Showing posts with label medical research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label medical research. Show all posts

Mar 26, 2023

War Against Lab Leak Grinds On, Beyond Laughable Now

Fifty-one percent of Americans favori lab leak origins of
SARS-CoV-2 virus, causing Coronavirus disease COVID-19,
Morning Consult
The explanation SARS-CoV-2 virus, (causing Coronavirus disease COVID-19), originated through accidental release from a research laboratory became the majority view of Americans in February 2023, according to polls in Morning Consult.

Democrats lead the nation in believing Covid 19 naturally occurred, instead of spilling over from a virology research laboratory — with only some 42 percent of Democrats favoring lab leak origins, 51 percent of all Americans favoring lab leak origins, and 72 percent of Republicans favoring lab leak origins. Morning Consult

Democrats have been obstinate in their refusal to publicly acknowledge the proposition an engineered lab leak that caused Coronavirus disease COVID-19 as an origins explanation is not only plausible, but now is clear and convincing and climbing.

However, as government leaks continue, it is becoming less politically palatable for Joe Biden and the Democrats to continue the Big Lie that Covid 19 must have not have come from a lab. [For a continuing dose of evidence, reason and facts on SARS-CoV-2 origins, see Alex Washburne @Ayjchan @JamieMetzl, Nicholas Wade, DRASTIC (Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19), and especially all the folks at BiosafetyNow who are embarrassing the deluded and dishonest.

Virologists, clumsy at politics, to this day often sound like dead-enders in the origins debate. And not just virologists.

Writes Justin B. Kinney, Quantitative Biologist. Associate Professor, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Co-founder, Biosafety Now, biosafetynow.org, "Not just virologists—public health experts and biosecurity experts too. Really seems like many in this extended science/policy community reflexively circle the wagons at any mention of a 'lab leak.'"

A recent exchange on social media exemplifies some public pronouncements and an unsettling ideology of many virologists, (noone is sure how many).

Marburg virus of 1967

The exchange concerns the infamous Marburg virus of 1967, one of the most famous lab leak tragedies, in which a deadly virus causing hemorrhagic fever leaked from lab workers to families and caregivers, resulting in 31 deaths.

One Krutika Kuppalli, a reputable bio-health expert, using perverse reasoning, voices her personal view that because a virus can infect human beings from animals, zoonoses, this virus capability disconfirms  possibility that researchers in a lab were studying that virus and that the virus subsequently could have leaked from the laboratory through lab workers, such as what happened in Marburg, Germany.

Writes Kuppalli on March 24, "If we can believe that #Marburg and many other infectious diseases (e.g. Ebola, Plague, Mpox etc) is the result of zoonotic transmission why is it so hard for us to believe that it was the same with COVID-19."

In reply to Kuppalli, Justin B. Kinney, Quantitative Biologist. Associate Professor, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Co-founder, Biosafety Now (biosafetynow.org, @BiosafetyNow) in muted, apparent disgust, writes, "Fun fact: Marburg virus is named after Marburg, Germany—where the virus does not naturally occur—because the first documented outbreak was caused by a lab leak at the Behringwerke industrial plant there. @BiosafetyNow."

In reply to Kinney's simple and, what one would guess, is an uncontroversial narrative of a historical fact of a lab leak comes the following exchange:



The following exchanges take place that ought merit Kinney be given a Nobel Peace Price for his patience in dealing with utter stupidity.


Lesson going forward is: If an anti-lab leak stooge speaks, he or she is lying.

>

Yes, it is troubling that virologists seem more concerned about the potential for new rules and regulations on their own research than the possibility that the research of their respected colleagues might have sparked the COVID-19 pandemic.

Even more troubling are the facts that the Democrat Party is not concerned that bio-research might have sparked the COVID-19 pandemic, and that Biden and the Democrats continue to block open investigations into the COVID-19 pandemic origins.

The attacks and lies will go on for a very long time.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Dec 3, 2011

Republican Hypocrisy on the Payroll Tax Cut

Sen. Blunt - Another Republican against families

We’ve seen Republicans in Congress vote to obstruct the American Jobs Act, a bill that independent economists have said could create up to 2 million jobs. They’ve voted against keeping teachers in the classroom, cops on the beat and firefighters on the job. They voted against putting construction workers back to work rebuilding our roads and bridges.

By Dan Pfeiffer

In addition to blocking these job-creating measures, Republicans in Congress refused to compromise to tackle our nation’s serious deficit problem. They chose to protect tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires at any cost, even if it means deep cuts to education, medical research and Medicare. They will not budge from that negotiating position.

And just last night, after weeks of saying “no” to just about everything, Republicans in Congress chose to allow taxes to increase on nearly 160 million hardworking Americans because they refused to ask a few hundred thousand millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share. They voted against a bill that would have not only extended the $1,000 tax cut for a typical family, but expanded that tax cut to put $1,500 in their pockets next year, and given nearly six million small business owners new incentives to expand and hire. That’s not right. It’s not acceptable.

Now, you’ll hear Republicans try to come up with a substantive objection to the payroll tax cut. The fact is, we all know it’s a bad idea to raise taxes on 160 million working Americans. Independent economists agree. We can’t put our economy and the middle class at risk. We can’t play politics with the security of millions of American families and small business owners. Republicans know this. They’ve said so in past. Those same Republicans who voted “no” last night have previously supported the payroll tax cut. Let’s take a look:

Sen. Alexander
12/9/10: Sen. Alexander: “It Also Means That Your Employees Who Work There Will Get A One-Third Reduction In Their Payroll Tax Payments Every Two Weeks. And Maybe They’ll Spend Some More Money Creating More Jobs.” ”QUESTION: And if you look at the proportions, though, of the top, top sector of earners in this country getting the bulk of the benefits, why does that help?

ALEXANDER: Well, if you’re a small business person in Tennessee, what this means is that you won’t be paying tens of thousands of dollars, perhaps more, in taxes and you can use that to create a job. It also means that your employees who work there will get a one-third reduction in their payroll tax payments every two weeks. And maybe they’ll spend some more money creating morejobs. So it’s a combination of policies that all together are focused on jobs.” [NPR, 12/9/10]
Sen. Kyl
11/20/09: Sen. Kyl: “…What You're Suggesting Here Is That You Can Do Some Things To Stimulate Job Creation And Certainly Something Like Reducing The Payroll Tax, Which Has Been Written About Recently, Would Accomplish That…”“MR. KUDLOW: All right. Let me go to a couple of other things. We had Senator Thune on last night about ending TARP, putting a stake in TARP by the end of the year. But Mr. Kyl, let me just ask you. Suppose you got $300 billion from ending TARP. Wouldn't it be better to give it back to the taxpayers in the form of lower tax rates? Wouldn't that be a terrific thing with 10.2 percent unemployment, kind of "we, the people," the government works for us, and they could use the extra cash right now and maybe some incentives on lower rates for payroll taxes?

SEN. KYL: Yeah. As a matter of fact, the original intent here was that when the money was paid back by the banks, you didn't create a revolving account there, you lowered the debt. That is to say, you simply retired that aspect of the debt. Remember, this is all borrowed money from the Chinese and elsewhere. So you can do one of two things with it. You can either retire the debt, or what you're suggesting here is that you can do some things to stimulate job creation and certainly something like reducing the payroll tax, which has been written about recently, would accomplish that. There are other ways you can do it as well.” [CNBC, Kudlow Report, 11/20/09]
Sen. DeMint
11/29/11: “Republican Leaders Said Tuesday They Would Join Democrats In Supporting An Extension Of The 2011 Payroll-Tax Cut Despite Some Reluctance Within The GOP, Virtually Assuring That American Wage-Earners Will Continue To Receive The Benefit Next Year…..Mr. DeMint Said He Would Support The Extension Because ‘I Just Don't Think It's A Good Time To Increase Any Taxes.’” “Republican leaders said Tuesday they would join Democrats in supporting an extension of the 2011 payroll-tax cut despite some reluctance within the GOP, virtually assuring that American wage-earners will continue to receive the benefit next year. Republicans still oppose Democrats' plan to pay for the tax break with a tax on people earning more than $1 million a year. GOP leaders said they would find another way to pay for the tax break and predicted it would pass. ‘I think at the end of the day, there's a lot of sentiment in our conference—clearly a majority sentiment—for continuing the payroll-tax relief that we enacted a year ago in these tough times,’ Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said. Republicans and some economists have questioned the value of the payroll-tax break, saying its economic impact is limited by its temporary nature and the fact that some people use the spare cash to pay down debt, rather than buy things. Some argue Congress should revamp the whole tax code rather than temporarily reducing individual taxes. ‘I think it's a mistake to do this little tax and that little tax,’ said Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.). ‘We need to reform our tax code if we're going to be competitive internationally.’ Nonetheless, Mr. DeMint said he would support the extension because ‘I just don't think it's a good time to increase any taxes.’” [Wall Street Journal, 11/30/11]
Sen. Kirk
9/10/11: AP: “Kirk Said Obama's Proposals To Cut The Payroll Tax…Should Receive Quick, Bipartisan Action.” “Republican Sen. Mark Kirk said Obama's proposals to cut the payroll tax and approve trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama should receive quick, bipartisan action.” [AP, 9/10/11]
Sen. Blunt
7/8/10: Pulaski County Daily: “Blunt Agreed That A Payroll Tax Holiday, A 100 Percent Depreciation Of Capital Expenses, And Other Ideas Could Have Worked To Stimulate The Economy…” “Blunt agreed that a payroll tax holiday, a 100 percent depreciation of capital expenses, and other ideas could have worked to stimulate the economy, but said the $800 billion federal spending plan happened in 2009 because President Barack Obama has a fundamentally different view of how to help the economy than most Republicans and many rural Americans.” [Pulaski County Daily, 7/8/10]
Sen. Johanns
11/30/11: New York Times: “Another Republican Senator Has Opened The Door To Tax Increases On High Earners As A Way To Pay For A Payroll Tax Cut, Showing More Movement In The Party Ranks After Resistance All Year To Tax Increases. ‘I Sense A Change In Mood,’ Senator Mike Johanns, Republican Of Nebraska, Said Wednesday. ‘It’s A Little More Bipartisan. My Position Has Always Been, ‘Let’s Not Raise Taxes,’ But On The Other Hand, I Don’t Want Our Country To Collapses Under A Mountain Of Debt. If That Means Compromise, I Am Going To Do Everything To Get That Done.’” “Another Republican senator has opened the door to tax increases on high earners as a way to pay for a payroll tax cut, showing more movement in the party ranks after resistance all year to tax increases. ‘I sense a change in mood,’ Senator Mike Johanns, Republican of Nebraska, said Wednesday. ‘It’s a little more bipartisan. My position has always been, ‘Let’s not raise taxes,’ but on the other hand, I don’t want our country to collapses under a mountain of debt. If that means compromise, I am going to do everything to get that done.’…Democrats are seeking to reduce the Social Security payroll tax paid by employees by half, to 3.1. percent of wages, a position many Republicans support.” [New York Times, 11/30/11]
2009 Republican Stimulus Proposal Included a Payroll Tax Cut

2/5/09: 40 Republican Senators Voted For The Republican Substitute Stimulus Which Included A Payroll Tax Cut. On February 2, 2009, 40 Republican senators voted for a McCain motion to consider an alternative Republican stimulus bill that “would have cut income and payroll taxes….” according to the Associated Press. The motion was rejected 40-57. [Senate Roll Call Vote #45, 2/5/09; AP, 2/5/09]
  • 18 Republican Senators Voted Against Both Payroll Tax Cut Extension Bills On December 2, 2011 But Voted For A Payroll Tax Cut On February 5, 2009: Alexander, Burr, Chambliss, Coburn, Cochran, Corker, Cornyn, DeMint, Graham, Hatch, Inhofe, Isakson, Johanns, Kyl, Roberts, Sessions, Shelby, And Thune. [Senate Roll Call Vote #45, 2/5/09; Senate Roll Call Vote #219, 12/1/11; Senate Roll Call Vote #220, 12/1/11]
  • 10/15/09: Sen. McCain: “Mr. President, Earlier This Year I Put Forward A Proposal To Eliminate The 3.1 Percent Payroll Tax For One Year For All Employees In Order To Put More Money In Every Working American’s Pocket During These Difficult Economic Times. This Would Have Been A Real Stimulus To Our Economy.” “‘Mr. President, earlier this year I put forward a proposal to eliminate the 3.1 percent payroll tax for one year for all employees in order to put more money in every working American’s pocket during these difficult economic times. This would have been a real stimulus to our economy. Unfortunately, every Democrat in this chamber voted against this common sense proposal. ‘The regressive payroll tax oppresses all Americans, especially young men and women, and burdens small businesses that must match the tax that their employees pay. About 41 percent of Americans have no income tax liability. But every wage-earner is hit by the payroll tax no matter how much or how little one earns. For 86 percent of all working Americans, the payroll tax they pay is more than their income tax liability.” [Sen. John McCain – Floor Statement, 10/15/09– video available via C-SPAN]
  • 3/26/09: Sen. McCain: “Our Proposal Would Have . . . Put Money Immediately Back Into The Hands Of All Americans Through A Payroll Tax Holiday.” “Our proposal would have helped fix the housing crisis, invested in our nation’s infrastructure through effective and restrained spending, put money immediately back into the hands of all Americans through a payroll tax holiday, and allowed businesses to keep more of their profits to hire new employees, invest in capital and expand their businesses.” [Sen. John McCain – Remarks to the Heritage Foundation, 3/26/09]
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)