[lisasays]

I have never, ever suggested that the COVID-19 virus was targeted to spare Jews.

And yet, in his taped comments he said exactly that:

    “There is an argument that it is ethnically targeted. Covid-19 attacks certain races disproportionately,” Mr. Kennedy said at a private gathering in New York that was captured on videotape by The New York Post. “Covid-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.”

Of course then he got "caught" and tried to pretend not to have said what he just got caught saying.

But there's no wiggling out of it. Try as he may to do so.

[Dig1t]

Chinese military officials have stated outright that ethnically targeted bioweapons are important for the future of China's military development. Kennedy is saying that countries around the world are working on this technology and that "there is an argument" for what you said. These all seem like factual claims to me that can be verified by citing papers and speeches. If any of this is wrong why not just fact check him?

Here's a video talking about China's genetic bioweapon program:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biNxl7tiVSY

There are more speeches available online of Chinese officials talking about these kinds of weapons, I'm happy to dig more up.

A: he also said Chinese people were more resistant, but the only part you care about is the jewish part, why?

B: It is obvious that his intent is not hateful, there is nothing in that sentence that denotes hatefulness.

The vehemency with which he is being attacked makes it kind of obvious that he poses a real threat to the political establishment and that attaching the classic pejorative labels "antisemite", "bigot", "racist", etc are a tactic to stop him. The more you try to obviously censor people like this, the more obvious it becomes how authoritarian the left has become.

[Dig1t]

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/Dir...

"Colonel Guo Ji-wei, The People’s Liberation Army, China"

"If we acquire a target’s genome and proteome information, including those of ethnic groups or individuals, we could design a vulnerating agent that attacks only key enemies without doing any harm to ordinary people."

[lowkey]

He was referencing this study [0] by the Cleveland Clinic (the second most prestigious medical research institution in the US) which states exactly that.

He didn't get "caught", nor did he try to pretend not to have said it. That is pure dis-information.

Why do most if not all criticisms of RFK Jr, resort to such easily debunked ad-hominem attacks instead of genuine attempts to refute his arguments? Is it simply that ad-hominem attacks are the last bastion of one with no valid arguments to make?

[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32664879/

[lisasays]

The thing is he doesn't just "reference" the paper - he takes it out of context to suggest that it "serves as a kind of proof of concept for ethnically targeted bioweapons" (something the paper doesn't say at all, and which no researcher in the field would support). Alongside unsupported claims that the US and other governments are developing such weapons.

Of course he's also hedging, and talking out of both side of his mouth. It's a classic innuendo technique, and you fell for it.

[lowkey]

"Alongside unsupported claims that the US and other governments are developing such weapons."

Although not widely reported in the media, I would stop short at arguing these claims of ethnically targeted bio-weapons are unsupported. See my comment further down where I provide multiple sources to back the claims of US funded bioweapons labs that Russia brought to the UN in 2022 - and which the US denied at the time - only to sheepishly admit to earlier this year, that the US was funding 46 Bio (weapons) labs in the Ukraine, many along Russia's border.

Again, the first casualty of war is the truth - applies to both sides.

Tell me you understand that the US government - the one that lied to America and the world to justify their invasion of Iraq not once but twice (Iraq1: killing babies in incubators, Iraq2: Weapons of Mass Destruction), might not be telling the whole truth to justify this war either.

The technology for DNA targeted bio-weapons is widely known to be in the wild. Our own intelligence community has already highlighted the risks to Americans [0] I would say it is rather naive to think that neither we nor our adversaries would be developing them just in case the other side does.

Also, we now know that despite the Obama-era ban on bio-weapons research, Anthony Fauci was secretly funding gain-of-function research on COVID viruses with the covert knowledge of the US military up until, checks notes, YESTERDAY. [1]

Just because you didn't hear about it on CNN, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

"You fell for it."

Who fell for what, now?

[0] https://www.foxnews.com/us/intelligence-committee-members-wa...

[1] https://www.outkick.com/wuhan-lab-defunded-after-failing-to-...

[Dig1t]

Also, here's a video about China's bioweapon program, in which they specifically mention these kinds of weapons:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biNxl7tiVSY

Also here:

https://www.cnas.org/publications/commentary/weaponizing-bio...

"Zhang Shibo (张仕波), a retired general and former president of the National Defense University, who concludes: “Modern biotechnology development is gradually showing strong signs characteristic of an offensive capability,” including the possibility that “specific ethnic genetic attacks” (特定种族基因攻击) could be employed."

Also here:

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/Dir...

"Colonel Guo Ji-wei, The People’s Liberation Army, China"

"If we acquire a target’s genome and proteome information, including those of ethnic groups or individuals, we could design a vulnerating agent that attacks only key enemies without doing any harm to ordinary people."

[_kbh_]

> Although not widely reported in the media, I would stop short at arguing these claims of ethnically targeted bio-weapons are unsupported. See my comment further down where I provide multiple sources to back the claims of US funded bioweapons labs that Russia brought to the UN in 2022 - and which the US denied at the time - only to sheepishly admit to earlier this year, that the US was funding 46 Bio (weapons) labs in the Ukraine, many along Russia's border.

The US has never admitted to funding bio weapons labs in Ukraine because it never happened.

They fund bio research labs that keep track of viruses and other pathogens to try and get a head start on when another pandemic/issue starts.

[lowkey]

(Responding to the sister comment)

"The US has never admitted to funding bio weapons labs in Ukraine because it never happened."

That is true, however when Russia first raised concerns about US-funded bioweapons labs in 2022, the US denied the existence of any US-funded labs in the Ukraine. Only later, and begrudgingly they did admit to funding 46 biolabs in the Ukraine, without clarifying what was being developed there or ever denying that they were bioweapons labs at all.

For the US intelligence community to finally admit the existence of 46 US-funded biolabs in the Ukraine and specifically not deny they were bioweapons labs, is unfortunately as close to an admission as we are ever going to get.

You may remember that the US has never once admitted that they (Colin Powell et al) knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when they made that claim in front of the United Nations. I think we all know by now that they were lying then, and - call me crazy - but I believe if they have a history of lying to the public to agitate for war in the past, it is quite possible they are lying now.

"They fund bio research labs that keep track of viruses and other pathogens to try and get a head start on when another pandemic/issue starts."

Remember the US, under Fauci, secretly funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan China, for years. And we continued to fund that research until it was announced, yesterday, July 18th 2023 that we would stop. [0]

Please help me understand what are the legitimate non-military use-cases for funding gain-of-function research to up-level bat viruses so they will infect (and sometimes kill) humans?

And also, Saddam Hussein most certainly had weapons of mass destruction hidden in Iraq so well that we simply couldn't find them after taking over his entire country. It is simply not true the the US made up their claim of WMD to justify an unjust war of aggression in violation of the Geneva Conventions and UN declarations. /s

And also, there is simply no way to know who brought cocaine into the Whitehouse a few weeks ago, but it super-duper for sure wasn't Hunter Biden - no way Hosé. We know that for sure. Trust us (wink) /s

[0] https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/18/politics/biden-admin-suspends...

[_kbh_]

> For the US intelligence community to finally admit the existence of 46 US-funded biolabs in the Ukraine and specifically not deny they were bioweapons labs, is unfortunately as close to an admission as we are ever going to get.

This is drawing a conclusion with literally no evidence.

You are taking an absence of evidence and trying to draw conclusions from that.

> Please help me understand what are the legitimate non-military use-cases for funding gain-of-function research to up-level bat viruses so they will infect (and sometimes kill) humans?

Like the rest of gain of function research, which is designed to try and predict how viruses will evolve and help us create ways and vaccines that will combat those evolutions before they happen in the wild.

> And also, there is simply no way to know who brought cocaine into the Whitehouse a few weeks ago, but it super-duper for sure wasn't Hunter Biden - no way Hosé. We know that for sure. Trust us (wink)

Random conjecture completely irrelevant to the conversation but when you have no solid argument I guess the best you can do is through shit at the wall to see what sticks.

The way you write threads by not quoting the actual response is super annoying and seems to actually require more effort then not doing it.

So it'd be better for everyone if you could just comment normally instead of randomly messing up the comment tree for no reason.

[lowkey]

> The way you write threads by not quoting the actual response is super annoying and seems to actually require more effort then not doing it.

Thanks, that feedback is actually really helpful. I don't engage in long discussions on HN regularly so wasn't aware that quoting with a \> was an option. Corrected now and going forward.

>> For the US intelligence community to finally admit the existence of 46 US-funded biolabs in the Ukraine and specifically not deny they were bioweapons labs, is unfortunately as close to an admission as we are ever going to get.

> This is drawing a conclusion with literally no evidence.

Speaking frankly, this is the intelligence community (CIA, NSA, FBI etc) we are talking about here. They have not been a great example of government transparancy so based on their historical track record, I don't believe they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

For example, we now know that they were lying about the mere presence of the 46 biolabs in the first place. Why shouldn't we draw conclusions from their very loud non-denial that those labs were used, at least in part, for covert or military purposes, given that we know from US intelligence warnings [0] that other countries may be developing bio-weapons targeting Americans based on their DNA. Do we really think with all the US military funding that we wouldn't have a program, considering that our adversaries do? I think that would be extremely naive.

>> Please help me understand what are the legitimate non-military use-cases for funding gain-of-function research to up-level bat viruses so they will infect (and sometimes kill) humans?

> Like the rest of gain of function research, which is designed to try and predict how viruses will evolve and help us create ways and vaccines that will combat those evolutions before they happen in the wild.

No doubt we also do gain of function for those use cases, but per my point above, I think it is extremely naïve to think we don't have bio-weapons at least equal to our most advanced adversaries.

>> And also, there is simply no way to know who brought cocaine into the Whitehouse a few weeks ago, but it super-duper for sure wasn't Hunter Biden - no way Hosé. We know that for sure. Trust us (wink)

> Random conjecture completely irrelevant to the conversation but when you have no solid argument I guess the best you can do is through shit at the wall to see what sticks.

Again, this is, IMO, an extremely naïve take. With Whitehouse security being what it is, with Hunter Biden's past being what it is, with the very loud-silence coming from the WH press correspondent when asked to confirm or deny that it belonged to a member of the WH inner circle - I find it very suspicious that the investigation so quickly led to multiple conflicting stories, followed by a very rapid decision to end the investigation with no suspects. We can agree to disagree, but I think the majority of the American public finds this whole escapade extremely suspicious knowing the contents of Hunter's notorious laptop.

[0] https://www.foxnews.com/us/intelligence-committee-members-wa...

[lisasays]

Look, I don't have time to go down these rabbit holes with you. I'd just like you to consider one the following:

Yes, the Iraq invasion thoroughly evil and insane and stupid, and probably illegal. And yes, it was driven by preposterous, bald-faced lies from the start. Including lies about WMD and bioweapons and such.

Fast-forward 20 years: the Russians are telling the exact same kind of lies with regard to its (no less evil, insane, stupid and illegal) invasion of Ukraine; including lies about bioweapons and WMD -- yet even more cheaply and transparently so (using photoshopped slides no less) -- and you're just eating it up, like it's a box o' chocolates.

You're really very naive.

Just because you didn't hear about it on CNN

I never watch CNN. And if you think that anyone who doesn't buy into your narratives, therefore, does -- then you're definitely living in a bubble.