Coronavirus Week 74A: More on WIV lab leak idea; but no, "gain of function" ≠ "bioweapons"

Sam Husseini is arguably right to talk about a "cover-up" by St. Anthony of Fauci, and Peter Dazsag outside the government, over the possibility of a lab lead at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. He's right that the U.S. government should investigate itself. Now, could Pelosi really block an investigation unless Biden wanted to be blocked? I doubt it.

Was "gain of function" research involved? Yes. Per Jaime Metzl, I've already rejected Fauci's Jesuitical attempt to explain away this issue.

BUT!

I totally reject that bioweapons research is what this is. I totally reject the idea that Husseini seems to be playing with, that just because "gain of function" is involved, that makes it bioweapons.

Besides, if the US really wanted to do bioweapons research, it sure as hell wouldn't be working with a Chinese lab. Now, is it theoretically possible China, as it walled off the French after the lab was built, would have walled us off, too? Theoretically, yes. For this? Highly unlikely, that is, highly unlikely that we'd be allowed to be part of such research.

And, in this case, there would have been bigger alarms leaking from somewhere inside the US. Seriously, a Mike Pompeo with his CIA post would have been all over this.

I won't say that Sam Husseini is firmly in conspiracy theory territory. But, I think he has the toes of one foot there, at a minimum. 

In all of this, Husseini tells Ken Silverstein that he doesn't want to be in winger territory. And, he generally presents as a leftist. But, beyond arguably dipping his toes into conspiracy thinking, Sam's also going down the path of horseshoe theory. And yes, contra some leftists, at times I think it's real. Don't like that being stated? Then don't go down that road. (And, the fact that Husseini protests he's not? Per Shakespeare ....)

This is all what makes this not only wrong, but dangerous.

The alternative angle, which would arguably be more charitable, is that Husseini is an idiot, not a conspiracy theorist. (The two, of course, are nowhere near mutually exclusive.) But, I've seen Husseini in action before; he doesn't strike me as an idiot.

So, per Shakespeare? He probably doth indeed protest too much.