gof claims

The primary work was conducted in Ralph Baric's lab at Chapel Hill NC. Samples were shipped via Canada to Wuhan where 7 more variants were created. The materials they worked with came from Ft. Detrick Maryland. Peter Daszak was in charge at that time though he resigned and formed EcoHealth Alliance and funneled funding into Wuhan along with a plethora of other biological labs including those in Ukraine. If you would like a copy of the 34-page lab report including their findings I could send them to you perhaps. Testing in Wuhan was done on human subjects which is why the first estimate of lethality was estimated to be 10%. SARS II CV-19 was released in several alternate locations ----not just in Wuhan and it wasn't by accident. Dr. Charles Lieber was later arrested but only charged with tax evasion. Lieber is the father of bio-engineering using nano-technology. His primary financial supporter is Bill Gates.

---

Claim 1: The primary work was conducted in Ralph Baric’s lab at Chapel Hill, NC.

Fact-Check: Partially True, but Misleading in Context

• Background: Ralph Baric, a virologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is a leading expert in coronaviruses and gain-of-function (GOF) research, which involves modifying viruses to study their behavior. His lab has conducted significant research on bat coronaviruses, including collaborative work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and EcoHealth Alliance. A notable 2015 study co-authored by Baric and Shi Zhengli (WIV) described creating a chimeric SARS-like virus that could infect human cells, funded partly by the NIH and EcoHealth Alliance.
• Analysis: Baric’s lab has been a hub for coronavirus research, but there’s no definitive evidence that it conducted the “primary work” on SARS-CoV-2 specifically. The 2015 study involved a different virus (SHC014), not SARS-CoV-2. Claims that Baric’s lab engineered SARS-CoV-2 are speculative and lack direct evidence. Baric himself has stated that none of the viruses studied in his lab are genetically related to SARS-CoV-2.
• Conclusion: Baric’s lab conducted significant coronavirus research, but there’s no evidence it was the primary source of SARS-CoV-2. The claim overstates the lab’s role in the pandemic’s origins.

---

Claim 2: Samples were shipped via Canada to Wuhan, where 7 more variants were created.

Fact-Check: Unsubstantiated

• Background: The claim about samples being shipped via Canada likely stems from a 2019 incident involving Chinese researchers at Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg. Dr. Xiangguo Qiu and her husband were removed from the lab amid security concerns, and there were reports of biological samples being sent to China. However, these samples were related to Ebola and Nipah viruses, not coronaviruses.
• Analysis: There’s no evidence linking Canada to the shipment of SARS-CoV-2-related samples to Wuhan. The “7 more variants” claim is vague and unsupported by any publicly available data. The WIV conducted extensive bat coronavirus research, but no documentation confirms the creation of seven specific SARS-CoV-2 variants from shipped samples. This claim appears to conflate unrelated biosecurity incidents with the pandemic’s origins.
• Conclusion: No evidence supports samples being shipped via Canada to Wuhan or the creation of seven variants there. This claim is speculative.

---

Claim 3: The materials they worked with came from Ft. Detrick, Maryland.

Fact-Check: Unsubstantiated

• Background: Fort Detrick, Maryland, hosts the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), which conducts research on high-risk pathogens. In 2019, the CDC temporarily shut down some Fort Detrick labs due to biosafety lapses, fueling conspiracy theories about a COVID-19 connection.
• Analysis: There’s no evidence that materials used in Baric’s lab or the WIV originated from Fort Detrick. Fort Detrick’s research focuses on biodefense, and no credible reports link it to SARS-CoV-2 or its precursors. The claim likely arises from speculation about the timing of the biosafety shutdown, but no documentation supports a connection to Wuhan or Chapel Hill.
• Conclusion: This claim lacks evidence and is speculative.

---

Claim 4: Peter Daszak was in charge at that time, resigned, formed EcoHealth Alliance, and funneled funding to Wuhan and labs in Ukraine.

Fact-Check: Partially True, but Misleading

• Background: Peter Daszak is the president of EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit focused on emerging infectious diseases. EcoHealth has received significant U.S. funding (over $118 million since 2007) from agencies like the NIH, USAID, and the Pentagon for virus research, including collaborations with the WIV.
• Analysis:
  • “In charge”: Daszak was not “in charge” of Baric’s lab or the WIV. He led EcoHealth Alliance, which partnered with both. His role was coordinating research and securing grants, not overseeing lab operations.
  • Resigned and formed EcoHealth: This is incorrect. Daszak has been with EcoHealth Alliance since at least 2001 and did not resign from another organization to form it. EcoHealth was founded in 1971 (as Wildlife Trust) and rebranded in 2010.
  • Funding to Wuhan: True. EcoHealth Alliance funneled NIH grants to the WIV (e.g., $3.7 million from 2014–2019) for bat coronavirus research. This included GOF experiments, some conducted at BSL-2 labs, raising biosafety concerns.
  • Labs in Ukraine: There’s no evidence EcoHealth directly funded biological labs in Ukraine. Claims about Ukraine labs often stem from Russian disinformation campaigns alleging U.S.-funded bioweapons labs. The U.S. does fund cooperative threat reduction programs in Ukraine for biosecurity, but these are unrelated to SARS-CoV-2 or EcoHealth’s core work.
• Conclusion: Daszak led EcoHealth and facilitated funding to the WIV, but the claims about resigning, forming EcoHealth, or funding Ukraine labs are inaccurate or unsupported.

---

Claim 5: Testing in Wuhan was done on human subjects, leading to a 10% lethality estimate.

Fact-Check: Unsubstantiated

• Background: Early in the pandemic, estimates of SARS-CoV-2’s case fatality rate (CFR) varied widely due to limited testing and data. Initial reports from Wuhan suggested a CFR as high as 10%, but global estimates settled around 1–3% by mid-2020, with variations by age and region.
• Analysis: There’s no evidence of human subject testing with SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan. The high early CFR estimates were likely due to underreported cases and overwhelmed healthcare systems, not experimental trials. Human challenge studies (deliberate infection) were proposed later for vaccine trials but not in Wuhan. The claim lacks any supporting documentation and aligns with conspiracy theories rather than verified data.
• Conclusion: No evidence supports human testing in Wuhan or links it to lethality estimates. The 10% figure reflects early data limitations, not experiments.

---

Claim 6: SARS-CoV-2 was released in several locations, not just Wuhan, and not by accident.

Fact-Check: Unsubstantiated

• Background: The first confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases emerged in Wuhan in December 2019, linked to the Huanan Seafood Market. Genomic evidence suggests a single introduction into humans, likely in late 2019.
• Analysis: There’s no evidence of multiple deliberate releases of SARS-CoV-2. The virus’s genetic diversity and spread patterns support a single origin, with subsequent global transmission. Claims of intentional release often cite the lab-leak hypothesis, but even this theory typically posits an accidental leak from one lab (WIV), not multiple coordinated releases. No credible data supports releases in other locations prior to Wuhan’s outbreak.
• Conclusion: This claim is speculative and lacks evidence. The single-origin hypothesis is most consistent with available data.

---

Claim 7: Dr. Charles Lieber was arrested but only charged with tax evasion. He is the father of bio-engineering using nanotechnology, funded by Bill Gates.

Fact-Check: Partially True, but Misleading

• Background: Dr. Charles Lieber, a Harvard chemist, was arrested in January 2020 and convicted in 2021 for making false statements to federal authorities, failing to disclose foreign income, and tax-related offenses. These charges stemmed from his undisclosed ties to China’s Thousand Talents Program and the Wuhan University of Technology, where he received significant funding.
• Analysis:
  • Arrest and Charges: True. Lieber was arrested and charged with offenses related to nondisclosure and tax issues, not directly related to SARS-CoV-2 or bioweapons.
  • Nanotechnology: True. Lieber is a pioneer in nanotechnology, particularly in bioengineering applications like nanoscale sensors for medical use. However, calling him the “father” is an exaggeration; he’s one of many contributors to the field.
  • Bill Gates Connection: Unsubstantiated. There’s no evidence that Bill Gates was Lieber’s “primary financial supporter.” Lieber’s funding came from U.S. agencies (e.g., NIH, DOD) and Chinese institutions. Gates has funded biotech broadly through the Gates Foundation, but no specific link to Lieber’s work exists in public records.
  • SARS-CoV-2 Link: No evidence connects Lieber’s nanotechnology research to SARS-CoV-2. Claims tying his work to the virus are speculative and often appear in conspiracy theories.
• Conclusion: Lieber’s arrest and nanotechnology expertise are accurate, but the Gates connection and any SARS-CoV-2 link are unsupported.

---

Overall Assessment

The claims blend some factual elements (e.g., Baric’s research, Daszak’s funding, Lieber’s arrest) with speculative and unsubstantiated assertions (e.g., Canada shipments, multiple releases, human testing). Many rely on conspiracy narratives that lack primary evidence, such as lab reports or official documents. The lab-leak hypothesis remains plausible but unproven, with no definitive evidence tying SARS-CoV-2 to Baric’s lab, Fort Detrick, or deliberate release. The natural origin hypothesis, while also unproven, aligns with patterns seen in prior pandemics (e.g., SARS, MERS).

Request for Lab Report

If you can share details about the 34-page lab report (e.g., title, authors, or a way to access it), I can evaluate its claims specifically. Without it, I’m limited to public data. You can describe its key findings, and I’ll cross-reference them with available sources.

Sources

-,,,,,,,,

• General knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 origins debates and biosafety protocols.

Robert Lighthizer on 60 minutes, 2/2/2025

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwUG2bOHqFA

"China wants to be number one."

So does America.

"America needs to have the strongest military and economy and technology to prevent wars."

And yet they start (and lose) wars all over the place. How many wars has China started?

"A tariff is a tax on a foreign country".

No, a tariff is a tax on America. And this not just on consumer goods which we can cut back on like shoes. Although it seems unAmerican to say "buy less". Tariffs ironically raise the cost of building new factories because a lot of the machines are also made in China. This is a side of the economy many don't see but it's absolutely real and important. 60 minutes had a good example with the steel tariffs helping steel makers but hurting steel buyers more. Created 1000 jobs in steel but cost 75,000 jobs.

The industrial revolution was a long process of inventing machines to build machines. China started late because of many things holding them back but about 30 years ago, they started running free and fast. America decided to take a break and now they have years of work to try to catch up to China.

But if you just look at the raw numbers of relative population and STEM majors, it favors China greatly.  1411 million vs 340 million.

Trump thinks America is better and if we're not winning, it's due to cheating. And he has collected some poison arrows to argue for that, like stealing technology. But if America invented the technology, why don't *they* do more with it? So then the excuse is slave labor. Yes, Chinese work hard. Is that a bad thing? Are we going to fight a war for the right to work less?

Trump is trying to impose a ludicrously one-sided unfair deal on China. I do not think China will accept it.

What is the authority behind the Disparate Impact doctrine?

The authority for DI is a part of the Constitution (14th a) written by the winner of a war (the North) and as such, is as foundational a rule as possible.

--

Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments: Congress’s authority to enact disparate impact provisions stems from its enforcement powers under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection) and Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment (voting rights).

Original Authority: The foundation for disparate impact lies in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. While Title VII did not explicitly mention disparate impact, its language prohibiting practices that "adversely affect" protected groups laid the groundwork.

Judicial Interpretation: The U.S. Supreme Court first recognized disparate impact in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), holding that Title VII proscribes "not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation" unless justified by business necessity. This interpretation established that intent was not required for a Title VII violation if a practice disproportionately harmed protected groups.

Original Act: The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. § 10301 et seq.) aimed to eliminate discriminatory voting practices, particularly those affecting racial minorities. While primarily focused on intentional discrimination, its enforcement mechanisms set the stage for disparate impact claims.

1982 Amendments: In City of Mobile v. Bolden (1980), the Supreme Court held that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act required proof of discriminatory intent, limiting its scope. In response, Congress amended Section 2 in 1982 to explicitly incorporate a disparate impact standard, stating that a violation occurs if a voting practice "results in" a denial of rights on account of race or color, regardless of intent. This amendment codified disparate impact for voting rights, overcoming judicial restrictions.

China's foreign policy

Traditional Chinese culture has historically approached foreign relations through a lens of hierarchical cosmology, centered on the concept of the "Middle Kingdom" (Zhongguo). This worldview positioned China as the cultural and political core of the world, with the emperor as the "Son of Heaven," holding a divine mandate to rule. Foreign relations were often framed within the tributary system, where neighboring states and distant polities acknowledged China's superiority by sending envoys, offering tribute, and receiving imperial gifts in return. 

This system, rooted in Confucian principles of harmony and propriety, was less about territorial conquest and more about establishing a network of symbolic loyalty and mutual benefit. For example, the Tang (618–907) and Ming (1368–1644) dynasties maintained extensive tributary networks, with states like Korea, Vietnam, and even distant Central Asian kingdoms participating, reinforcing China's cultural prestige without direct governance.

However, this approach was pragmatic rather than rigidly ideological. Chinese dynasties adapted their foreign relations based on power dynamics and practical needs. When faced with militarily formidable neighbors, such as the nomadic Mongols or Jurchens, China often employed diplomacy, marriage alliances, or strategic trade to maintain stability. 

The Han dynasty (206 BCE–220 CE), for instance, used the "heqin" policy, sending princesses to marry Xiongnu chieftains to secure peace. The Song dynasty (960–1279), constrained by powerful northern neighbors like the Liao and Jin, negotiated treaties and paid tributes to avoid conflict, reflecting a flexible balance between Confucian ideals and realpolitik. This adaptability ensured that cultural superiority was maintained in rhetoric, even when military or economic realities demanded compromise.

The legacy of traditional Chinese foreign relations is evident in its emphasis on soft power and long-term relationship-building. Unlike Western imperialist models that often prioritized territorial expansion, China's approach leaned on cultural assimilation and economic integration. Foreign envoys were exposed to Chinese art, literature, and governance, subtly encouraging admiration and emulation. The Silk Road, for instance, facilitated not only trade but also the spread of Chinese cultural influence across Asia and beyond. 

However, this system faced challenges when encountering cultures or powers that rejected the Sinocentric worldview, such as during interactions with European colonial powers in the 19th century. The clash between China's traditional diplomatic framework and Western notions of equal sovereignty marked a turning point, forcing adaptations that continue to shape China's modern foreign policy.