...but the lab-leak-focused Senator's words & actions in spring 2020 may help explain his persistent claim that GoF research gave the world a pandemic.
WOW! This is fabulous research! Now I know what you were doing for the past month or so, this is voluminous. Hard work. Yes, I have always thought that Rand's criticism was focused at a wrong but close target. GOF is not the point, Fauci and funding Fauci is the point. GOF is not the point when it has a 0.03% LETHALITY. He hates Fauci because he knows about the Royalties, and I hope he nails Fauci on something. But RP is barking up the wrong tree. You Jessica, are following the right scent (so to speak). Hey did I ever tell you I am a mailman in Daytona Beach?
Similarly in the UK significant people flipped from 'nah, dont worry' to 'crisis mode' overnight and did so with a high degree of synchronicity within the country and outwith. Chief medical officer, Prime Minister Boris etc.
It's as if they all recieved a memo or were briefed at the same time and across all western nations. If there is one historic document I'd give me eye teeth to read it is that memo.
The Flip among leaders around the world has become more obvious to me over the past year as I speak to different people in other countries and get their perspective. Thomas Verduyn has a good POV on what happened with a high-level leader (can't remember which one) in Alberta, Canada that he should consider writing a Note or brief article about.
There was also a batch of emails released by some group (USRTK?) - in 2022, I believe - that I haven't been able to locate again which includes an exchange that nobody reported on but I found to be a very stark example of volte-face. IIRC, it was a female official from the Netherlands or Belgium on a chain including WHO and representatives from other countries. She basically says, on behalf of the chief official/minister, "No thanks, we're not doing this." Her next email (the following day?) is a complete 180, i.e., "PM changed his mind. We're in." I might crowdsource on X to see if someone remembers the batch.
UK media (conservative and independent outlets included) very much missed the key components of things he said. Cummings absolutely knew what was up and was not fooled in any way. (He's not unlike Christian Drosten in that regard.) I have my own notes on what he said but I lack knowledge/background about the players, how government functions, etc. Someone with a strong sense of timeline and robust skills for language analysis - a lawyer-type, if you know one? - needs to take another look at what he said and write about it. Or maybe someone has and I've missed it...
Paul was the Senate's only no vote on the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, which predated lockdowns (it passed in early March) and was $8.3 billion of emergency funding. Two quotes from his floor speech:
"I think that we should not let fear or urgency cause us to lose our minds and cause us to act in an irresponsible fashion."
"The other way they ignore the rules on pay-go is they declare things to be emergencies, so everything is an emergency. They say: Well, what would we do if we didn't have this--if it weren't an emergency? We already spend billions of dollars and have spent billions of dollars over the years to prepare for epidemics. We fund the CDC, and we fund the NIH. There is a lot of money out there."
Yes. I haven't read the other speeches. That one from early March was just the most promising and relevant link that turned up from the search, so it's the one I read first and thought to paste in here.
2 no votes in the House on that bill by the way, and Massie wasn't one of them. It was Andy Biggs and Ken Buck.
Actually, the full speech makes pretty clear he wasn't against the funding - or the idea that there was an emergency that needed to be funded. It was more a matter of whence the money.
One of Paul's consistent positions is that we (the government) shouldn't use new debt financing to respond to every surprise event/emergency. He tends to advocate for using existing appropriations, or cutting a different program, in order to fund disaster recovery efforts, for instance.
"23 March 2020: Local and national media react to Senator Paul’s positive test with scrutiny over his choice to not isolate himself while awaiting results. The Independent calls him “a cautionary tale.”"
Yet somehow dozens of decrepit old Members of Congress survived the deadly threat!
WOW! This is fabulous research! Now I know what you were doing for the past month or so, this is voluminous. Hard work. Yes, I have always thought that Rand's criticism was focused at a wrong but close target. GOF is not the point, Fauci and funding Fauci is the point. GOF is not the point when it has a 0.03% LETHALITY. He hates Fauci because he knows about the Royalties, and I hope he nails Fauci on something. But RP is barking up the wrong tree. You Jessica, are following the right scent (so to speak). Hey did I ever tell you I am a mailman in Daytona Beach?
Thanks! This one actually didn't take me that long! :)
Great article.
Similarly in the UK significant people flipped from 'nah, dont worry' to 'crisis mode' overnight and did so with a high degree of synchronicity within the country and outwith. Chief medical officer, Prime Minister Boris etc.
It's as if they all recieved a memo or were briefed at the same time and across all western nations. If there is one historic document I'd give me eye teeth to read it is that memo.
Thanks.
The Flip among leaders around the world has become more obvious to me over the past year as I speak to different people in other countries and get their perspective. Thomas Verduyn has a good POV on what happened with a high-level leader (can't remember which one) in Alberta, Canada that he should consider writing a Note or brief article about.
There was also a batch of emails released by some group (USRTK?) - in 2022, I believe - that I haven't been able to locate again which includes an exchange that nobody reported on but I found to be a very stark example of volte-face. IIRC, it was a female official from the Netherlands or Belgium on a chain including WHO and representatives from other countries. She basically says, on behalf of the chief official/minister, "No thanks, we're not doing this." Her next email (the following day?) is a complete 180, i.e., "PM changed his mind. We're in." I might crowdsource on X to see if someone remembers the batch.
Another under-appreciated testimony is that of Dominic Cummings. https://covid19.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/31180752/INQ000273872.pdf
UK media (conservative and independent outlets included) very much missed the key components of things he said. Cummings absolutely knew what was up and was not fooled in any way. (He's not unlike Christian Drosten in that regard.) I have my own notes on what he said but I lack knowledge/background about the players, how government functions, etc. Someone with a strong sense of timeline and robust skills for language analysis - a lawyer-type, if you know one? - needs to take another look at what he said and write about it. Or maybe someone has and I've missed it...
Paul was the Senate's only no vote on the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, which predated lockdowns (it passed in early March) and was $8.3 billion of emergency funding. Two quotes from his floor speech:
"I think that we should not let fear or urgency cause us to lose our minds and cause us to act in an irresponsible fashion."
"The other way they ignore the rules on pay-go is they declare things to be emergencies, so everything is an emergency. They say: Well, what would we do if we didn't have this--if it weren't an emergency? We already spend billions of dollars and have spent billions of dollars over the years to prepare for epidemics. We fund the CDC, and we fund the NIH. There is a lot of money out there."
Thanks, I knew you'd have something!
The plot thickens, doesn't it?
How does Rand Paul go from sensible talk about not being fearful and acting irresponsibly, etc. to his March 17, 2020 op-ed?
Yes. I haven't read the other speeches. That one from early March was just the most promising and relevant link that turned up from the search, so it's the one I read first and thought to paste in here.
2 no votes in the House on that bill by the way, and Massie wasn't one of them. It was Andy Biggs and Ken Buck.
Actually, the full speech makes pretty clear he wasn't against the funding - or the idea that there was an emergency that needed to be funded. It was more a matter of whence the money.
One of Paul's consistent positions is that we (the government) shouldn't use new debt financing to respond to every surprise event/emergency. He tends to advocate for using existing appropriations, or cutting a different program, in order to fund disaster recovery efforts, for instance.
He and many others lack clarity about what the emergency was.
This long link takes you to every speech Paul made in the Senate in 2020 that included the word "coronavirus":
https://www.congress.gov/quick-search/congressional-record?wordsPhrases=coronavirus&wordVariants=on&congressGroups%5B0%5D=0&congresses%5B0%5D=116&dateOperator=equal&startDate=&endDate=&dateIsOption=yesterday§ionDailyDigest=on§ionSenate=on§ionHouse=on§ionExtensionsOfRemarks=on&representative%5B0%5D=&senator%5B0%5D=P000603
"23 March 2020: Local and national media react to Senator Paul’s positive test with scrutiny over his choice to not isolate himself while awaiting results. The Independent calls him “a cautionary tale.”"
Yet somehow dozens of decrepit old Members of Congress survived the deadly threat!