| > 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... |