number of projects the NIH sent to the P3CO committee. "The
>> fact that they found one project in seven years [that needed additional
>> safety measures] tells me they were being too conservative," he says.
>>
>> Koblentz is more blunt. When the NIAID allowed EcoHealth to proceed with
>> its work under novel conditions, he says, it "wasn't for them to decide.
>> That was them not following the policy."
>>
>> Smoking Gun?
>> The NIAID's failure to forward EcoHealth's experiments to the P3CO
>> committee was, at minimum, a serious process failure. That failure may
>> well have allowed for the creation of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Wuhan
>> lab.
>>
>> In 2018, the same year that the NIAID renewed EcoHealth's grant for
>> another five years, Daszak submitted a $14 million grant proposal to the
>> Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), called DEFUSE.
>>
>> Once again, he proposed creating chimeric SARS-like coronaviruses
>> selected for their ability to infect human beings. Early drafts of the
>> DEFUSE proposal, uncovered by U.S. Right to Know reporter Emily Kopp,
>> show that Daszak envisioned creating viruses with features present in
>> SARS-CoV-2 and which do not appear in naturally discovered coronaviruses
>> of the same family, including features that primed the virus to infect
>> and spread in humans.
>>
>> Kopp's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests also revealed notes
>>from Daszak and his collaborators on DEFUSE project drafts that
>> suggested the EcoHealth president was deliberately trying to obscure the
>> fact that these novel viruses would be created in Wuhan by omitting the
>> names of Chinese researchers from the proposal. An early draft of DEFUSE
>> also proposed creating novel coronaviruses in Wuhan because it used
>> lower biosafety precautions than what would be used in the U.S.,
>> describing the lower safety standards as "highly cost-effective."
>>
>> In a note on this early draft, University of North Carolina
>> epidemiologist and pioneer gain-of-function researcher Ralph Baric, a
>> proposed collaborator, said that U.S. researchers would "freak out" were
>> such research done at Wuhan's typical biosafety levels.
>>
>> DARPA ended up rejecting the DEFUSE proposal. But it remains possible
>> that the Chinese researchers secured separate funding for the work.
>> Ebright suggests that EcoHealth could also have used NIH funding from
>> its renewed grant for the work, given how much overlap there was between
>> the two proposals.
>>
>> Ebright is unequivocal in his assessment that the research described in
>> EcoHealth's progress reports, its 2018 grant renewal application, and
>> the DEFUSE proposal, including the early draft and notes, combine into
>> "smoking gun" evidence in favor of the COVID pandemic having been
>> created at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
>>
>> "It all falls together. We know what they were doing in the years
>> preceding 2019. We know what they proposed to do in 2019. We knew how
>> they proposed and where they proposed to do it," says Ebright. "It is
>> exactly what the virus' emergence tells us."
>>
>> Poisoned Debate
>> We probably won't ever definitively discover the origins of COVID-19.
>> Officials in both the U.S. and China ensured that.
>>
>> Chinese officials obstructed any investigation into the Wuhan Institute
>> of Virology. In September 2019, the Associated Press reported, the
>> institute took its database of viruses offline. It also hasn't made
>> public lab notebooks and other materials that might shed light on
>> exactly what kinds of work it was doing in the lead-up to the pandemic.
>> In late 2019, the Chinese government also exterminated animals and
>> disinfected the Wuhan wet market. If COVID did leap from animal to human
>> in the Wuhan market, as many natural origin proponents argue, that
>> evidence is gone.
>>
>> What we're left with is studying the structure of the SARS-CoV-2 virus
>> itself and whatever information can be gleaned from the U.S.-funded
>> research that went on at Wuhan leading up to the pandemic.
>>
>> On both fronts, Fauci, his underlings at the NIAID, and NIAID-funded
>> scientists involved with work at Wuhan have worked to conceal
>> information and discredit notions that COVID might have leaked from a lab.
>>
>> In late January 2020, Fauci's aides flagged the NIAID's support of
>> EcoHealth's Wuhan research in emails to their boss. A few weeks later,
>> Fauci and Daszak would go on Newt Gingrich's podcast to dismiss the idea
>> that COVID-19 came from the Wuhan lab, calling such arguments
>> "conspiracy theories."
>>
>> Both men also worked to shape the discourse behind the scenes away from
>> any focus on a lab leak. Daszak organized a group letter of scientists
>> in The Lancet, the U.K.'s top medical journal, declaring that they
>> "stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that
>> COVID-19 does not have a natural origin." Daszak did not disclose his
>> relationship to the Wuhan lab when organizing this letter; The Lancet's
>> editor would eventually concede that this was improper.
>>
>> In testimony to the House coronavirus subcommittee in May 2024, Daszak
>> would claim the "conspiracy theories" mentioned in the Lancet letter
>> referred only to such wild early pandemic notions that COVID had pieces
>> of HIV or snake DNA inserted into it. He said a word limit prevented him
>>from being more precise.
>>
>> Fauci, meanwhile, would help corral virologists into publishing the
>> widely cited "proximal origin" paper in early 2020. In the paper, the
>> authors flatly declared that "we do not believe any type of
>> laboratory-leak scenario is plausible."
>>
>> Yet troves of private messages and emails released by the House
>> subcommittee's investigation show that the authors privately expressed
>> far more openness to a lab leak theory.
>>
>> One of the paper's authors, Scripps Research evolutionary biologist
>> Kristian Andersen, privately rated a lab leak as "highly likely." But
>> Andersen had a pending $8.9 million grant application with the NIAID as
>> the paper was drafted. That grant was later approved. In an email, one
>> of the paper's authors, Edward Holmes, references "pressure from on
>> high" during the drafting process.
>>
>> The authors of the proximal origin paper say they merely had their minds
>> changed while drafting the paper. They were just following the
>> scientific method.
>>
>> Ridley, the science writer, has a much less charitable assessment of
>> their behavior.
>>
>> "That's scientific misconduct at the very least," he says, "to write a
>> paper that says one thing and to think it's wrong in private."
>>
>>
>>
>> Hiding the Evidence
>> There may be more we don't—and won't ever—know about Fauci's own
>> communications with Daszak and other NIH officials about EcoHealth's
>> work in Wuhan.
>>
>> In May 2024, the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic
>> released a tranche of emails between Fauci's senior scientific adviser
>> David Morens and Daszak, in which the two strategized about how to get
>> EcoHealth's federal grant reinstated (after it was terminated by the
>> Trump administration in 2020) and how the nonprofit should respond to
>> NIH investigations into its grant work.
>>
>> Across multiple emails to Daszak, Morens mentioned that he frequently
>> had conversations with Fauci about Daszak and EcoHealth. He said Fauci
>> was trying to "protect" Daszak.
>>
>> Throughout these emails, Morens urged Daszak to email him on a personal
>> email account to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests, openly
>> admitted to deleting emails to shield them from FOIA, and said that the
>> NIH's FOIA staff had advised him on how to hide information from records
>> requests through deletions and strategic misspellings.
>>
>> Most conspicuously, Morens sent a brief reply to Daszak in April 2021 in
>> an email chain in which the two had been discussing mounting scrutiny
>>from Republicans and some scientists of EcoHealth's Wuhan work.
>>
>> "PS, i forgot to say there is no worry about FOIAs," Morens wrote. "I
>> can either send stuff to Tony [Fauci] on his private gmail, or hand it
>> to him at work or at his house. He is too smart to let colleagues send
>> him stuff that could cause trouble." In another email, Morens mentioned
>> having a "backchannel" to Fauci.
>>
>> Asked about Morens' comments at the June hearing of the coronavirus
>> subcommittee, Fauci denied having substantive conversations about
>> EcoHealth with Morens and said that his senior scientific adviser was
>> not someone he worked terribly closely with, outside collaborating on
>> scientific papers.
>>
>> The Next Pandemic
>> Fauci's best defense is that he ran a sprawling agency that doled out
>> billions of dollars in grants. Even the most detail-obsessed
>> administrator couldn't possibly keep track of every single program and
>> project. And U.S. officials had limited control over what happened in
>> the distant, opaque Wuhan lab.
>>
>> But even if that's true, it's an admission of administrative negligence,
>> since the oversight protocols weren't followed. It also implies a
>> dramatic failure of the risky research that Fauci championed for
>> pandemic prevention. As Ridley says, the pandemic "occurred with the
>> very viruses that there was the most attention paid to, in the very area
>> where there was the most research going on, where there was the biggest
>> program looking for potential pandemic pathogens, and yet they failed to
>> see this one coming." At a minimum, gain-of-function research didn't
>> protect the public from the pandemic.
>>
>> Meanwhile, the more direct case against Fauci is strong: Not only was he
>> an ardent supporter of research widely believed to be risky, but he
>> manipulated bureaucratic protocols in order to avoid scrutiny of that
>> research, then responded evasively when called to account for his
>> actions. At least one of the programs born out of Fauci's risky research
>> crusade was pursuing exactly the type of viral enhancements that were
>> present in COVID-19, and that research was conducted at the Wuhan
>> virology lab in the very same city where the virus originated. Lab leak
>> proponents cite the virus's transmissibility as evidence for a Wuhan
>> leak: After all, EcoHealth was trying to create pathogens primed to
>> spread rapidly in humans.
>>
>> The evidence is not fully conclusive. But it seems reasonably likely
>> that Fauci pushed for what his peers repeatedly said was dangerous
>> research, that some of that dangerous research produced a deadly viral
>> pathogen that escaped the lab, and that Fauci helped cover up evidence
>> and arguments for its origins.
>>
>> It is more than a little bit ironic that, throughout his career, Fauci
>> fought against restrictions on gain-of-function research, casting those
>> restrictions as counterproductive shackles on scientific progress. When
>> a pandemic did finally break out, he would also be an ardent supporter
>> of imposing the most restrictive controls on the general public.
>>
>> "Elderly, stay out of society in self-isolation. Don't go to work if you
>> don't have to," Fauci told Science in March 2020. "No bars, no
>> restaurants, no nothing. Only essential services." When asked in July
>> 2022 what he might have done differently during the pandemic, Fauci said
>> he'd have recommended much stiffer restrictions.
>>
>> Did Fauci, so revered as a man of science, have any evidence to support
>> his program of lockdowns and social controls? His eventual admission in
>> congressional testimony that the federal government's social distancing
>> guidance was a guesstimate that "sort of just appeared"—and one that
>> turned out to be ineffective at controlling the pandemic—bolsters the
>> conclusion that the pandemic restrictions that shuttered schools,
>> churches, businesses, and countless social gatherings were, in fact,
>> ineffective tools of control. Indeed, most American efforts to control
>> the pandemic proved ineffective: not just lockdowns and capacity
>> restrictions, but also mask mandates, testing, and contact tracing.
>>
>> If nothing else, Fauci's role in the pandemic—as a public health rock
>> star with suspicious links to the virus's origin—is a lesson in the
>> dangers of resting too much power and authority in the hands of any one
>> official. Throughout the pandemic, Fauci's mantra was "follow the
>> science." But in practice, that seems to have meant "follow Fauci." Too
>> often, America did.
>>
>> This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Fauci’s
>> Pandemic."
>
> In the interim, we are 100% prepared/protected in the "full armor of
> GOD" (Ephesians 6:11) which we put on as soon as we use Apostle Paul's
> secret (Philippians 4:12). Though masking is less protective, it helps
> us avoid the appearance of doing the evil of spreading airborne
> pathogens while there are people getting sick because of not being
> 100% protected. It is written that we're to "abstain from **all**
> appearance of doing evil" (1 Thessalonians 5:22 w/**emphasis**).
>
> Meanwhile, the only *perfect* (Matt 5:47-8 ) way to eradicate the
> COVID-19 virus, thereby saving lives, in the UK & elsewhere is by
> rapidly (i.e. use the "Rapid COVID-19 Test" ) finding out at any given
> moment, including even while on-line, who among us are unwittingly
> contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic) in order to
> "convince it forward" (John 15:12) for them to call their doctor and
> self-quarantine per their doctor in hopes of stopping this pandemic.
> Thus, we're hoping for the best while preparing for the worse-case
> scenario of the Alpha lineage mutations and others like the Omicron,
> Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota, Lambda, Mu & Delta lineage mutations
> combining via slip-RNA-replication to form hybrids like "Deltamicron"
> that may render current COVID vaccines/monoclonals/medicines/pills no
> longer effective.
>
> Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry (
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/6ZoE95d-VKc/m/14vVZoyOBgAJ
> ) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.
>
> So how are you ?
>
I am wonderfully hungry!

Michael Ejercito wrote:
> HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> Michael Ejercito wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/1fgpeky/should_we_blame_fauci_for_the_covid_pandemic/
>>>
>>> Should We Blame Fauci for the COVID Pandemic?
>>> America's COVID celebrity is facing scrutiny for funding risky research
>>> that may have sparked the pandemic—and for allegedly covering it up.
>>> Christian Britschgi | From the October 2024 issue
>>>
>>> Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly
>>> versionCopy page URL
>>> An illustration of Anthony Fauci and some viruses | Illustration: Joanna
>>> Andreasson
>>> (Illustration: Joanna Andreasson)
>>> In June 2024, Anthony Fauci appeared before the House Select
>>> Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic for a contentious confrontation
>>> with congressional Republicans. But it opened on what might have sounded
>>> like an amicable note, as the subcommittee's chairman, Rep. Brad
>>> Wenstrup (R–Ohio), played up Fauci's sainted status: "There were drinks
>>> named after you. You got bobbleheads made in your likeness. You were on
>>> the cover of Vogue. You threw out the first pitch at a Washington
>>> Nationals game."
>>>
>>> Fauci was the closest thing the world of public health had to a rock
>>> star. For nearly 40 years prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Fauci had
>>> served as the influential but unassuming director of the National
>>> Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a subsidiary of
>>> the National Institutes of Health (NIH) housed within the sprawling U.S.
>>> Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
>>>
>>> That post made Fauci the federal government's de facto top pandemic
>>> expert across the dozens of agencies—from the Centers for Disease
>>> Control and Prevention (CDC) to the Food and Drug Administration to the
>>> Office of the Surgeon General—that share responsibilities for preventing
>>> and responding to disease outbreaks. Fauci steered the U.S. government's
>>> response to AIDS, Zika, Ebola, and swine flu. He oversaw billions in
>>> annual research grants aimed at stopping the next disease outbreak.
>>>
>>> When COVID struck, Fauci was the face of public health when public
>>> health was all anyone was talking about.
>>>
>>> His celebrity also made him a partisan lightning rod. Democrats saw him
>>> as a steady, straight-talking scientist who struck a pleasing contrast
>>> to a chaotic Donald Trump recommending crank COVID cures in White House
>>> press conferences. For many conservatives, he was a hate figure
>>> responsible for locking down the country without regard for civil
>>> liberties or collateral damage. But by that June 2024 congressional
>>> hearing, Fauci was at the center of a new array of controversies.
>>>
>>> In 2023, the incoming Republican House majority had reorganized the
>>> coronavirus subcommittee to investigate the origins of the COVID-19
>>> pandemic. The information they'd uncovered, supplemented by years of
>>> dogged investigative journalism, was damning for Fauci and his agency.
>>>
>>> Fauci had long denied his agency had ever funded controversial
>>> gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in
>>> Wuhan, China, where the COVID-19 pandemic originated. But weeks before
>>> Fauci's testimony, a senior NIH official admitted that the NIAID had
>>> funded such research. Days later, President Joe Biden's administration
>>> would strip EcoHealth Alliance—the nonprofit that the NIAID had paid to
>>> do that gain-of-function research—of its federal funding, citing the
>>> organization's lack of transparency and oversight failures at the WIV.
>>>
>>> Soon after, the select subcommittee revealed that Fauci's senior
>>> scientific adviser, David Morens, told EcoHealth scientists in emails
>>> that Fauci would "protect" the group from public scrutiny about the
>>> pandemic's origins and that Morens could pass any needed communications
>>>from EcoHealth to Fauci via a private back channel that was safe from
>>> public records requests.
>>>
>>> The day of Fauci's testimony, the Harvard- and MIT–affiliated biologist
>>> Alina Chan argued in The New York Times that a lab leak at the WIV was
>>> the probable cause of the COVID-19 pandemic.
>>>
>>> Together, the revelations painted a picture of Fauci as a dissembling,
>>> denying, power-grabbing bureaucrat who repeatedly used slippery
>>> arguments to dodge public oversight of a controversial, high-risk
>>> agenda—an agenda that may have led to the very pandemic his job was to
>>> prevent.
>>>
>>> Fauci argued it was all much ado about nothing. At the hearing, he said
>>> the gain-of-function research the NIAID had funded in Wuhan wasn't of
>>> concern and couldn't have sparked the pandemic; that he had no back
>>> channel with his senior scientific adviser, who he didn't even work that
>>> closely with; and that while a lab leak wasn't a conspiracy theory, he
>>> couldn't be expected to know everything that happened in China. His
>>> story was that he had acted in good faith, in the name of science, and
>>> that he wasn't culpable.
>>>
>>> Yet when one considers Fauci's record and the accumulated evidence about
>>> a lab leak origin of COVID-19, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that
>>> he is probably at least partially culpable for the pandemic itself and
>>> actively worked to obscure that fact. As Richard Ebright, a Rutgers
>>> University molecular biologist and fierce Fauci critic, says of the
>>> series of choices that led to dangerous pandemic research being
>>> conducted in Wuhan with U.S. tax dollars: "There are few decisions that
>>> are so centrally linked to a single person and that person's
>>> pathologies, and that person is Anthony Fauci."
>>>
>>> We may never know the full story of the pandemic's origin. But if this
>>> were a bureaucratic whodunit, the most likely suspect would be Fauci.
>>> COVID-19 was Fauci's pandemic.
>>>
>>> Pushing Risky Research
>>> Prior to COVID-19, Fauci had long supported funding pandemic research
>>> that other scientists found risky, if not downright dangerous.
>>>
>>> In 2005, as NIAID director, he praised researchers who'd used a grant
>>>from his agency to resurrect the virus that had caused the Spanish flu
>>> pandemic. Better understanding that virus would help prevent future
>>> diseases, he argued. "The certain benefits to be obtained by a robust
>>> and responsible research agenda aimed at developing the means to detect,
>>> prevent and treat [future pandemics] far outweigh any theoretical
>>> risks," he said in an October 2005 statement co-authored with then–CDC
>>> Director Julie Gerberding.
>>>
>>> This wasn't a universal opinion at the NIAID. The agency's chief
>>> scientist described this approach to pandemic prevention as "looking for
>>> a gas leak with a lighted match."
>>>
>>> Fauci would continue to praise and fund this kind of research. In 2011,
>>> researchers at the University of Wisconsin and at Erasmus University
>>> Medical Center in the Netherlands managed to manipulate the virus H5N1
>>> (which had been responsible for a 2004 bird flu epidemic in Asia) to
>>> transmit between mammals, a "gain of function" for a virus that had
>>> heretofore only been able to pass from infected birds to humans. One of
>>> the researchers involved in the work would say the enhanced pathogen
>>> they'd created was "very, very bad news" and "probably one of the most
>>> dangerous viruses you can make." Fauci was more sanguine, telling The
>>> New York Times that "there is always a risk. But I believe the benefits
>>> are greater than the risks."
>>>
>>> When the influenza research community adopted a temporary moratorium on
>>> gain-of-function research in response to the H5N1 experiments, Fauci
>>> begrudgingly accepted it as necessary to calm public opinion. He still
>>> insisted this work's potential to stop the next pandemic far outweighed
>>> any "theoretical risks" it posed.
>>>
>>> Deadly outbreaks of bird flu and severe acute respiratory syndrome
>>> (SARS) in the early 2000s, and the anthrax mailings that followed the
>>> September 11 terror attacks, had both the public health and the national
>>> security establishments attuned to "biosecurity" threats.
>>>
>>> At the same time, researchers were rapidly improving their ability to
>>> create and manipulate viruses in the lab. This offered the potential for
>>> creating new vaccines, therapeutics, and pest control measures. It also
>>> raised the risk that a new pandemic might be accidentally released from
>>> a lab.
>>>
>>> In the mid-2000s, President George W. Bush's administration commissioned
>>> reports on how "dual-use research of concern" might be subjected to some
>>> sort of risk-benefit analysis. But Fauci consistently argued against the
>>> idea that their agencies should have to abide by additional guardrails
>>> when funding risky research into pandemic pathogens.
>>>
>>> "It's safe to say NIH is always on the 'more science, less regulation'
>>> side. That was definitely true in this debate," Gregory Koblentz, a
>>> biosafety expert at George Mason University who's been a longtime
>>> participant in debates about how to regulate dual-use research, tells
>>> Reason.
>>>
>>> There are very good reasons to be wary about regulating scientific
>>> research. But the equation changes when the government itself is funding
>>> the research in question. Indeed, Matt Ridley—a science writer who
>>> co-authored Alina Chan's book Viral, about the origins of
>>> COVID-19—suggests that government funding itself is a big part of the
>>> problem. A profit-seeking private sector would never touch the kinds of
>>> research that was being done by EcoHealth Alliance in Wuhan, he argues.
>>> The odds that such research will identify the next pandemic virus and
>>> develop a profitable vaccine or therapeutic for it, he says, are too low
>>> for even the most starry-eyed venture capitalist.
>>>
>>> There was also the downside risk of a lab accident.
>>>
>>> In 2014, there was a series of embarrassing safety lapses at U.S.
>>> government labs, highlighting this risk.
>>>
>>> Dozens of CDC employees were potentially exposed to live anthrax samples
>>> shipped by mistake to labs not equipped to handle them. At another CDC
>>> lab, a less dangerous version of bird flu was accidentally contaminated
>>> with deadly H5N1. Vials of smallpox capable of infecting people were
>>> stashed in a cabinet at an NIH lab, where they'd apparently been sitting
>>> for decades. None of these incidents were direct results of
>>> gain-of-function research. But they heightened the concern that
>>> researchers working to enhance deadly pathogens might do so in unsafe
>>> settings.
>>>
>>> Oversight Avoidance
>>> In October 2014, President Barack Obama's administration paused federal
>>> funding of gain-of-function research that could make flu, SARS, or
>>> Middle East respiratory syndrome viruses transmissible via the
>>> respiratory route in mammals. It also started crafting a regulatory
>>> framework for vetting these experiments.
>>>
>>> In 2017, the White House produced the laboriously titled HHS Framework
>>> for Guiding Funding Decisions about Proposed Research Involving Enhanced
>>> Potential Pandemic Pathogens, which became known as the P3CO framework.
>>>
>>> Under P3CO, the NIH would forward grant proposals involving research on
>>> known pandemic pathogens or research that might create or enhance such
>>> pathogens to a new P3CO committee within HHS for a department-level
>>> risk-benefit analysis. The debates leading to the framework stressed the
>>> value of performing those risk-benefit assessments publicly and
>>> transparently. But the committee's deliberations would be kept secret.
>>>
>>> This framework also gave the NIH considerable autonomy to decide which
>>> grant proposals it would—and wouldn't—forward to the HHS for review.
>>>
>>> To date, the P3CO committee has vetted just three research proposals
>>> involving so-called enhanced potential pandemic pathogens, out of
>>> potentially dozens that should have been examined. Two out of three were
>>> allowed to go forward unaltered. The committee required the other to
>>> adopt additional safety mitigation measures, and the NIAID ultimately
>>> chose not to fund it.
>>>
>>> Fauci and NIH Director Francis Collins, also an advocate of
>>> gain-of-function research, found a way to skirt the oversight process.
>>> They "realized that if they don't [forward proposals to HHS for review],
>>> there is no review," says Ebright, the Rutgers biologist and a longtime
>>> critic of gain-of-function research. "By willfully violating the policy,
>>> they could nullify the policy."
>>>
>>> This gap in the oversight system would become apparent when the NIAID
>>> failed to stop gain-of-function research being performed at the WIV.
>>>
>>> Dangerous Exceptions
>>> During his June 2024 testimony, Fauci said that he signed off on every
>>> grant the NIAID funded but didn't individually review each one. In a
>>> 2022 deposition, he admitted that he also might have signed off on some
>>> exceptions to the Obama administration's gain-of-function pause. But he
>>> couldn't recall specific examples.
>>>
>>> So it's possible that one exception Fauci might have signed off on was
>>> the work being performed by EcoHealth Alliance in Wuhan, China, and that
>>> work might have led directly to the COVID-19 pandemic.
>>>
>>> EcoHealth Alliance is a New York–based nonprofit that specializes in
>>> research on pandemic risk from emerging "disease hotspots" in the
>>> developing world. In 2014, it received a five-year, $3.7 million NIAID
>>> grant to collect virus samples from human beings and bats in China and
>>> then sequence and experiment on these viruses at the Wuhan Institute of
>>> Virology.
>>>
>>> This type of research was the passion project of EcoHealth's president,
>>> Peter Daszak. Daszak, who Vanity Fair has called "one part salesman, one
>>> part visionary," was known in D.C. circles for his invite-only cocktail
>>> parties for senior government officials involved in funding scientific
>>> research. He pitched this research as crucial for finding viruses that
>>> were likely to "spill over" from animals to humans. Once identified,
>>> vaccines and therapeutics could be developed preemptively to stop any
>>> outbreak.
>>>
>>> Critics argued this work was an inefficient way of spotting which of the
>>> thousands upon thousand of viruses circulating in nature might cause the
>>> next pandemic. But in 2016, EcoHealth revealed it was engaged in far
>>> more alarming work.
>>>
>>> In its second annual progress report to the NIAID, EcoHealth announced
>>> that it intended to create "chimeric" or hybrid viruses out of spike
>>> proteins, the part of a virus that allows it to enter and infect hosts
>>> cells, from SARS-like coronaviruses discovered in the wild and the
>>> backbone of another, already-known SARS virus.
>>>
>>> EcoHealth wanted to use these viruses to infect "humanized" mice—animals
>>> genetically manipulated to have human lung cells—to see whether any of
>>> them posed a pandemic risk. It proposed doing the research at the WIV,
>>> where many U.S. researchers considered the biosafety standards much too lax.
>>>
>>> This was exactly the kind of dangerous research that the
>>> gain-of–function pause and P3CO framework were intended to control. Upon
>>> receipt of EcoHealth's 2016 progress report, the NIAID program officer
>>> overseeing the grant told the nonprofit that its work appeared to
>>> violate the then-active pause on gain-of-function research. EcoHealth
>>> wouldn't receive its next tranche of grant money unless it could explain
>>> why it didn't.
>>>
>>> Daszak responded that the viruses they were working with hadn't been
>>> shown to infect people yet and were unlikely to do so, given how
>>> genetically different they were from the original SARS virus.
>>>
>>> Yet the plain text of the pause policy never required that viruses being
>>> experimented with already be shown to infect human beings. The idea that
>>> it would is "laughable," says Ebright. "The whole point of a policy that
>>> operates at the proposal stage, before the research has been done, is to
>>> prevent the construction and creation of such a pathogen."
>>> Illustration: Joanna Andreasson
>>> (Illustration: Joanna Andreasson)
>>> Nevertheless, in July 2016 the NIAID told EcoHealth it could proceed
>>> with its work on the condition that the chimeric viruses it had created
>>> didn't demonstrate higher growth rates than their naturally occurring
>>> cousins.
>>>
>>> Experiments run by EcoHealth in 2017 showed that its hybrid SARS-like
>>> coronaviruses exhibited much greater viral growth, and were much more
>>> pathogenic, in the humanized mice compared with natural variants. But
>>> EcoHealth didn't pause its work as promised. It also didn't report these
>>> results to the NIAID immediately. It only revealed them in a fourth
>>> annual progress report submitted April 2018.
>>>
>>> EcoHealth was plainly violating the terms imposed on its research in
>>> 2016. Its work had also not been forwarded to the P3CO committee for
>>> review. Yet the NIAID renewed its grant for another five years. In this
>>> second grant phase, EcoHealth proposed making more chimeric SARS-like
>>> coronaviruses containing features with "high spillover risk" to human
>>> beings.
>>>
>>> EcoHealth was scheduled to start this work in 2019. That year, the
>>> nonprofit should have submitted a fifth annual progress report to the
>>> NIAID. It didn't, claiming the NIAID's reporting -system had "locked
>>> them out"—a claim subsequently found false.
>>>
>>> When EcoHealth's year five report was eventually submitted two years
>>> late, in 2021, it showed that additional chimeric viruses created in
>>> Wuhan demonstrated both enhanced transmission and lethality in humanized
>>> mice.
>>>
>>> By that time, the COVID-19 pandemic was already well underway.
>>>
>>> 'Not Following the Policy'
>>> In 2021, Fauci said the NIH "has not ever and does not now fund
>>> gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology." That
>>> wasn't true. What EcoHealth was doing in Wuhan clearly met the widely
>>> understood definition of gain-of-function research.
>>>
>>> In his June 2024 testimony, Fauci dodged accusations that he lied by
>>> saying that while EcoHealth's work might have met a generic definition
>>> of gain-of-function research, it didn't meet the precise definition
>>> established in the P3CO framework.
>>>
>>> Fauci said that every time he mentioned gain-of-function research, "the
>>> definition that I use is not my personal definition; it is a codified,
>>> regulatory and operative definition." That definition, he said, "had
>>> nothing to do with me."
>>>
>>> On the contrary, regulatory definitions had quite a bit to do with
>>> Fauci. They were designed with the expectation that he and his fellow
>>> public health bureaucrats would use discretion and good judgment when
>>> making decisions. The relevant regulatory language included lots of
>>> "likelys and highlys and reasonably anticipated," says Gerald Epstein, a
>>> former director at the White House Office of Science and Technology
>>> Policy who wrote the P3CO policy. "These words are inherently
>>> subjective. You can't not be. You've got to be making judgment calls on
>>> something that does not yet exist." Those subjective definitions gave
>>> Fauci and his NIAID underlings considerable room to decide what research
>>> required additional review.
>>>
>>> Was the agency complying with the spirit of the policy? Epstein points
>>> to the total number of projects the NIH sent to the P3CO committee. "The
>>> fact that they found one project in seven years [that needed additional
>>> safety measures] tells me they were being too conservative," he says.
>>>
>>> Koblentz is more blunt. When the NIAID allowed EcoHealth to proceed with
>>> its work under novel conditions, he says, it "wasn't for them to decide.
>>> That was them not following the policy."
>>>
>>> Smoking Gun?
>>> The NIAID's failure to forward EcoHealth's experiments to the P3CO
>>> committee was, at minimum, a serious process failure. That failure may
>>> well have allowed for the creation of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Wuhan
>>> lab.
>>>
>>> In 2018, the same year that the NIAID renewed EcoHealth's grant for
>>> another five years, Daszak submitted a $14 million grant proposal to the
>>> Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), called DEFUSE.
>>>
>>> Once again, he proposed creating chimeric SARS-like coronaviruses
>>> selected for their ability to infect human beings. Early drafts of the
>>> DEFUSE proposal, uncovered by U.S. Right to Know reporter Emily Kopp,
>>> show that Daszak envisioned creating viruses with features present in
>>> SARS-CoV-2 and which do not appear in naturally discovered coronaviruses
>>> of the same family, including features that primed the virus to infect
>>> and spread in humans.
>>>
>>> Kopp's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests also revealed notes
>>>from Daszak and his collaborators on DEFUSE project drafts that
>>> suggested the EcoHealth president was deliberately trying to obscure the
>>> fact that these novel viruses would be created in Wuhan by omitting the
>>> names of Chinese researchers from the proposal. An early draft of DEFUSE
>>> also proposed creating novel coronaviruses in Wuhan because it used
>>> lower biosafety precautions than what would be used in the U.S.,
>>> describing the lower safety standards as "highly cost-effective."
>>>
>>> In a note on this early draft, University of North Carolina
>>> epidemiologist and pioneer gain-of-function researcher Ralph Baric, a
>>> proposed collaborator, said that U.S. researchers would "freak out" were
>>> such research done at Wuhan's typical biosafety levels.
>>>
>>> DARPA ended up rejecting the DEFUSE proposal. But it remains possible
>>> that the Chinese researchers secured separate funding for the work.
>>> Ebright suggests that EcoHealth could also have used NIH funding from
>>> its renewed grant for the work, given how much overlap there was between
>>> the two proposals.
>>>
>>> Ebright is unequivocal in his assessment that the research described in
>>> EcoHealth's progress reports, its 2018 grant renewal application, and
>>> the DEFUSE proposal, including the early draft and notes, combine into
>>> "smoking gun" evidence in favor of the COVID pandemic having been
>>> created at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
>>>
>>> "It all falls together. We know what they were doing in the years
>>> preceding 2019. We know what they proposed to do in 2019. We knew how
>>> they proposed and where they proposed to do it," says Ebright. "It is
>>> exactly what the virus' emergence tells us."
>>>
>>> Poisoned Debate
>>> We probably won't ever definitively discover the origins of COVID-19.
>>> Officials in both the U.S. and China ensured that.
>>>
>>> Chinese officials obstructed any investigation into the Wuhan Institute
>>> of Virology. In September 2019, the Associated Press reported, the
>>> institute took its database of viruses offline. It also hasn't made
>>> public lab notebooks and other materials that might shed light on
>>> exactly what kinds of work it was doing in the lead-up to the pandemic.
>>> In late 2019, the Chinese government also exterminated animals and
>>> disinfected the Wuhan wet market. If COVID did leap from animal to human
>>> in the Wuhan market, as many natural origin proponents argue, that
>>> evidence is gone.
>>>
>>> What we're left with is studying the structure of the SARS-CoV-2 virus
>>> itself and whatever information can be gleaned from the U.S.-funded
>>> research that went on at Wuhan leading up to the pandemic.
>>>
>>> On both fronts, Fauci, his underlings at the NIAID, and NIAID-funded
>>> scientists involved with work at Wuhan have worked to conceal
>>> information and discredit notions that COVID might have leaked from a lab.
>>>
>>> In late January 2020, Fauci's aides flagged the NIAID's support of
>>> EcoHealth's Wuhan research in emails to their boss. A few weeks later,
>>> Fauci and Daszak would go on Newt Gingrich's podcast to dismiss the idea
>>> that COVID-19 came from the Wuhan lab, calling such arguments
>>> "conspiracy theories."
>>>
>>> Both men also worked to shape the discourse behind the scenes away from
>>> any focus on a lab leak. Daszak organized a group letter of scientists
>>> in The Lancet, the U.K.'s top medical journal, declaring that they
>>> "stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that
>>> COVID-19 does not have a natural origin." Daszak did not disclose his
>>> relationship to the Wuhan lab when organizing this letter; The Lancet's
>>> editor would eventually concede that this was improper.
>>>
>>> In testimony to the House coronavirus subcommittee in May 2024, Daszak
>>> would claim the "conspiracy theories" mentioned in the Lancet letter
>>> referred only to such wild early pandemic notions that COVID had pieces
>>> of HIV or snake DNA inserted into it. He said a word limit prevented him
>>>from being more precise.
>>>
>>> Fauci, meanwhile, would help corral virologists into publishing the
>>> widely cited "proximal origin" paper in early 2020. In the paper, the
>>> authors flatly declared that "we do not believe any type of
>>> laboratory-leak scenario is plausible."
>>>
>>> Yet troves of private messages and emails released by the House
>>> subcommittee's investigation show that the authors privately expressed
>>> far more openness to a lab leak theory.
>>>
>>> One of the paper's authors, Scripps Research evolutionary biologist
>>> Kristian Andersen, privately rated a lab leak as "highly likely." But
>>> Andersen had a pending $8.9 million grant application with the NIAID as
>>> the paper was drafted. That grant was later approved. In an email, one
>>> of the paper's authors, Edward Holmes, references "pressure from on
>>> high" during the drafting process.
>>>
>>> The authors of the proximal origin paper say they merely had their minds
>>> changed while drafting the paper. They were just following the
>>> scientific method.
>>>
>>> Ridley, the science writer, has a much less charitable assessment of
>>> their behavior.
>>>
>>> "That's scientific misconduct at the very least," he says, "to write a
>>> paper that says one thing and to think it's wrong in private."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hiding the Evidence
>>> There may be more we don't—and won't ever—know about Fauci's own
>>> communications with Daszak and other NIH officials about EcoHealth's
>>> work in Wuhan.
>>>
>>> In May 2024, the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic
>>> released a tranche of emails between Fauci's senior scientific adviser
>>> David Morens and Daszak, in which the two strategized about how to get
>>> EcoHealth's federal grant reinstated (after it was terminated by the
>>> Trump administration in 2020) and how the nonprofit should respond to
>>> NIH investigations into its grant work.
>>>
>>> Across multiple emails to Daszak, Morens mentioned that he frequently
>>> had conversations with Fauci about Daszak and EcoHealth. He said Fauci
>>> was trying to "protect" Daszak.
>>>
>>> Throughout these emails, Morens urged Daszak to email him on a personal
>>> email account to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests, openly
>>> admitted to deleting emails to shield them from FOIA, and said that the
>>> NIH's FOIA staff had advised him on how to hide information from records
>>> requests through deletions and strategic misspellings.
>>>
>>> Most conspicuously, Morens sent a brief reply to Daszak in April 2021 in
>>> an email chain in which the two had been discussing mounting scrutiny
>>>from Republicans and some scientists of EcoHealth's Wuhan work.
>>>
>>> "PS, i forgot to say there is no worry about FOIAs," Morens wrote. "I
>>> can either send stuff to Tony [Fauci] on his private gmail, or hand it
>>> to him at work or at his house. He is too smart to let colleagues send
>>> him stuff that could cause trouble." In another email, Morens mentioned
>>> having a "backchannel" to Fauci.
>>>
>>> Asked about Morens' comments at the June hearing of the coronavirus
>>> subcommittee, Fauci denied having substantive conversations about
>>> EcoHealth with Morens and said that his senior scientific adviser was
>>> not someone he worked terribly closely with, outside collaborating on
>>> scientific papers.
>>>
>>> The Next Pandemic
>>> Fauci's best defense is that he ran a sprawling agency that doled out
>>> billions of dollars in grants. Even the most detail-obsessed
>>> administrator couldn't possibly keep track of every single program and
>>> project. And U.S. officials had limited control over what happened in
>>> the distant, opaque Wuhan lab.
>>>
>>> But even if that's true, it's an admission of administrative negligence,
>>> since the oversight protocols weren't followed. It also implies a
>>> dramatic failure of the risky research that Fauci championed for
>>> pandemic prevention. As Ridley says, the pandemic "occurred with the
>>> very viruses that there was the most attention paid to, in the very area
>>> where there was the most research going on, where there was the biggest
>>> program looking for potential pandemic pathogens, and yet they failed to
>>> see this one coming." At a minimum, gain-of-function research didn't
>>> protect the public from the pandemic.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, the more direct case against Fauci is strong: Not only was he
>>> an ardent supporter of research widely believed to be risky, but he
>>> manipulated bureaucratic protocols in order to avoid scrutiny of that
>>> research, then responded evasively when called to account for his
>>> actions. At least one of the programs born out of Fauci's risky research
>>> crusade was pursuing exactly the type of viral enhancements that were
>>> present in COVID-19, and that research was conducted at the Wuhan
>>> virology lab in the very same city where the virus originated. Lab leak
>>> proponents cite the virus's transmissibility as evidence for a Wuhan
>>> leak: After all, EcoHealth was trying to create pathogens primed to
>>> spread rapidly in humans.
>>>
>>> The evidence is not fully conclusive. But it seems reasonably likely
>>> that Fauci pushed for what his peers repeatedly said was dangerous
>>> research, that some of that dangerous research produced a deadly viral
>>> pathogen that escaped the lab, and that Fauci helped cover up evidence
>>> and arguments for its origins.
>>>
>>> It is more than a little bit ironic that, throughout his career, Fauci
>>> fought against restrictions on gain-of-function research, casting those
>>> restrictions as counterproductive shackles on scientific progress. When
>>> a pandemic did finally break out, he would also be an ardent supporter
>>> of imposing the most restrictive controls on the general public.
>>>
>>> "Elderly, stay out of society in self-isolation. Don't go to work if you
>>> don't have to," Fauci told Science in March 2020. "No bars, no
>>> restaurants, no nothing. Only essential services." When asked in July
>>> 2022 what he might have done differently during the pandemic, Fauci said
>>> he'd have recommended much stiffer restrictions.
>>>
>>> Did Fauci, so revered as a man of science, have any evidence to support
>>> his program of lockdowns and social controls? His eventual admission in
>>> congressional testimony that the federal government's social distancing
>>> guidance was a guesstimate that "sort of just appeared"—and one that
>>> turned out to be ineffective at controlling the pandemic—bolsters the
>>> conclusion that the pandemic restrictions that shuttered schools,
>>> churches, businesses, and countless social gatherings were, in fact,
>>> ineffective tools of control. Indeed, most American efforts to control
>>> the pandemic proved ineffective: not just lockdowns and capacity
>>> restrictions, but also mask mandates, testing, and contact tracing.
>>>
>>> If nothing else, Fauci's role in the pandemic—as a public health rock
>>> star with suspicious links to the virus's origin—is a lesson in the
>>> dangers of resting too much power and authority in the hands of any one
>>> official. Throughout the pandemic, Fauci's mantra was "follow the
>>> science." But in practice, that seems to have meant "follow Fauci." Too
>>> often, America did.
>>>
>>> This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Fauci’s
>>> Pandemic."
>>
>> In the interim, we are 100% prepared/protected in the "full armor of
>> GOD" (Ephesians 6:11) which we put on as soon as we use Apostle Paul's
>> secret (Philippians 4:12). Though masking is less protective, it helps
>> us avoid the appearance of doing the evil of spreading airborne
>> pathogens while there are people getting sick because of not being
>> 100% protected. It is written that we're to "abstain from **all**
>> appearance of doing evil" (1 Thessalonians 5:22 w/**emphasis**).
>>
>> Meanwhile, the only *perfect* (Matt 5:47-8 ) way to eradicate the
>> COVID-19 virus, thereby saving lives, in the UK & elsewhere is by
>> rapidly (i.e. use the "Rapid COVID-19 Test" ) finding out at any given
>> moment, including even while on-line, who among us are unwittingly
>> contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic) in order to
>> "convince it forward" (John 15:12) for them to call their doctor and
>> self-quarantine per their doctor in hopes of stopping this pandemic.
>> Thus, we're hoping for the best while preparing for the worse-case
>> scenario of the Alpha lineage mutations and others like the Omicron,
>> Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota, Lambda, Mu & Delta lineage mutations
>> combining via slip-RNA-replication to form hybrids like "Deltamicron"
>> that may render current COVID vaccines/monoclonals/medicines/pills no
>> longer effective.
>>
>> Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry (
>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/6ZoE95d-VKc/m/14vVZoyOBgAJ
>> ) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.
>>
>> So how are you ?
>
> I am wonderfully hungry!

<Joanne> 09/14/24 Andrew/KK again vainjangling (1 Tim 1:6) ...

https://narkive.com/GHNKXeiE.10

Link to post explicating vainjangling by the eternally condemned:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/O23NguTslhI/-xLGqnNjAAAJ

"Like a moth to flame, the eternally condemned tragically return to be
ever more cursed by GOD."

Behold in wide-eyed wonder and amazement at the continued fulfillment
of this prophecy as clearly demonstrated within the following USENET
threads:

(1) Link to thread titled "LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth is our #1
Example of being wonderfully hungry;"

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/_iVmOb7q3_Q/m/E8L7TNNtAgAJ

(2) Link to thread titled "Being wonderfully hungry;"

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.med.cardiology/uCPb3ldOv5M

(3) Link to thread titled "A very very very simple definition of sin;"

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.bible.prophecy/xunFWhan_AM

(4) Link to thread titled "The LORD says 'Blessed are you who hunger
now;'"

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.bible.prophecy/e4sW8dr44rM

(5) Link to thread titled "Being wonderfully hungry like LORD Jesus;"

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.bible.prophecy/xPY1Uzl-ZNk/QeKLDNCpCwAJ

.... for the continued benefit (Romans 8:28) of those of us who are
http://WonderfullyHungry.org like GOD ( http://bit.ly/Lk2442 ) with
all glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to the LORD.

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/O23NguTslhI/pIZcsOCJBwAJ

Laus DEO !

While wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 ) in the Holy
Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy 8:3) me to hunger right now (Luke
6:21a), I pray (2 Chronicles 7:14) that GOD continues to curse
(Jeremiah 17:5) you, who are eternally condemned (Mark 3:29), more
than ever in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.

Laus DEO ! ! !

Bottom line:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/O23NguTslhI/h5lE-mr0DAAJ

<begin trichotomy>

(1) Born-again (John 3:3 & 5) humans - Folks who have GOD's Help (i.e.
Holy Spirit) to stop (John 5:14) sinning by being
http://WonderfullyHungry.org (Philippians 4:12) **but** are still
able to choose via their own "free will" to be instead
http://bit.ly/terribly_hungry (Genesis 25:32) trapped in the
entangling (Hebrews 12:1) deadly (i.e. killed immortals Adam&Eve) sin
of gluttony (Proverbs 23:2).

(2) Eternally condemned (Mark 3:29) humans - Folks who will never have
GOD's Help (i.e. Holy Spirit) to stop being
http://bit.ly/terribly_hungry (2 Kings 6:29) as evident by their
constant vainjangling (1 Timothy 1:6) about everything except how to
stop (John 5:14) sinning.

(3) Perishing humans - The remaining folks who may possibly (Matthew
19:26) become born-again (John 3:3 & 5) as new (2 Corinthians 5:17)
creatures in Christ.

<end trichotomy>

Suggested further reading:
http://T3WiJ.com

+++

someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD wrote:
> HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
>> Subject: The LORD says "Blessed are you who hunger now ..."

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.bible.prophecy/e4sW8dr44rM/NSkTJxvFBAAJ

>Shame on andrew, look at his red face.

LIE.

The color of my face in **not** visible here on USENET nor is the
color of my face red for those who can see me.

>He is trying to pull a fast one. His scripture bit is found among these:
>
>'14 Bible verses about Spiritual Hunger'

Such are the lies coming from the lying pens of the
http://bit.ly/terribly_hungry (Genesis 25:32) commentators.

That which is "spiritual" is independent of time so that there
would've been no reference to "now."

Therefore, the LORD is referring to physical hunger here instead of
the spiritual "hunger and thirst for righteousness" elsewhere in
Scripture.

Indeed, physical hunger can **not** coexist with physical thirst
because the latter results in the loss of saliva needed for physical
hunger.

It is when we hunger for food "now" (Luke 6:21a) that we are able to
eat food "now."

No such time constraints exist for "spiritual hunger."

Moreover, the perspective of Luke 6:21a through the eyes of a
physician (i.e. Dr. Luke) would be logically expected to be physical
instead of spiritual.

All glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD for His compelling you
to unwittingly demonstrate your ever worsening cognitive condition
which is tragically a consequence of His cursing (Jeremiah 17:5) you
more than ever.

Laus DEO !

+++

someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD perseverated:
(in a vain attempt to refute posts about being wonderfully hungry)

>Psalms
>81:10 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt:
>open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.

Indeed, receiving a mouthful (Psalm 81:10) of manna from GOD will only
make His http://WDJW.great-site.net/Redeemed want even more, so that
we're even http://bit.ly/wonderfully_hungrier with all glory (
http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD.

Laus DEO !

>Proverbs
>13:25 The righteous has enough to satisfy his appetite, But the stomach of
>the wicked is in need.

Indeed, the righteous know to be satisfied (Luke 6:21a) with an omer
(Exodus 16:16) of manna, while the wicked need (Proverbs 13:25) this
knowledge as evident by their eating until they are full (i.e.
satiated).

>Joel
>2:26 And ye shall eat in plenty, and be satisfied, and praise the name of
>the LORD your God, that hath dealt wondrously with you: and my
>people shall never be ashamed.

Indeed, an omer (32 ounces per Revelation 6:6) of manna is plenty
(Joel 2:26) with all glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD and to
the shame of you, who are eternally (Mark 3:29) condemned.

Laus DEO ! !

>Psalms
>107 For he satisfies the thirsty and fills the hungry with good things.

Indeed, being filled (Psalm 107:9) with an omer (Exodus 16:16) of
manna is a Wonderful (Isaiah 9:6) thing while being satiated (i.e.
full) is evil.

>Acts
>14:17 "Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by
>giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying
>your hearts with food and gladness."

In the interim, you, who are eternally (Mark 3:29) condemned, will
never be satisfied (Acts 14:17) because you are ever more cursed
(Jeremiah 17:5) by GOD.

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/uCPb3ldOv5M/KgM8NFKuAQAJ

+++

> someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD perseverated:
>> HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>
>> Subject: a very very very simple definition of sin ...

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/mXmFD9kIocc/y8GNXircBQAJ

>> Does andrew's "definition" agree with scripture? Let's see in 1 John:

Actually, sin is **not** defined in 1 John 1:8-10

>> John wrote this to christians. The greek grammer (sic) speaks of an ongoing
>> status. He includes himself in that status.

John was a Jew instead of a Greek so there is really no reason to
think that Greek grammar is relevant here.

>> 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is
>> not in us.
>>
>> 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins,
>> and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
>>
>> 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is
>> not in us.

John also wrote earlier at John 5:14 that LORD Jesus commands:

"Now stop sinning or something worse may happen to you." (John 5:14)

And, indeed, your being eternally condemned (Mark 3:29) & ever more
cursed (Jeremiah 17:5) by GOD, as evident by your ever worsening
cognitive deficits, is really worse.

Now again, here's how to really stop sinning as LORD Jesus commands
(John 5:14):

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.bible.prophecy/2-Qpn-o81J4/ldGubKEZAgAJ

While wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 ) in the Holy
Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy 8:3) me to hunger right now (Luke
6:21a), I again pray (2 Chronicles 7:14) that GOD continues to curse
(Jeremiah 17:5) you, who are eternally condemned (Mark 3:29), more
than ever in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.

Laus DEO ! ! !

Again, this is done in hopes of convincing all reading this to stop
being http://bit.ly/terribly_hungry (2 Kings 6:29) where all are in
danger of becoming eternally condemned (Mark 3:29) just as had
happened to Ananias and Sapphira and more contemporaneously to Bob
Pastorio.

Again, the LORD did strike dead http://bit.ly/Bob_Pastorio on Fool's
day just 9+ years ago:

http://bobs-amanuensis.livejournal.com/8728.html

Again, this is done ...

http://bit.ly/HeartDocAndrew touts hunger (Luke 6:21a) with all glory
( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD, Who causes us to hunger
(Deuteronomy 8:3) when He blesses us right now (Luke 6:21a) thereby
removing the http://WDJW.great-site.net/VAT from around the heart

Andrew B. Chung Ph.D (plagiarised) MD (revoked)about 3 hours ago
> ReplyPermalinkOn Sat, 14 Sep 2024 17:37:19 -0700, NOT Michael Ejercito
>> Andrew B. Chung Ph.D (plagiarised) MD (revoked)about 6 hours ago
>>> ReplyPermalinkOn Sat, 14 Sep 2024 11:11:36 -0700, NOT Michael Ejercito
>>>> As a matter of fact, billions of people across the world wake up to
>>>> slant eyes every morning, like the woman in this picture.
>>>> https://www.instagram.com/p/C4yvA69yG4Y/
>>> As a REAL matter of fact, Asian subwomen spend BILLIONS of $$$ on
>>> blapheroplasties (eyelid surgery) every year to get RID of slant eyes
>>> and TRY to LOOK halfway HUMAN!
>> Not that you can show.
> It's a FACT, gook. Why would any gook want to LOOK like a gook?
Because some people find slant eyes to be a turn on.

>> you are just jealous of the woman in that picture, for not only does
>> she wake up regularly to a pair of slant eyes, she has two sons because
> of a man with slant eyes!
> Two half-human sub-sons who should have been strangled upon excretion.
Yet again, you are on record for wanting to strangle babies!

Her sons were rewards for heterosexual relations.

>>>> Mark Zuckerberg is another person who wakes up to slant eyes every
>>>> morning.
>>> Zuckersteen is just a jew.
>> Zuckerberg is just better than you.
> Zuckersteen is not just a jew but a sleazy jew asshole. Very fitting
> that he should end up with a gook. What WHITE woman would want
> something like THAT?
No doubt plenty of them are tempted to drop their panties and
spread their thighs and lady lips for him.

But he is reserved for ONE woman- his WIFE!

Did a slant-eyed girl turns down your sexual advances?

Or was that a slant-eyed BOY?

The following article explains your pathology.

http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/11/historys_oldest_hatred/

History's oldest hatred
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / March 11, 2009
Email|Print|Single Page||Text size – +

ANTI-SEMITISM is an ancient derangement, the oldest of hatreds, so
it is strange that it lacks a more meaningful name. The misnomer
"anti-Semitism" - a term coined in 1879 by the German agitator Wilhelm
Marr, who wanted a scientific-sounding euphemism for Judenhass, or
Jew-hatred - is particularly inane, since hostility to Jews has never
had anything to do with Semites or being Semitic.

Perhaps there is no good name for a virus as mutable as anti-Semitism.
"The Jews have been objects of hatred in pagan, religious, and secular
societies," write Joseph Telushkin and Dennis Prager in "Why the Jews?,"
their classic study of anti-Semitism. "Fascists have accused them of
being Communists, and Communists have branded them capitalists. Jews who
live in non-Jewish societies have been accused of having dual loyalties,
while Jews who live in the Jewish state have been condemned as
'racists.' Poor Jews are bullied, and rich Jews are resented. Jews have
been branded as both rootless cosmopolitans and ethnic chauvinists. Jews
who assimilate have been called a 'fifth column,' while those who stay
together spark hatred for remaining separate."

There was Jew-hatred before there was Christianity or Islam, before
Nazism or Communism, before Zionism or the Middle East conflict. This
week Jews celebrate the festival of Purim, gathering in synagogues to
read the biblical book of Esther. Set in ancient Persia, it tells of
Haman, a powerful royal adviser who is insulted when the Jewish sage
Mordechai refuses to bow down to him. Haman resolves to wipe out the
empire's Jews and makes the case for genocide in an appeal to the king:

"There is a certain people scattered and dispersed among . . . all the
provinces of your kingdom, and their laws are different from those of
other peoples, and the king's laws they do not keep, so it is of no
benefit for the king to tolerate them. If it please the king, let it be
written that they be destroyed."

When the king agrees, Haman makes plans "to annihilate, to kill and
destroy all the Jews, the young and the elderly, children and women, in
one day . . . and to take their property for plunder."

What drives such bloodlust? Haman's indictment accuses the Jews of
lacking national loyalty, of insinuating themselves throughout the
empire, of flouting the king's law. But the Jews of Persia had done
nothing to justify Haman's murderous anti-Semitism - just as Jews in
later ages did nothing that justified their persecution under the Church
or Islam, or their repression at the hands of Russian czars and Soviet
commissars, or their slaughter by Nazi Germany. When the president of
Iran today calls for the extirpation of the Jewish state, when firebombs
are hurled at synagogues in London and Paris and Chicago, it is not
because Jews deserve to be victimized.

Many Jews are no saints, but the paranoid frenzy that is anti-Semitism
is not explained by what Jews do, but by what they are. They are the
object of anti-Semitism, not its cause. That is why the haters'
rationales can be so wildly inconsistent and their agendas so
contradictory. What do those who vilify Jews as greedy bankers have in
common with those who revile them as fiendish Bolsheviks? Nothing, save
an irrational obsession with Jews.

At one point, Haman lets the mask slip. He boasts to his friends and
family of "the glory of his riches, and the great number of his sons,
and everything in which the king had promoted him and elevated him."
Still, he seethes with rage and frustration: "Yet all this is worthless
to me so long as I see Mordechai the Jew sitting at the king's gate."
That is the unforgivable offense: "Mordechai the Jew" refuses to blend
in, to be just like everyone else. He goes on sitting there -
undigested, unassimilated, and therefore unbearable.

Of course Haman had his ostensible reasons for targeting Jews. So did
Hitler and Arafat, so does Ahmadinejad. Sometimes the anti-Semite
focuses on the Jew's religion, sometimes on his laws and lifestyle,
sometimes on his professional achievements. Under it all, however, it is
the Jew's Jewishness that the anti-Semite cannot abide.

With all their flaws and failings, the Jewish people endure, their role
in history not yet finished. So the world's oldest hatred endures too,
as obsessive and indestructible - and deadly - as ever.

(Joanne) 09/15/24 Again praying w/ Michael here ...

https://narkive.com/WHqv8Aoy.8

<Joanne> 09/15/24 Andrew/KK again vainjangling (1 Tim 1:6) ...

https://narkive.com/GHNKXeiE.10

Link to post explicating vainjangling by the eternally condemned:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/O23NguTslhI/-xLGqnNjAAAJ

"Like a moth to flame, the eternally condemned tragically return to be
ever more cursed by GOD."

Behold in wide-eyed wonder and amazement at the continued fulfillment
of this prophecy as clearly demonstrated within the following USENET
threads:

(1) Link to thread titled "LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth is our #1
Example of being wonderfully hungry;"

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/_iVmOb7q3_Q/m/E8L7TNNtAgAJ

(2) Link to thread titled "Being wonderfully hungry;"

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.med.cardiology/uCPb3ldOv5M

(3) Link to thread titled "A very very very simple definition of sin;"

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.bible.prophecy/xunFWhan_AM

(4) Link to thread titled "The LORD says 'Blessed are you who hunger
now;'"

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.bible.prophecy/e4sW8dr44rM

(5) Link to thread titled "Being wonderfully hungry like LORD Jesus;"

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.bible.prophecy/xPY1Uzl-ZNk/QeKLDNCpCwAJ

.... for the continued benefit (Romans 8:28) of those of us who are
http://WonderfullyHungry.org like GOD ( http://bit.ly/Lk2442 ) with
all glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to the LORD.

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/O23NguTslhI/pIZcsOCJBwAJ

Laus DEO !

While wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 ) in the Holy
Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy 8:3) me to hunger right now (Luke
6:21a), I pray (2 Chronicles 7:14) that GOD continues to curse
(Jeremiah 17:5) you, who are eternally condemned (Mark 3:29), more
than ever in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.

Laus DEO ! ! !

Bottom line:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/O23NguTslhI/h5lE-mr0DAAJ

<begin trichotomy>

(1) Born-again (John 3:3 & 5) humans - Folks who have GOD's Help (i.e.
Holy Spirit) to stop (John 5:14) sinning by being
http://WonderfullyHungry.org (Philippians 4:12) **but** are still
able to choose via their own "free will" to be instead
http://bit.ly/terribly_hungry (Genesis 25:32) trapped in the
entangling (Hebrews 12:1) deadly (i.e. killed immortals Adam&Eve) sin
of gluttony (Proverbs 23:2).

(2) Eternally condemned (Mark 3:29) humans - Folks who will never have
GOD's Help (i.e. Holy Spirit) to stop being
http://bit.ly/terribly_hungry (2 Kings 6:29) as evident by their
constant vainjangling (1 Timothy 1:6) about everything except how to
stop (John 5:14) sinning.

(3) Perishing humans - The remaining folks who may possibly (Matthew
19:26) become born-again (John 3:3 & 5) as new (2 Corinthians 5:17)
creatures in Christ.

<end trichotomy>

Suggested further reading:
http://T3WiJ.com

+++

someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD wrote:
> HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
>> Subject: The LORD says "Blessed are you who hunger now ..."

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.bible.prophecy/e4sW8dr44rM/NSkTJxvFBAAJ

>Shame on andrew, look at his red face.

LIE.

The color of my face in **not** visible here on USENET nor is the
color of my face red for those who can see me.

>He is trying to pull a fast one. His scripture bit is found among these:
>
>'14 Bible verses about Spiritual Hunger'

Such are the lies coming from the lying pens of the
http://bit.ly/terribly_hungry (Genesis 25:32) commentators.

That which is "spiritual" is independent of time so that there
would've been no reference to "now."

Therefore, the LORD is referring to physical hunger here instead of
the spiritual "hunger and thirst for righteousness" elsewhere in
Scripture.

Indeed, physical hunger can **not** coexist with physical thirst
because the latter results in the loss of saliva needed for physical
hunger.

It is when we hunger for food "now" (Luke 6:21a) that we are able to
eat food "now."

No such time constraints exist for "spiritual hunger."

Moreover, the perspective of Luke 6:21a through the eyes of a
physician (i.e. Dr. Luke) would be logically expected to be physical
instead of spiritual.

All glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD for His compelling you
to unwittingly demonstrate your ever worsening cognitive condition
which is tragically a consequence of His cursing (Jeremiah 17:5) you
more than ever.

Laus DEO !

+++

someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD perseverated:
(in a vain attempt to refute posts about being wonderfully hungry)

>Psalms
>81:10 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt:
>open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.

Indeed, receiving a mouthful (Psalm 81:10) of manna from GOD will only
make His http://WDJW.great-site.net/Redeemed want even more, so that
we're even http://bit.ly/wonderfully_hungrier with all glory (
http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD.

Laus DEO !

>Proverbs
>13:25 The righteous has enough to satisfy his appetite, But the stomach of
>the wicked is in need.

Indeed, the righteous know to be satisfied (Luke 6:21a) with an omer
(Exodus 16:16) of manna, while the wicked need (Proverbs 13:25) this
knowledge as evident by their eating until they are full (i.e.
satiated).

>Joel
>2:26 And ye shall eat in plenty, and be satisfied, and praise the name of
>the LORD your God, that hath dealt wondrously with you: and my
>people shall never be ashamed.

Indeed, an omer (32 ounces per Revelation 6:6) of manna is plenty
(Joel 2:26) with all glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD and to
the shame of you, who are eternally (Mark 3:29) condemned.

Laus DEO ! !

>Psalms
>107 For he satisfies the thirsty and fills the hungry with good things.

Indeed, being filled (Psalm 107:9) with an omer (Exodus 16:16) of
manna is a Wonderful (Isaiah 9:6) thing while being satiated (i.e.
full) is evil.

>Acts
>14:17 "Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by
>giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying
>your hearts with food and gladness."

In the interim, you, who are eternally (Mark 3:29) condemned, will
never be satisfied (Acts 14:17) because you are ever more cursed
(Jeremiah 17:5) by GOD.

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/uCPb3ldOv5M/KgM8NFKuAQAJ

+++

> someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD perseverated:
>> HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>
>> Subject: a very very very simple definition of sin ...

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/mXmFD9kIocc/y8GNXircBQAJ

>> Does andrew's "definition" agree with scripture? Let's see in 1 John:

Actually, sin is **not** defined in 1 John 1:8-10

>> John wrote this to christians. The greek grammer (sic) speaks of an ongoing
>> status. He includes himself in that status.

John was a Jew instead of a Greek so there is really no reason to
think that Greek grammar is relevant here.

>> 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is
>> not in us.
>>
>> 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins,
>> and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
>>
>> 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is
>> not in us.

John also wrote earlier at John 5:14 that LORD Jesus commands:

"Now stop sinning or something worse may happen to you." (John 5:14)

And, indeed, your being eternally condemned (Mark 3:29) & ever more
cursed (Jeremiah 17:5) by GOD, as evident by your ever worsening
cognitive deficits, is really worse.

Now again, here's how to really stop sinning as LORD Jesus commands
(John 5:14):

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.bible.prophecy/2-Qpn-o81J4/ldGubKEZAgAJ

While wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 ) in the Holy
Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy 8:3) me to hunger right now (Luke
6:21a), I again pray (2 Chronicles 7:14) that GOD continues to curse
(Jeremiah 17:5) you, who are eternally condemned (Mark 3:29), more
than ever in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.

Laus DEO ! ! !

Again, this is done in hopes of convincing all reading this to stop
being http://bit.ly/terribly_hungry (2 Kings 6:29) where all are in
danger of becoming eternally condemned (Mark 3:29) just as had
happened to Ananias and Sapphira and more contemporaneously to Bob
Pastorio.

Again, the LORD did strike dead http://bit.ly/Bob_Pastorio on Fool's
day just 9+ years ago:

http://bobs-amanuensis.livejournal.com/8728.html

Again, this is done ...

http://bit.ly/HeartDocAndrew touts hunger (Luke 6:21a) with all glory
( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD, Who causes us to hunger
(Deuteronomy 8:3) when He blesses us right now (Luke 6:21a) thereby
removing the http://WDJW.great-site.net/VAT from around the heart

Andrew B. Chung Ph.D (plagiarised) MD (revoked)4 days ago
> ReplyPermalinkOn Sun, 15 Sep 2024 09:16:48 -0700, NOT Michael Ejercito
>> No doubt plenty of them are tempted to drop their panties and
>> spread their thighs and lady lips for him.
> NO Human woman would want to drop her panties and spread her thighs
> for a subhuman like Zuckersteen. Especially after he's been with a
> gook!
Plenty of them are willing to do just that.

>> But he is reserved for ONE woman- his WIFE!
> His 'marriage' to a gook is INVALID, gook! Marriage is ONLY for pairs
> of opposite sex, adult, unrelated HUMANS!
Mark Zuckerberg and his wife are just that- a pair of opposite sex,
unrelated adult humans!

Michael

(Joanne) 09/19/24 Again praying w/ Michael here ...

https://narkive.com/WHqv8Aoy.8

<Joanne> 09/19/24 Andrew/KK again vainjangling (1 Tim 1:6) ...

https://narkive.com/GHNKXeiE.10

Link to post explicating vainjangling by the eternally condemned:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/O23NguTslhI/-xLGqnNjAAAJ

"Like a moth to flame, the eternally condemned tragically return to be
ever more cursed by GOD."

Behold in wide-eyed wonder and amazement at the continued fulfillment
of this prophecy as clearly demonstrated within the following USENET
threads:

(1) Link to thread titled "LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth is our #1
Example of being wonderfully hungry;"

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/_iVmOb7q3_Q/m/E8L7TNNtAgAJ

(2) Link to thread titled "Being wonderfully hungry;"

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.med.cardiology/uCPb3ldOv5M

(3) Link to thread titled "A very very very simple definition of sin;"

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.bible.prophecy/xunFWhan_AM

(4) Link to thread titled "The LORD says 'Blessed are you who hunger
now;'"

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.bible.prophecy/e4sW8dr44rM

(5) Link to thread titled "Being wonderfully hungry like LORD Jesus;"

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.bible.prophecy/xPY1Uzl-ZNk/QeKLDNCpCwAJ

.... for the continued benefit (Romans 8:28) of those of us who are
http://WonderfullyHungry.org like GOD ( http://bit.ly/Lk2442 ) with
all glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to the LORD.

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/O23NguTslhI/pIZcsOCJBwAJ

Laus DEO !

While wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 ) in the Holy
Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy 8:3) me to hunger right now (Luke
6:21a), I pray (2 Chronicles 7:14) that GOD continues to curse
(Jeremiah 17:5) you, who are eternally condemned (Mark 3:29), more
than ever in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.

Laus DEO ! ! !

Bottom line:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/O23NguTslhI/h5lE-mr0DAAJ

<begin trichotomy>

(1) Born-again (John 3:3 & 5) humans - Folks who have GOD's Help (i.e.
Holy Spirit) to stop (John 5:14) sinning by being
http://WonderfullyHungry.org (Philippians 4:12) **but** are still
able to choose via their own "free will" to be instead
http://bit.ly/terribly_hungry (Genesis 25:32) trapped in the
entangling (Hebrews 12:1) deadly (i.e. killed immortals Adam&Eve) sin
of gluttony (Proverbs 23:2).

(2) Eternally condemned (Mark 3:29) humans - Folks who will never have
GOD's Help (i.e. Holy Spirit) to stop being
http://bit.ly/terribly_hungry (2 Kings 6:29) as evident by their
constant vainjangling (1 Timothy 1:6) about everything except how to
stop (John 5:14) sinning.

(3) Perishing humans - The remaining folks who may possibly (Matthew
19:26) become born-again (John 3:3 & 5) as new (2 Corinthians 5:17)
creatures in Christ.

<end trichotomy>

Suggested further reading:
http://T3WiJ.com

+++

someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD wrote:
> HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
>> Subject: The LORD says "Blessed are you who hunger now ..."

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.bible.prophecy/e4sW8dr44rM/NSkTJxvFBAAJ

>Shame on andrew, look at his red face.

LIE.

The color of my face in **not** visible here on USENET nor is the
color of my face red for those who can see me.

>He is trying to pull a fast one. His scripture bit is found among these:
>
>'14 Bible verses about Spiritual Hunger'

Such are the lies coming from the lying pens of the
http://bit.ly/terribly_hungry (Genesis 25:32) commentators.

That which is "spiritual" is independent of time so that there
would've been no reference to "now."

Therefore, the LORD is referring to physical hunger here instead of
the spiritual "hunger and thirst for righteousness" elsewhere in
Scripture.

Indeed, physical hunger can **not** coexist with physical thirst
because the latter results in the loss of saliva needed for physical
hunger.

It is when we hunger for food "now" (Luke 6:21a) that we are able to
eat food "now."

No such time constraints exist for "spiritual hunger."

Moreover, the perspective of Luke 6:21a through the eyes of a
physician (i.e. Dr. Luke) would be logically expected to be physical
instead of spiritual.

All glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD for His compelling you
to unwittingly demonstrate your ever worsening cognitive condition
which is tragically a consequence of His cursing (Jeremiah 17:5) you
more than ever.

Laus DEO !

+++

someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD perseverated:
(in a vain attempt to refute posts about being wonderfully hungry)

>Psalms
>81:10 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt:
>open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.

Indeed, receiving a mouthful (Psalm 81:10) of manna from GOD will only
make His http://WDJW.great-site.net/Redeemed want even more, so that
we're even http://bit.ly/wonderfully_hungrier with all glory (
http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD.

Laus DEO !

>Proverbs
>13:25 The righteous has enough to satisfy his appetite, But the stomach of
>the wicked is in need.

Indeed, the righteous know to be satisfied (Luke 6:21a) with an omer
(Exodus 16:16) of manna, while the wicked need (Proverbs 13:25) this
knowledge as evident by their eating until they are full (i.e.
satiated).

>Joel
>2:26 And ye shall eat in plenty, and be satisfied, and praise the name of
>the LORD your God, that hath dealt wondrously with you: and my
>people shall never be ashamed.

Indeed, an omer (32 ounces per Revelation 6:6) of manna is plenty
(Joel 2:26) with all glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD and to
the shame of you, who are eternally (Mark 3:29) condemned.

Laus DEO ! !

>Psalms
>107 For he satisfies the thirsty and fills the hungry with good things.

Indeed, being filled (Psalm 107:9) with an omer (Exodus 16:16) of
manna is a Wonderful (Isaiah 9:6) thing while being satiated (i.e.
full) is evil.

>Acts
>14:17 "Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by
>giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying
>your hearts with food and gladness."

In the interim, you, who are eternally (Mark 3:29) condemned, will
never be satisfied (Acts 14:17) because you are ever more cursed
(Jeremiah 17:5) by GOD.

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/uCPb3ldOv5M/KgM8NFKuAQAJ

+++

> someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD perseverated:
>> HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>
>> Subject: a very very very simple definition of sin ...

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/mXmFD9kIocc/y8GNXircBQAJ

>> Does andrew's "definition" agree with scripture? Let's see in 1 John:

Actually, sin is **not** defined in 1 John 1:8-10

>> John wrote this to christians. The greek grammer (sic) speaks of an ongoing
>> status. He includes himself in that status.

John was a Jew instead of a Greek so there is really no reason to
think that Greek grammar is relevant here.

>> 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is
>> not in us.
>>
>> 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins,
>> and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
>>
>> 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is
>> not in us.

John also wrote earlier at John 5:14 that LORD Jesus commands:

"Now stop sinning or something worse may happen to you." (John 5:14)

And, indeed, your being eternally condemned (Mark 3:29) & ever more
cursed (Jeremiah 17:5) by GOD, as evident by your ever worsening
cognitive deficits, is really worse.

Now again, here's how to really stop sinning as LORD Jesus commands
(John 5:14):

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.bible.prophecy/2-Qpn-o81J4/ldGubKEZAgAJ

While wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 ) in the Holy
Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy 8:3) me to hunger right now (Luke
6:21a), I again pray (2 Chronicles 7:14) that GOD continues to curse
(Jeremiah 17:5) you, who are eternally condemned (Mark 3:29), more
than ever in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.

Laus DEO ! ! !

Again, this is done in hopes of convincing all reading this to stop
being http://bit.ly/terribly_hungry (2 Kings 6:29) where all are in
danger of becoming eternally condemned (Mark 3:29) just as had
happened to Ananias and Sapphira and more contemporaneously to Bob
Pastorio.

Again, the LORD did strike dead http://bit.ly/Bob_Pastorio on Fool's
day just 9+ years ago:

http://bobs-amanuensis.livejournal.com/8728.html

Again, this is done ...

http://bit.ly/HeartDocAndrew touts hunger (Luke 6:21a) with all glory
( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD, Who causes us to hunger
(Deuteronomy 8:3) when He blesses us right now (Luke 6:21a) thereby
removing the http://WDJW.great-site.net/VAT from around the heart

HeartDoc Andrew wrote:
> <Joanne> 09/19/24 Andrew/KK again vainjangling (1 Tim 1:6) ...
>
> https://narkive.com/GHNKXeiE.10
>
> Link to post explicating vainjangling by the eternally condemned:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/O23NguTslhI/-xLGqnNjAAAJ
>
> "Like a moth to flame, the eternally condemned tragically return to be
> ever more cursed by GOD."
>
> Behold in wide-eyed wonder and amazement at the continued fulfillment
> of this prophecy as clearly demonstrated within the following USENET
> threads:
>
> (1) Link to thread titled "LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth is our #1
> Example of being wonderfully hungry;"
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/_iVmOb7q3_Q/m/E8L7TNNtAgAJ
>
> (2) Link to thread titled "Being wonderfully hungry;"
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.med.cardiology/uCPb3ldOv5M
>
> (3) Link to thread titled "A very very very simple definition of sin;"
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.bible.prophecy/xunFWhan_AM
>
> (4) Link to thread titled "The LORD says 'Blessed are you who hunger
> now;'"
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.bible.prophecy/e4sW8dr44rM
>
> (5) Link to thread titled "Being wonderfully hungry like LORD Jesus;"
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.bible.prophecy/xPY1Uzl-ZNk/QeKLDNCpCwAJ
>
> ... for the continued benefit (Romans 8:28) of those of us who are
> http://WonderfullyHungry.org like GOD ( http://bit.ly/Lk2442 ) with
> all glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to the LORD.
>
> Source:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/O23NguTslhI/pIZcsOCJBwAJ
>
> Laus DEO !
This track record speaks for itself.

Jim Kennemur

Glen D. Yeadon "silverback"

Benjamin Cramer

Boedicia

Bolt Upright

Jason P.

Aviroce

Jewdas

JeSSe

Carolina Reb

plainolantijewishantiamericantraitor

Topaz

Kevin Alfred Strom

Larry L. Jansen

Mark C. Craig

Jerry L. White

Ian McKinney

Doc Tavish

ALL GONE!!!

(Joanne) 09/30/24 Again praying w/ Michael here ...

https://narkive.com/WHqv8Aoy.8

HeartDoc Andrew wrote:
> (Joanne) 09/30/24 Again praying w/ Michael here ...
>
> https://narkive.com/WHqv8Aoy.8
>
Let us pray!

Michael

On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 07:49:16 -0700, Michael Ejercito
<MEjercit@HotMail.com> wrote:

>HeartDoc Andrew wrote:
>> (Joanne) 09/30/24 Again praying w/ Michael here ...
>>
>> https://narkive.com/WHqv8Aoy.8
>>
> Let us pray!
>
>
> Michael

Keep praying that ICE doesn't you back home, gook!

https://postimg.cc/qtBP2bS2

On Sun, 29 Sep 2024 22:26:50 -0700, Michael Ejercito
<MEjercit@HotMail.com> wrote:

>HeartDoc Andrew wrote:
>> <Joanne> 09/19/24 Andrew/KK again vainjangling (1 Tim 1:6) ...
>>
>> https://narkive.com/GHNKXeiE.10
>>
>> Link to post explicating vainjangling by the eternally condemned:
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/O23NguTslhI/-xLGqnNjAAAJ
>>
>> "Like a moth to flame, the eternally condemned tragically return to be
>> ever more cursed by GOD."
>>
>> Behold in wide-eyed wonder and amazement at the continued fulfillment
>> of this prophecy as clearly demonstrated within the following USENET
>> threads:
>>
>> (1) Link to thread titled "LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth is our #1
>> Example of being wonderfully hungry;"
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/_iVmOb7q3_Q/m/E8L7TNNtAgAJ
>>
>> (2) Link to thread titled "Being wonderfully hungry;"
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.med.cardiology/uCPb3ldOv5M
>>
>> (3) Link to thread titled "A very very very simple definition of sin;"
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.bible.prophecy/xunFWhan_AM
>>
>> (4) Link to thread titled "The LORD says 'Blessed are you who hunger
>> now;'"
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.bible.prophecy/e4sW8dr44rM
>>
>> (5) Link to thread titled "Being wonderfully hungry like LORD Jesus;"
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.bible.prophecy/xPY1Uzl-ZNk/QeKLDNCpCwAJ
>>
>> ... for the continued benefit (Romans 8:28) of those of us who are
>> http://WonderfullyHungry.org like GOD ( http://bit.ly/Lk2442 ) with
>> all glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to the LORD.
>>
>> Source:
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/O23NguTslhI/pIZcsOCJBwAJ
>>
>> Laus DEO !
> This track record speaks for itself.
>
>
> Jim Kennemur
>
> Glen D. Yeadon "silverback"
>
> Benjamin Cramer
>
> Boedicia
>
> Bolt Upright
>
> Jason P.
>
> Aviroce
>
> Jewdas
>
> JeSSe
>
> Carolina Reb
>
> plainolantijewishantiamericantraitor
>
> Topaz
>
> Kevin Alfred Strom
>
> Larry L. Jansen
>
> Mark C. Craig
>
> Jerry L. White
>
> Ian McKinney
>
> Doc Tavish
>
> ALL GONE!!!

Where's Peeler? LOL!!!!

<Joanne> 09/30/24 Loose/KK again vainjangling (1 Tim 1:6) ...

https://narkive.com/GHNKXeiE.10

Link to post explicating vainjangling by the eternally condemned:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/O23NguTslhI/-xLGqnNjAAAJ

"Like a moth to flame, the eternally condemned tragically return to be
ever more cursed by GOD."

Behold in wide-eyed wonder and amazement at the continued fulfillment
of this prophecy as clearly demonstrated within the following USENET
threads:

(1) Link to thread titled "LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth is our #1
Example of being wonderfully hungry;"

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/_iVmOb7q3_Q/m/E8L7TNNtAgAJ

(2) Link to thread titled "Being wonderfully hungry;"

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.med.cardiology/uCPb3ldOv5M

(3) Link to thread titled "A very very very simple definition of sin;"

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.bible.prophecy/xunFWhan_AM

(4) Link to thread titled "The LORD says 'Blessed are you who hunger
now;'"

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.bible.prophecy/e4sW8dr44rM

(5) Link to thread titled "Being wonderfully hungry like LORD Jesus;"

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.bible.prophecy/xPY1Uzl-ZNk/QeKLDNCpCwAJ

.... for the continued benefit (Romans 8:28) of those of us who are
http://WonderfullyHungry.org like GOD ( http://bit.ly/Lk2442 ) with
all glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to the LORD.

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/O23NguTslhI/pIZcsOCJBwAJ

Laus DEO !

While wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 ) in the Holy
Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy 8:3) me to hunger right now (Luke
6:21a), I pray (2 Chronicles 7:14) that GOD continues to curse
(Jeremiah 17:5) you, who are eternally condemned (Mark 3:29), more
than ever in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.

Laus DEO ! ! !

Bottom line:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/O23NguTslhI/h5lE-mr0DAAJ

<begin trichotomy>

(1) Born-again (John 3:3 & 5) humans - Folks who have GOD's Help (i.e.
Holy Spirit) to stop (John 5:14) sinning by being
http://WonderfullyHungry.org (Philippians 4:12) **but** are still
able to choose via their own "free will" to be instead
http://bit.ly/terribly_hungry (Genesis 25:32) trapped in the
entangling (Hebrews 12:1) deadly (i.e. killed immortals Adam&Eve) sin
of gluttony (Proverbs 23:2).

(2) Eternally condemned (Mark 3:29) humans - Folks who will never have
GOD's Help (i.e. Holy Spirit) to stop being
http://bit.ly/terribly_hungry (2 Kings 6:29) as evident by their
constant vainjangling (1 Timothy 1:6) about everything except how to
stop (John 5:14) sinning.

(3) Perishing humans - The remaining folks who may possibly (Matthew
19:26) become born-again (John 3:3 & 5) as new (2 Corinthians 5:17)
creatures in Christ.

<end trichotomy>

Suggested further reading:
http://T3WiJ.com

+++

someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD wrote:
> HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
>> Subject: The LORD says "Blessed are you who hunger now ..."

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.bible.prophecy/e4sW8dr44rM/NSkTJxvFBAAJ

>Shame on andrew, look at his red face.

LIE.

The color of my face in **not** visible here on USENET nor is the
color of my face red for those who can see me.

>He is trying to pull a fast one. His scripture bit is found among these:
>
>'14 Bible verses about Spiritual Hunger'

Such are the lies coming from the lying pens of the
http://bit.ly/terribly_hungry (Genesis 25:32) commentators.

That which is "spiritual" is independent of time so that there
would've been no reference to "now."

Therefore, the LORD is referring to physical hunger here instead of
the spiritual "hunger and thirst for righteousness" elsewhere in
Scripture.

Indeed, physical hunger can **not** coexist with physical thirst
because the latter results in the loss of saliva needed for physical
hunger.

It is when we hunger for food "now" (Luke 6:21a) that we are able to
eat food "now."

No such time constraints exist for "spiritual hunger."

Moreover, the perspective of Luke 6:21a through the eyes of a
physician (i.e. Dr. Luke) would be logically expected to be physical
instead of spiritual.

All glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD for His compelling you
to unwittingly demonstrate your ever worsening cognitive condition
which is tragically a consequence of His cursing (Jeremiah 17:5) you
more than ever.

Laus DEO !

+++

someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD perseverated:
(in a vain attempt to refute posts about being wonderfully hungry)

>Psalms
>81:10 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt:
>open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.

Indeed, receiving a mouthful (Psalm 81:10) of manna from GOD will only
make His http://WDJW.great-site.net/Redeemed want even more, so that
we're even http://bit.ly/wonderfully_hungrier with all glory (
http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD.

Laus DEO !

>Proverbs
>13:25 The righteous has enough to satisfy his appetite, But the stomach of
>the wicked is in need.

Indeed, the righteous know to be satisfied (Luke 6:21a) with an omer
(Exodus 16:16) of manna, while the wicked need (Proverbs 13:25) this
knowledge as evident by their eating until they are full (i.e.
satiated).

>Joel
>2:26 And ye shall eat in plenty, and be satisfied, and praise the name of
>the LORD your God, that hath dealt wondrously with you: and my
>people shall never be ashamed.

Indeed, an omer (32 ounces per Revelation 6:6) of manna is plenty
(Joel 2:26) with all glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD and to
the shame of you, who are eternally (Mark 3:29) condemned.

Laus DEO ! !

>Psalms
>107 For he satisfies the thirsty and fills the hungry with good things.

Indeed, being filled (Psalm 107:9) with an omer (Exodus 16:16) of
manna is a Wonderful (Isaiah 9:6) thing while being satiated (i.e.
full) is evil.

>Acts
>14:17 "Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by
>giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying
>your hearts with food and gladness."

In the interim, you, who are eternally (Mark 3:29) condemned, will
never be satisfied (Acts 14:17) because you are ever more cursed
(Jeremiah 17:5) by GOD.

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/uCPb3ldOv5M/KgM8NFKuAQAJ

+++

> someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD perseverated:
>> HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>
>> Subject: a very very very simple definition of sin ...

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/mXmFD9kIocc/y8GNXircBQAJ

>> Does andrew's "definition" agree with scripture? Let's see in 1 John:

Actually, sin is **not** defined in 1 John 1:8-10

>> John wrote this to christians. The greek grammer (sic) speaks of an ongoing
>> status. He includes himself in that status.

John was a Jew instead of a Greek so there is really no reason to
think that Greek grammar is relevant here.

>> 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is
>> not in us.
>>
>> 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins,
>> and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
>>
>> 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is
>> not in us.

John also wrote earlier at John 5:14 that LORD Jesus commands:

"Now stop sinning or something worse may happen to you." (John 5:14)

And, indeed, your being eternally condemned (Mark 3:29) & ever more
cursed (Jeremiah 17:5) by GOD, as evident by your ever worsening
cognitive deficits, is really worse.

Now again, here's how to really stop sinning as LORD Jesus commands
(John 5:14):

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.bible.prophecy/2-Qpn-o81J4/ldGubKEZAgAJ

While wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 ) in the Holy
Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy 8:3) me to hunger right now (Luke
6:21a), I again pray (2 Chronicles 7:14) that GOD continues to curse
(Jeremiah 17:5) you, who are eternally condemned (Mark 3:29), more
than ever in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.

Laus DEO ! ! !

Again, this is done in hopes of convincing all reading this to stop
being http://bit.ly/terribly_hungry (2 Kings 6:29) where all are in
danger of becoming eternally condemned (Mark 3:29) just as had
happened to Ananias and Sapphira and more contemporaneously to Bob
Pastorio.

Again, the LORD did strike dead http://bit.ly/Bob_Pastorio on Fool's
day just 9+ years ago:

http://bobs-amanuensis.livejournal.com/8728.html

Again, this is done ...

http://bit.ly/HeartDocAndrew touts hunger (Luke 6:21a) with all glory
( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD, Who causes us to hunger
(Deuteronomy 8:3) when He blesses us right now (Luke 6:21a) thereby
removing the http://WDJW.great-site.net/VAT from around the heart

Michael Ejercito wrote:
> HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
>> (Joanne) 09/30/24 Again praying w/ Michael here ...
>>
>> https://narkive.com/WHqv8Aoy.8
>>
> Let us pray!

.... and please do likewise as our LORD Jesus & I have done for you,
Michael, and http://go.WDJW.net/ConvinceItForward (John 15:12) to be
https://bit.ly/WonderfullyHungrier more blessed by GOD right now (Luke
6:21a).

HeartDoc Andrew wrote:
> <Joanne> 09/30/24 Loose/KK again vainjangling (1 Tim 1:6) ...
>
> https://narkive.com/GHNKXeiE.10
>
> Link to post explicating vainjangling by the eternally condemned:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/O23NguTslhI/-xLGqnNjAAAJ
>
> "Like a moth to flame, the eternally condemned tragically return to be
> ever more cursed by GOD."
>
> Behold in wide-eyed wonder and amazement at the continued fulfillment
> of this prophecy as clearly demonstrated within the following USENET
> threads:
>
> (1) Link to thread titled "LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth is our #1
> Example of being wonderfully hungry;"
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/_iVmOb7q3_Q/m/E8L7TNNtAgAJ
>
> (2) Link to thread titled "Being wonderfully hungry;"
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.med.cardiology/uCPb3ldOv5M
>
> (3) Link to thread titled "A very very very simple definition of sin;"
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.bible.prophecy/xunFWhan_AM
>
> (4) Link to thread titled "The LORD says 'Blessed are you who hunger
> now;'"
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.bible.prophecy/e4sW8dr44rM
>
> (5) Link to thread titled "Being wonderfully hungry like LORD Jesus;"
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.bible.prophecy/xPY1Uzl-ZNk/QeKLDNCpCwAJ
>
> ... for the continued benefit (Romans 8:28) of those of us who are
> http://WonderfullyHungry.org like GOD ( http://bit.ly/Lk2442 ) with
> all glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to the LORD.
>
> Source:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/O23NguTslhI/pIZcsOCJBwAJ
>
> Laus DEO !
Happy New Month!

They do not even get a happy new hour!

Michael

Loose Cannon wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 07:49:16 -0700, Michael Ejercito
> <MEjercit@HotMail.com> wrote:
>
>> HeartDoc Andrew wrote:
>>> (Joanne) 09/30/24 Again praying w/ Michael here ...
>>>
>>> https://narkive.com/WHqv8Aoy.8
>>>
>> Let us pray!
>>
>>
>> Michael
>
>
> Keep praying that ICE doesn't you back home, gook!
>
> https://postimg.cc/qtBP2bS2
>
I am home!

ICE has no reason to send me anywhere, for they deal with immigration!

Michael

(Joanne) 10/01/24 Again praying w/ Michael here ...

https://narkive.com/WHqv8Aoy.8