But if you want the full story, what happened was that The Intercept FOIA'd to get the EcoHealth grants. They got them back, but one of the reports was missing. The government hadn't withheld it - EcoHealth _had not filed it_, in violation of their grant.
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori @j_KN0X
I am not clear (and we may not know?) exactly what then transpired, but the NIH's compliance department either demanded the report be filed, or EcoHealth voluntarily filed it after The Intercept reported it missing, or something.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @j_KN0X
_That_ report, which _was_ filed after the article you cited, is the one where they admit that they ended up doing gain of function research, although they claim it was accidental. Which, it definitely wasn't by any sane read, but, let's just give them the benefit of the doubt :)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @j_KN0X
So the reason why someone might not mention the NIH grant prior to the missing report being filed is because the public was not yet in possession of any documents where EcoHealth admitted to performing GOF. Does that make sense?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @j_KN0X
I know this is confusing. This is, of course, why I get very angry with people who dismiss COVID origins things as a "conspiracy theory", because guess what folks, even just the evidence we already have is an intricate enough conspiracy that it's not a theory, it's just fact :)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @j_KN0X
The question at this point, as far as I'm concerned, is more like "how big is this conspiracy, and in what way did it affect the pandemic", because we are still getting major documents released every week, and each one if more shocking than the next.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @j_KN0X
At this point we have know way of knowing how many people and institutions were involved, and we don't know to what extent they are implicated, whether it was a "harmless coverup" of some things that didn't cause the pandemic, or whether it's a blatant coverup that did, etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @j_KN0X
The only thing we know for sure is that if you read mainstream press about this subject you are completely ignorant of the alarming facts we already know for certain, which is unfortunate, but those are the times in which we now live :(
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
I agree this got complicated, and I believe it went from conspiracy theory to evidence-based coverup. But maybe we have different definitions of mainstream media? Because I see it being discussed, and I would bet Krampus's left knuckle the coverage will only increase. :-)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @j_KN0X
I suppose the place I would disagree was that it was ever a conspiracy theory. My initial read of the evidence in the first few months was that it was probably a lab insertion of a cleavage site, and all evidence was and has remained consistent with that the entire time.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
The only thing surprising to me was the amount of evidence we have been receiving lately. I was expecting the involved parties to have more plausible deniability than what we have seen, perhaps because I was underestimating the incompetence of the people involved :)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.