Commentary
-
Our commentary partners will help you reach your own conclusions on complex topics.
There’s a lot of debate going on about what was the origin of COVID. Recently, the Department of Energy joined the FBI in concluding that the most likely cause was a lab leak from a lab in Wuhan. Now, it was cause called a low confidence. Conclusion. FBI had, on the other hand, a medium confidence conclusion. Why is that? Well, low confidence really means preponderance of the evidence, but not beyond a reasonable doubt. First of all, no bureaucracy will ever say that it’s been wrong with high confidence up until yesterday. That isn’t how bureaucracies work. The other aspect is there’s never going to be beyond a reasonable doubt with regard to the start of COVID. Because the Chinese government destroyed all the evidence, they destroyed the evidence in the wet market. They destroyed the medical records in hospitals in Wuhan, about people who had COVID. And they destroyed all the lab data in the Wuhan Institute of virology. You’re without evidence, it’s hard to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt, though, perhaps we should all ask ourselves, if you’re actually innocent, why would you go out and destroy all the evidence? On this side? Dr. Fauci and Collins, the with the heads of the National Institute of Health in the infectious diseases component of that denied that they were involved. But then it came out from NIH, nonetheless, that in fact, they had funded the Wuhan Institute of virology, for the purpose of gaining gain of function. Now, what is gain of function? We hear it a lot. It means that what used to be an old style virus now can do more, it is more easily used to infect other people. It is more virulent, more deadly, if you catch it. So we were paying to enhance viruses to become more prolific and more deadly. Not a very good thing to do. How do they do it? Well, mice were genetically engineered to have a human component that would collect COVID viruses. It’s called the AOE two receptor for what you want. Results showed that they could easily spread the virus more quickly and be more lethal. That was funded by our National Institute of Health. Now, in January of 2020, just as COVID was getting going, a virologist named Christian Anderson, emailed Tony Fauci and warned him that the COVID virus had, quote, unusual features that made it unlikely that it was found in nature. Well, the very next day, Fauci called his deputy, Hugh Anschluss and said, We have to get busy, stay on your phone. And they proceeded to redo a look at the safety protocols. They organized a conference call with virologists around the country, all of whom, by the way, were funded by NIH. And the evidence from that phone call was forced out by a Freedom of Information suit. But when they released it, all the words are crossed out. The Fancy word is redacted. Again, what are they trying to hide? Now, the lab leak origin was trying to be discredited by Fauci and company that Fauci commissioned to paper to try and repress it. But the fact is, lab leaks happen all the time. And that fact led President Obama to ban gain of function research here in the US. That’s why we funded it in China. Now, of course, the evidence shows that the leak came from a lab in Wuhan. That was the cause of the virus. And of course, there was a cover up. Everyone had a vested interest in covering it up The Chinese because at a minimum, they had messed up and Fauci and company because they had funded it. And their colleagues in the profession knew that if it came out that COVID, the most deadly pandemic we’ve had in the century, was actually funded by the government. All of a sudden, they would find that their funding for their research would dry up. So we have a collusion of sorts. Everyone who was involved had an incentive to cover it up. And that’s why it’s going to take a long time before everyone admits what is obvious. This was caused by a leak from a lab.
-
Election 2024 will boil down to the Great Lakes states
Pollsters and pundits have been engaged in a long debate about how Biden or Trump might win the 2024 election, with much of their focus spent on the “swing state” electoral battlegrounds. While the winners of Alabama or California may be obvious, for instance, who wins Pennsylvania is a more difficult question. Watch the above… -
Why the Fed should consider Theory of Reflexivity when fixing policy
The Theory of Reflexivity, often used in the context of economics and financial markets, implies that investors don’t base their decisions on reality but on their perceptions of reality. This creates a feedback loop where investors’ perceptions influence economic fundamentals, which in turn alter investor perceptions. Watch the above video as Straight Arrow News contributor… -
Federal Reserve surpassed its own wildest expectations
On May 14, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics released the most current producer price index (PPI) report, which showed an increase of 0.5% month-over-month in April. After the report’s release, U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Jerome “Jay” Powell said that while he believes the current policy rate is restrictive by many measures, the Fed needs… -
Polls give slight advantage to Trump in Electoral College
With the U.S. general election only six months away, leading candidates President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump appear to be engaged in a very close contest. In their 2020 race, the winner of the Electoral College was ultimately determined by a relative handful of voters in just a few swing states, even though… -
College sports is big money but not everyone benefits
March Madness has wrapped up and Caitlin Clark has emerged as a household name as well as a wealthy student athlete. Earning over $3 million throughout her college career, her success stands in stark contrast to the previous notion that collegiate athletes shouldn’t earn anything beyond their scholarship. Straight Arrow News contributor Larry Lindsey examines…
Popular Opinions
-
In addition to the facts, we believe it’s vital to hear perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum.