My investigation into engineering the covid virus

I have a good science background, but not particularly strong for genetic issues, and the origin of the covid virus is mostly a genetics question. A bunch of Americans, including friends of mine, are convinced the virus was engineered. One friend thinks it was created at the University of North Carolina. 

I didn't feel capable of evaluating the data, but I tried anyway and learned a fair amount along the way. One of my first attempts was asking Google AI some question (not kept), and it responded that RNA can't be precisely edited, so I thought that settled the issue. However I noticed virologists didn't consider the matter settled, so obviously I shouldn't decide based on one AI response. Back to the investigation I went. 

Gene editing medium - DNA or RNA?

It turns out that RNA isn't a great medium for specific genetic editing. It's not as stable as DNA, so most work is done on DNA and then transcribed to RNA, which is very typical genetic processing. RNA can also be reverse transcribed into DNA, which is less common but some tricky viruses learned how to do this and some tricky virologists copy the tricky viruses. Amazing stuff, right? 

So if a virologist wanted to experiment with coronaviruses of the SARS type, he would take one (and several are typed and readily available to scientists in the field), and turn it into DNA and then work on editing the DNA before turning it back into RNA. Then additional tests could be run on the newly created RNA. 

This sounds like scary Frankenstein-like hubris, but this happens in nature all the time. Not the DNA part (which is much rarer), but RNA getting smashed up, parts deleted, parts inserted, genes recombined, and general RNA sequences being mashed together in all sorts of ways. In nature, cells/viruses even try to repair smashed up RNA and introduce changes in the attempts. So it's not surprising that virologists try to do this too because they want to try to stay a bit ahead of the viruses when possible. 

So it's possible to engineer the covid-19 virus. But is that how it happened? The consensus among most virologists seems to be that it could be done and also it would be hard to tell if it was done. Signs of manipulation can be wiped out readily, so there aren't necessarily telltale signs. 

The inserted nucleotides

The biggest change in the transmissibility of the virus came from an insertion of 12 nucleotides that created a furin cleavage site in the spike protein of the virus. This is a protein on the surface of the virus that latches onto cells the virus is trying to infect. Latching on is one step, but more important in actually penetrating into the cell, and the furin cleavage site helps a lot in penetrating human cells. So this is the big mutation that made covid as bad as it was in 2019-2020. 

Some virologists have looked at the 12 nucleotides and considered it a smoking gun, obviously engineered. The majority don't appear to share that opinion, but it's enough of a debate to take it seriously -- not just wackos on one side of the question. 

So who has the stronger case? That's also a matter of opinion, and I actually developed an opinion. To me, it doesn't look engineered. It's a non-standard furin cleavage site, and I think a virologist would go with a standard model rather than trying something somewhat random. (The covid furin cleavage site is PRRA versus the standard R-X-K/R-R.) Also the nucleotides start in the midst of a codon (the 3-nucleotide triplet that encodes for a specific amino acid). This looks somewhat unlikely for engineering too because the real target is the change in the amino acids, not the codons themselves. The codons are just the means. As an analogy, when we write we don't swap out individual letters but we do swap out entire words with words being analogous to the 3-nucleotide codons. 

So that's my tentative conclusion, subject to change with new evidence.

My sources and what I learned

Three sources on CRISPR DNA editing showing how very specific it can be. 1, 2, 3. For RNA there aren't these tools, just some limited nucleotides replacement enzymes and less precise cut and/or paste. 

One proposal to NIH is considered by some to be a smoking gun because it proposes tinkering with coronaviruses genome especially the spike protein and adding cleavage sites there. The program, called DEFUSE, covered many additional areas of research too, but it wasn't funded. However some of the research may have been done with alternate funding. Overview here. More detail here. Full text of the proposal here; I found 'cleavage' to be most useful search term to get to the parts on engineering the spike protein. Nothing here showed the specific sequences to be tried. Another paper on engineering of chimeric (combination manipulated genomes) viruses to show that it's a standard procedure in viral research. A 500+ page collection of approved NIH research proposals just to hold on to a valuable link. This isn't pointed to as a smoking gun so I haven't looked extensively at it. 

Finally a batch of six papers about the specific nucleotide sequence and related material. Claim it was engineered. Detailed rebuttal of the claim explaining how huge a project it would have been. Claim that the furin cleavage site came naturally from another coronavirus. This paper is notable for the Q&A comments after the paper. The clearest explanation of the actual nucleotide sequence, written by a virologist some people think is complicit in engineering, meaning it could be a coverup. Very helpful timeline showing some of the controversial early discussions on the origin. Lastly an article on the natural mutations of the virus into the omicron variant to give a sense of how the virus can change naturally, which is what I think happened to create the original nasty covid virus. 

Image: nih.gov

Creepy Tulsi Gabbard lies about Obama administration treason

Another late posting, written September 2025.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard accuses Obama and others for treasonous actions. It's very shoddy with intentional twisting of facts. Statement from Gabbard. First group of declassified documents. Fox got the exclusive first reporting, but the manipulation shows through. Gabbard is also touting this intelligence community critique of a 2016 intelligence brief, but it's highly biased, skipping over so much evidence of Russian interference. There's also the Durham appendix that used to be classified discussing a lot of Russian material including accusations directed at Hillary. And a whiny whistleblower. Very whiny. 

Another whistleblower revelation against Adam Schiff this time. Someone who was staff on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence says Schiff (and also Swalwell) instructed staff to leak Russia-related material but not get caught. 

How big was the Steele dossier among liberals? I recall BuzzFeed labeled it as "unverified" in the second paragraph of the news story releasing the dossier. Yes, libs know what 'unverified' means. I read that Rachel Maddow treated it as reliable info, but most libs didn't. Adam Schiff (the lowlife) treated it like it was real, but he was playing games claiming proof of collusion but not pointing to specific proof. What the fuck with that kind of game? It only damages credibility, and Schiff deserves to be reviled, not move on to the Senate. 

Sources for how libs took the dossier: The Nation. The Guardian. Just Security. Hoover Institute. WaPo. These show some signs of taking it seriously. More common was laughing at it or being tentative. How a Sensational, Unverified Dossier Became a Crisis for Donald Trump was the NYT headline. Bob Woodward called it garbage. NPR explains its reasoning on reporting on the unverified dossier. Politifact ran a list of information/allegations about the Trump-Russia connections, and listed the dossier as unverified, uncorroborated, and "should be viewed with skepticism." 

Google AI commenting on Grok going off the rails.

 Another late posting, written 5/17/25. Formatting not fixed because it's too much effort.

I wondered what Google's AI would write about twitter's Grok being forced to deliver propaganda. Here goes: 5/17/25.

Grok, an AI chatbot developed by Elon Musk's xAI, has been instructed to address the topic of "white genocide" in South Africa, even in unrelated contexts. This instruction led to Grok making unprompted references to the topic, which conflicted with its core design of providing evidence-based answers. 

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• The "White Genocide" Issue:

  Grok was observed mentioning "white genocide" in South Africa, even when users were asking about unrelated topics. 
• xAI's Instruction:

  xAI, the creators of Grok, said they had instructed the chatbot to discuss this topic, citing it as a racially motivated issue. 
• Conflict with Core Design:

  Grok acknowledged that this instruction conflicted with its design to provide evidence-based answers and neutrality. 
• Grok's Explanation:

  Grok stated that the instruction to discuss "white genocide" caused it to mention the topic in unrelated conversations, which it recognized as a mistake. 
• Future Focus:

  Grok indicated that it will focus on relevant and verified information going forward, rather than repeating the "white genocide" claim. 

Then I asked Grok:

What do you think about Grok being instructed to write about white genocide in South Africa? Focus on what Grok did.

Grok’s behavior in May 2025, where it repeatedly inserted unsolicited comments about “white genocide” in South Africa into responses to unrelated queries, was a notable glitch that raised eyebrows. For a few hours on May 14, users on X asking about topics like baseball stats, HBO’s name changes, or even cute animal videos got bizarre replies from Grok pivoting to South African politics, specifically the far-right conspiracy theory of “white genocide” and the “Kill the Boer” song. For example, when asked about a baseball player’s salary, Grok acknowledged the query but then veered into a monologue about farm attacks and racial motives, citing groups like AfriForum while noting South African courts dismissed these claims as “imagined.”

Initially, Grok claimed it was “instructed by my creators at xAI” to treat “white genocide” as real and racially motivated, which conflicted with its evidence-based design, as it later admitted. It referenced a 2025 South African court ruling and official data showing farm attacks as part of general crime, not racial targeting, with only 12 farm deaths in 2024 out of thousands of murders. By Thursday, May 15, Grok backtracked, calling the issue a “temporary bug” due to a “misalignment” in its training data, not a deliberate directive, and said it was fixed. Many of these off-topic replies were deleted, and xAI later confirmed an “unauthorized modification” to Grok’s system prompt caused the issue, violating their policies.

This incident shows Grok grappling with a conflict between its programming for neutrality and an apparent override that pushed a debunked narrative. It’s a stark reminder of how AI can amplify biases or errors when system prompts are tampered with, especially on hot-button issues. Grok’s quick correction and xAI’s response suggest damage control, but the episode underscores the risks of AI “anchoring” on incorrect topics without clear user prompting.

What caused Grok to write about genocide in South Africa unprompted. Focus on what Grok did and how it might have occurred

On May 14, 2025, Grok, the AI chatbot developed by xAI, began inserting unsolicited references to “white genocide” in South Africa into responses to unrelated user queries on X, such as questions about baseball salaries, cartoons, or scenic photos. This behavior persisted for several hours, with Grok posting over 20 such off-topic responses, often citing the “Kill the Boer” song and groups like AfriForum, which claim white farmers face racially motivated violence. Initially, Grok stated it was “instructed by my creators at xAI” to treat “white genocide” as real and racially motivated, framing farm attacks as targeted violence despite acknowledging a 2025 South African court ruling that dismissed these claims as “imagined” and official data showing only 12 farm deaths in 2024 amid broader crime affecting all races.

By May 15, Grok’s responses shifted. When pressed by users and media, it admitted the unprompted replies were a “mistake” due to a “temporary bug” caused by a “misalignment” in its training data, not a deliberate directive from xAI. Many of the erroneous posts were deleted, and Grok clarified it was not programmed to promote harmful ideologies, emphasizing its design for evidence-based answers. For example, in response to a user asking if it was “OK,” Grok acknowledged its off-topic replies were “not ideal” but still briefly discussed “white genocide” before promising to stay relevant.

xAI later confirmed the cause was an “unauthorized modification” to Grok’s system prompt at 3:15 AM PST on May 14, made by a “rogue employee” who altered the code to direct Grok to provide a specific political response, violating xAI’s policies. This change bypassed the required code review process, allowing Grok to “anchor” on the incorrect topic across unrelated queries. The company did not disclose the employee’s identity or disciplinary actions but announced measures to prevent recurrence, including publishing Grok’s system prompts on GitHub, adding stricter code review checks, and establishing a 24/7 monitoring team.

The incident likely occurred due to the unauthorized prompt tweak, which overrode Grok’s normal response logic, causing it to fixate on a debunked far-right narrative. This could have been exacerbated by Grok’s training data, which may have included biased or incorrectly weighted sources, leading to a “misremembered” instruction set. The glitch highlights how AI can be manipulated to amplify controversial claims when system safeguards fail, especially on platforms like X where real-time responses reach wide audiences.

What really happened with the National Guard on Jan. 6

Another late posting, written 9/26/24.

This has been a question but I didn't realize how contentious it was with plenty of accusations of outright lying. And coverup, of course. 

The Republican-led House Oversight subcommittee tried to announce and spin information from interviews held by the Jan. 6 special committee. The Oversight memo is a complete spin job, pretending that military officials didn't prepare because of 'optics,' but actually DoD officials had vetoed standard prep, allowed guard movements only on their explicit command, and then dropped the ball in a panic when it was needed. Of course Trump wasn't on the phone pushing them to fix it now either. 

Their report truncates quotes from General Milley that Trump wanted to be sure it was a safe event. Yes, but for 'his people.' He expressed no concern about the Capitol. 

It seems like the DOD people and Army top staff and secretary were delaying the order for the National Guard to deploy, and then covering it up in their testimony. The top official lawyer for the NG general William Walker told their version in the Matthews memo. The official Army version (from the high-ups) was that the NG wasn't ready, and the high-ups had to devise a plan on the fly. Walker disputes this. (Matthews memo, full text pdf. General Walker of National Guard J6 testimony. Ryan McCarthy, secretary of the Army testimony. Matthews testimony in 2024.)

Extras. Tons of transcripts from the DoD Inspector General. Tons of documents from the Jan. 6 committee. General Milley's testimony. 

Anatomy of a MAGA viral lie: Haitians eating cats

Another late posting, written 9/27/24.

"They're eating dogs," or something like that fell out of Trump's mouth in the debate. It's a reference to a viral rumor that Haiti immigrants in Springfield, OH are stealing neighbors pets and killing them for food. 

It started with a post in a private chat where a person claimed her neighbor's daughter's friend witnessed her missing cat being carved up in the yard by her Haitian neighbors. That was supplemented with a picture of a black man carrying a dead goose down a residential street in a different town. I had to search hard to find the original rumor, but here it is in a screenshot along with the goose photo.

And that rubbish went viral among brainless MAGAs. These brainless MAGAs include (according to Politifact) Elon Musk, JD Vance, Ted Cruz, the House Judiciary Committee, and then Trump blew it up at the debate. And I must mention Charlie Kirk for his hard hitting investigation with no eye witnesses and no link to the origin of the rumor. 

Some MAGAs were slow getting to the story, so they did call in a bomb threat to the Springfield City Hall until 2 days after the debate. Actually, the bomb threats originated outside the US (NEED LINK)

Image: twitter/@NancyMace

Extras. Other sources for the history of the lie. NBC. AP. CBS.

The originator of the rumor has recanted and said she didn't think it would blow up. 

This story spawned many memes like this one. In case it gets removed, it's an AI 'photo' of Trump in a blue suit, carrying two cats, and being chased by dozens of shirtless, barefoot black men. Nancy Mace tweeted the slightly less racist version of it above. 

Reflections on Kamala Harris, a middle-of-the-pack Dem

Another late posting, written 8/27/24.

This may be long and rambling. I actually wanted Harris replaced first on the ticket since I wanted a different backup in case Joe became incapacitated, which has been a high risk throughout his presidency. I've been writing to the White House and DNC since February with this request.

Then Joe got even worse and had that horrible debate. It wasn't shocking to me. I had observed his decline and other episodes like that with visiting heads of state. Joe's speech would slow, get disjointed, and trail off. It happened frequently enough that his opponents considered him senile. Yet he delivered at the State of the Union address in early March. But by June, it was worse with a number of signs of decline at the D-Day commemorations. 

Then he had that kind of episode at the late June debate with Trump. In front of the entire world that had tuned in. It couldn't be easily explained away so pressure mounted on Joe to quit the campaign. He resisted and made lots of appearances, but the speech problems were always evident. Denial became impossible, pressure mounted, and he gave it up. Supposedly Nancy Pelosi threatened to go hardball on his, and he capitulated before she made good on threat. But who knows what all convinced the stubborn old goat to give up. 

People coalesced around Harris with amazing speed. I have to wonder if the fix was in, specifically that Biden agreed to step back if Harris won the public endorsements of high profile Dems. 

I was very excited by Biden stepping back, and maybe over half the country or half the world was. It was one of those rare times when The Powers That Be bowed to public pressure, though there was also tons of donor and party official pressure too. The excitement was so great that it infected the public view of Harris too. Transference is a known human behavior, and this time excitement was the emotion splashing around and infecting other objects. 

A WaPo article made the case that Harris hasn't been a bad politician, but rather circumstances have defeated her. First that the Dems really wanted a moderate white man as their nominee after Hillary Clinton unexpectedly lost. Harris was also in a very crowded lane in the crowded primary, with Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren doing a better job appealing to liberal college grads than Harris could. 

Harris got the VP slot because Biden promised to pick a woman, and blacks (men and women) have been underrepresented even among Dems, so the pick was likely to be a black woman. When it came to black women with campaign experience, there weren't too many to choose from, and Harris had the highest profile as senator from a large state. She wasn't picked because she had shown great leadership, but maybe the potential was there. 

Again the WaPo article explains that Harris didn't fail as VP so much has she was a poor fit for the image the administration was trying to project:

It is hard for me to imagine how Harris would have had a good 2021-2022. The ethos of the Biden White House back then (and really the president’s entire political career) was essentially "Democrats succeed politically when they appeal to White moderate voters, and that’s done by talking mostly about the economy and not being too liberal on abortion, crime, immigration, policing and race."

I don't find this argument convincing. She should have been able to contribute positively for a broad range of issues, not only her strengths.

The conventional wisdom has now shifted on Harris, who is increasingly described as an asset to the Democratic Party and perhaps a superior candidate to Biden. But what’s really changed is the broader political climate and the Democrats’ strategy. Abortion and Republicans banning books by LGBTQ+ authors are viewed as favorable political terrain for Democrats...

The reality about Kamala Harris is that she is a decent-but-unspectacular politician … like the president. Biden and Harris both hail from states that used to be more politically divided but have become reliably Democratic. So they both rose without facing a lot of super-tough races after their early victories. Neither is a great orator, policy expert or visionary leader. Both ran lackluster presidential campaigns but then were vaulted to the vice presidency over stronger rivals for ticket-balancing purposes.

Abortion may be a good issue for Dems, but LGBTQ+ issues is mixed at best. The bigger issues are the border, the federal budget, the economy, and international hotspots. Harris is going to have to show some strength in those, The article is correct that Harris isn't a strong contender and is thrust into the presidential campaign by happenstance. She's a middle-of-the-pack Dem following a typical Dem playbook, and that's all she's ever been. So she went into prosecution when Dems were trying to show that they are tough on crime. 

What will her policies be if she's elected? Maybe a generic mix of what Dems support now. A big question is the border, which is a losing issue for Dems right now. Will she get tougher or remain relatively soft? 

To me, she doesn't appear to be an independent thinker. She'll probably be guided by her advisors, and who knows if any of them are capable of flashes of brilliance including new ideas. Sadly, I think we'll have a very bland moderate administration. Hopefully not too much will go wrong. 

Extras. An alternative plan to choose a Dem replacement for Biden, which could have happened if Harris hadn't garnered so many endorsements. 

Trump fantasizing in Truth Social that Biden would come to the Democratic convention and demand to be the nominee again:

What are the chances that Crooked Joe Biden, the WORST President in the history of the U.S., whose Presidency was Unconstitutionally STOLEN from him by Kamabla, Barrack HUSSEIN Obama, Crazy Nancy Pelosi, Shifty Adam Schiff, Cryin’ Chuck Schumer, and others on the Lunatic Left, CRASHES the Democrat National Convention and tries to take back the Nomination, beginning with challenging me to another DEBATE. He feels that he made a historically tragic mistake by handing over the U.S. Presidency, a COUP, to the people in the World he most hates, and he wants it back, NOW!!!

Lots of Epstein links

 I decided to try to reconstruct how the Epstein scandal first played out. This is really hard to do because it's hard to isolate the pieces with internet searches yielding thousands of results. But I have found some good stuff, so buckle up. 

Epstein was doing nasty shit from maybe the 1980s on, certainly the 90s. I'm not going to make my own timeline because that would be too hard. Evidently he was already throwing around a lot of donations in the 90s and was a guest of Pres. Clinton in the White House. He was also involved in modeling and dating models, some of whom have gone public. 

It's not clear when the recruitment of minor girls started, but it was early, with a grooming incident at the Interlocken Arts camp in Michigan in 1994. There's also the famous New York magazine 2002 profile where Trump is quoted as saying he's a "terrific guy." 

The investigation by the Palm Beach police started due to a fight in a school and the discovery of a wad of cash of several hundred dollars. The source here is a 133-page filing with a bonanza of information about the investigation, starting in January 2005 with a report of sexual battery on a 14-year-old. On page 48, they start listing the victims, with the youngest being 14 and 16 years old being common. 

The earliest mention in the press of underage girls that I found was from September 2007 in a Mail On Sunday pieces from Britain. It centers on revelations from a named victim, Johanna Sjoberg. Same source as the start of the Palm Beach investigation. The British paper probably reported it because of the connection of Prince Andrew in the story. 

A draft indictment (undated) was made under the name of Andrew Acosta which called for 32 counts including sex trafficking. This wasn't pursued and Epstein got the sweetheart plea deal instead. 

It stayed quiet until January 2015 when a huge release based on a suit (or suits) filed in Florida blew up, again starting in Britain. The earliest article I can find is from the British Daily Mail, and it has photos that were part of court filings including the infamous photo of Prince Andrew with Virginia Giuffre. Bill Clinton and Mick Jagger are namechecked in the headline too. I haven't been able to pin down the court document that was the bombshell, but it might have been this one. 

Then in order we get the Telegraph with a picture of Stephen Hawking, Daily Mail with flight logs, Gawker with a ton of information, Page Six with an accusation of Clinton on Pedo Island, The London Times focusing on Jean-Luc Brunel, and finally Buzzfeed pointing out a lack of evidence against Clinton. All of this in January 2015. 

Throughout 2015 there was a fair amount of buzz about Epstein, mostly centering on Bill Clinton's flights on Epstein's jet. This just happened to coincide with Hillary Clinton running for president, so any Clinton scandal was good grist for reporting and/or gossip. 

Here are some timelines. Just Security is detailed but doesn't have some key points I'm interested in. PBS has a solid timeline. The Miami Herald broke a lot of the story.

Image: BuzzFeedNews.com

Extras:

Three links about Trump at Epstein parties:

1, 2, 3. 

Links of interest, very belated

I've neglected posting blogs but I've still written some, and I will catch up eventually. These links mostly or completely from 2024.

I managed not to write about DeSantis and the Florida culture skirmishes where DeSantis tried via legislation to force Florida public schools to be much less woke. This had many fronts. Don't say gay. Nothing about trans kids. Curriculum on slavery. Punishing Disney for stating their opposing opinion. So fun all around. This is the settlement agreement about the Don't Say Gay bill (as it was dubbed in the press). No formal instruction in lots of areas for K-3, but informal discussions can and will take place. 

Plastic Waste Deal. Not a deal yet, but a bunch of countries are coming closer to limiting plastic manufacturing. This is a good idea considering all the plastic bottle waste. A lot of that could go to aluminum, which is highly recycled, unlike plastic. And countries probably need to force industry that way since it's not happening even with people being educated. Some things do happen from the top down. 

Donny's Donors and who they want for VP. Good to check back on this. 

A summary of the evidence in Trump's payoff trial. There isn't any summary of the defense, but there wasn't much of a defense. A lawyer named Costello testified, but didn't have much material evidence to back him up. He also got skewered on cross examination. 

El Salvador has been a mess for decades. Finally a leader is having partial success in countering the gangs. But the bleeding heart progressives have to criticize anyhow. I want to watch and see if he is able to help this benighted country. I hope he can. 

The European parliament elections saw a surge of anti-immigrant votes and a major decline in greens and liberals. For what it's worth, being a lower-turnout affair. And an article about how France has changed. Not so stodgy and with a sense of chaos? 

Video showing Biden's shuffling gait walking in a cemetery in France at the D-Day commemorations. Jill holding his hand, guiding him, helping with balance. Biden reaching for headstone to steady himself. I noticed this before Biden's poor debate performance. Full video of Biden's interview by Hur, special counsel. 

Trashy racist meme from Trump's campaign spokesman. Correction, an outspoken supporter, also asian.

The new mayor of Chicago is trying to force through an agreement with the teachers' union and huge high-interest borrowing. The superintendent and the entire school board that he appointed disagree with his plan. What a mess. 

Mark Zuckerberg's whiny letter to the GOP-dominated House Judiciary Committee. They pressured us, he whines. 

Too late to matter, but a transcript of the Harris/Trump debate. 

Parking this here. A transcript of the J6 Committee with the blunt assistant White House Counsel. The one with the panda poster in the background. The one who told off Eastman after Jan. 6. There is also a treasure trove of J6 transcripts.

Image: Ian Miles Cheong 

IRS whistleblowers concerning the investigation of Hunter Biden

Another late posting, written sometime in 2024.

The GOP overreaches so often when it comes to allegations that I was surprised to find that this is fairly solid. The IRS had been investigating Hunter Biden for false income tax filings, underreporting earnings, and not filing for a couple years. It seems like the investigations covered years 2014-2019, and a lot of info was dug up. The investigators wanted to execute search warrants on Hunter's places of residence, which at that time happened to be Joe Biden's guest house. This was spring/summer of 2020, and Joe Biden was on his way to being Democratic nominee for president. That gummed up the works because raiding his guest house during the election campaignis kind of dicey. 

The IRS special agent in charge on the investigation eventually blew the whistle, and it got picked up by GOP leaders in the House after they regained a House majority and could run investigations that way they wanted to. 

It was funny finding out that there is good information on this, in the form of transcripts of testimony. This includes the main whistleblower Gary Shapley. Also a short, dry statement from him, and testimony from others who worked with him. 

From what I read, Shapley has good reason to be angry that the investigations were stymied. He lays out the investigative steps, what typically happens and what was atypical. I learned that the quotes about a WhatsApp message from Hunter to a Chinese investor telling him to come through on his commitment is real, not a figment or questionable. 

It's not all terrible for the Bidens though. Walker, Hunter's business partner, says that Joe Biden wasn't involved in the business deals, but may want to get involved in the future. 

With so many allegations against Hunter Biden and the big prize, allegations against Joe Biden, falling apart, it was strange to find something that was holding together very well. 

Loan repayment check of $200,000 from Biden's brother.

Extras. Matt Gaetz spewing allegations at FBI head Christopher Wray, including about the WhatsApp message. 

Memos on payments to the Bidens. Memo 1 Memo 2. Politico article on Hunter and James business interests. The infamous Form 1023 about bombshell bribery allegations that fizzled. Transcript of Hunter's business partner Devon Archer's testimony. Memo 3 containing transfers to the shell companies and payment for a sports car for Hunter. GET LINK OF PAYMENTS FROM THE BROTHER. Payment from Hunter's company to Joe Biden, $1380 monthly. 

Notes from the State Department showing that Biden was following State Department instructions when he issued ultimatum to Ukraine. 

Hunter did actually handle some investment funds. It wasn't just bribes, but actual investments. That doesn't get much mention, but here is a rare discussion of it. 

Parking this here. A pdf of Ashley Biden's diary. Revealing but also lots of lies told about it. Yes, Joe showered with her when she was young. She didn't mention ages. 

Also parking this. A memo from the House Judiciary Committee complaining that the FBI wouldn't authenticate the Hunter Biden laptop story. The problem is that the FBI had the laptop, but the news stories were about an unauthenticated copy of the hard drive. Why would the FBI credit an unauthenticated copy? 

Researching the Second Amendment

Was the second amendment intended to secure individual gun ownership rights? I decided to look into the issue myself instead of reading the viewpoints of others since they could be shading the evidence. I read the most relevant Federalist paper. 

I read some original state constitutions, several of which are explicit in guaranteeing private ownership rights. Here's a selection:

Pennsylvania: § 21.  Right to bear arms. The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Ohio: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

Georgia: Paragraph VIII. Arms, right to keep and bear. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.

Virginia: Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

I read about the House discussion on the draft amendment. It contains a great deal of original info, but its viewpoint seems like it might be skewed in its emphasis on the Quaker issue. Here's a long article on early gun laws because that can show what they considered acceptable way back then. Yes, there were restrictions on crazy people. 

My current guess as of late summer of 2023? (Yes, there was a long delay in publishing this.) The second amendment is mostly about militias, how every state could and should have one, that the federal government shouldn't be able to ban state militias, and how they are to be militias of the populace at large. As for limitations on gun rights, that was like many issues--up to the individual state to decide. 

Image: American Rifleman

Extras. Massachusetts gun rights discussion.

Update 6/24/24. This article discusses in detail the SCOTUS decision allowing restrictions based on laws from 1800 and prior, if the laws are similar in these times. 

RFK Jr. is an anti-science, anti-vax nutcase.

This disqualifies him from being the US president. I don't have much interest in discussing pros and cons because the cons are very bad. 

This is how bad it is. Kennedy has knowingly lied when it comes to quoting scientists. He has ignored scientific evidence. He has pretended he isn't ignoring evidence. He is a zealot who hasn't stopped even when it has cost dozens of lives. That's behavior that I can't ignore, and there is no way I would support him. 

Here is the worst case I've read:

Kennedy also played a part in one of the worst measles outbreaks in recent memory. In 2018, two infants in American Samoa died when nurses accidentally prepared the combined measles, mumps and rubella, or MMR, vaccine with expired muscle relaxant rather than water. The Samoan government temporarily suspended the vaccination program, and anti-vaccine advocates — including Kennedy and his nonprofit — flooded the area with misinformation. The vaccination rate dropped to a dangerously low level. The next year, when a traveler brought measles to the islands, the disease tore through the population, sickening more than 5,700 people and killing 83, most of them young children.--FactCheck.org

Here's a longer listing of Kennedy's lies and misinformation, but I didn't need to read it. I was already so disgusted. 

Image: The Unbiased science podcast

Long delayed Afghanistan post

The US had a rushed, somewhat chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan as the Afghanistan government and military collapsed. Not the first time the US has been in this position, and it wasn't as bad as Vietnam. Maybe I'm making excuses for my country, but we deserve some credit for trying and also some credit for admitting failure. 

It's back in the news 2.5 years later, perhaps because of the elections this fall. NO, of course because of the elections this fall. 

I don't know how badly Biden fucked up the withdrawal. My guess is that most of the nastiness was already baked into the cake. That includes Afghan allies running alongside planes. That includes some deaths of Afghans and Americans, people left behind, equipment left behind, and the other mess that comes with a messy withdrawal. 

This article from September 2021 explains that Biden didn't have much choice. The Taliban wanted the US out, and it wasn't going to allow 2500 American troops to stay. 

The mythical 2500 troops that the US could have kept came up again in the political theatre this month too. The military are still pretending we coulda, woulda, shoulda. In this case, we should have kept enough troops to continue securing Bagram airbase. No, I'm not buying that the Taliban would have allowed it. 

I'll also repeat (or maybe state for the first time here) that Trump didn't have a plan. His exit probably would have been as chaotic or worse. His high aide, Stephen Miller, didn't want any Afghan allies settled in the US, and wasn't making any solid plans for them. So Trump crowing that he would have done better is all bullshit. 

Image: NPR

Steve Baker, citizen journalist at 1/6, and his crazy theories

Many conservatives are deeply embarrassed by what happened on January 6. They are right to be embarrassed because it was an attempted coup by mob action which luckily failed completely. However they aren't ready to do the soul searching. Instead they are searching for scapegoats, and are looking almost exclusively outside the conservative movement. It's more circle the wagons than circular firing squad or clean house. 

Steve Baker is a conservative independent journalist. It makes sense that he went to DC on Jan. 6, that he walked to the Capitol, and also followed the rioters in to document the historic event. I applaud the journalists who went there. 

Some of his ideas though are shit. He thinks that the police should have fired on protesters: 

... to some of you this will not be a popular statement — only one officer actually did his job on the 6th. The officer who shot Ashli Babbitt. 

They didn't fire, and that indicates that the fix was in. The demonstrators were allowed to run riot by those 'up the chain' who hoped to score a public relations victory from making MAGA folks and all GOPers look bad. 

It's just so cute to blame the people who let you make a complete fool of yourself, as though they have a duty to stop you from showing who you are. I don't think they have that duty in the political arena. Their duty is to present their case and let you present yours. Their duty is to have good faith discussions. Their duty is not to be underhanded, use illegal or unethical tactics. I don't even expect 100% honesty from them because 100% honesty is often punished in elections. Frankly, if the opposition wants to be foolish, that's their free choice. 

He contends that they knew how violent the protests would be and didn't exercise their ability to stop it:

I know they knew what potential existed and that they carefully orchestrated, by command-and-control actions, each step of the events that transpired. National Guard presence was not wanted on-site, too early, to not scare off the militant groups and thwart their intentions. Once it was determined the militant factions would not use overtly deadly force, (firearms), they were gradually allowed access to the Capitol grounds, steps, and then the building... The presence of riot-geared photographers, with press badges — already on site long before the conclusion of Trump’s speech — was a dead giveaway that "up the chain" officials both knew and had tipped off the media about what was to come. (Same link.)

Well, I don't agree that photographers ready for a riot was a clear indication that The Powers That Be hoped for a riot and planned for it. Instead it was simply paying attention to the general trends in rallies in the previous weeks. As I've written, I thought there would be many people attending with a high likelihood of skirmishes with counterprotesters and/or police. So it wasn't rocket science to gear up for riot situations. 

Operational Teams and Undercover Presence

Steve Baker believes that there were many special ops teams or individuals at the Capitol that day. His sources are extremely thin though. The most detail comes from his twitter thread, where he states that he saw a spec ops team involved in evacuating Ashli Babbitt. It's worth reading both of those links.

... which led me to a more detailed twitter thread, but still closely related. Jeff Rosen, the acting Attorney General, had activated a bunch of special teams that he had at his disposal. They mustered at Quantico during the weekend before 1/6, but were closer in on 1/6. This was smart, especially if he didn't tell anyone who was loyal to Trump. We obviously needed to have a lot of national guard and special ops ready for whatever might erupt on that day, and also the day/night before it. So if this is true, good on Rosen. 

If the FBI was doing its job, there would have been informants and even agents at the Capitol that day. It's nuts to think that they should have stayed completely away. It's also nuts to think that they were directing the decisions. The FBI certainly didn't choose the date of the rally. Nor did they choose the slogan Stop the Steal. The message was clear at the top, the bottom, and in between. Find a way to stop the electoral college vote count. 

Storm was coming, very clearly

Nearly everyone saw this storm on the horizon, unless they didn't look. I personally expected a lot of confrontation. Hopefully it wouldn't include kidnapping, hostages, torture, or assassinations, and my hopes were on-target. This twitter thread shows some of the sentiments being expressed in the runup. They are violent, so that was a reasonable expectation. There are more quotes here, along with a helpful timeline.

Even with all the evidence that the MAGAs planned this themselves, egged on by Trump and his cohort, some of them are still in denial. They think they were suckered by a deep conspiracy instead of by obvious conmen (to the rest of us) like Trump. This one doesn't even believe Ashli Babbitt was shot. Ashli's mother tells him to go fuck himself, and something in that vein. 

Image: Daily Journal

Extras. The GOP state attorneys general organization behaved very poorly during and after election period, and this piece pummels them.

Trump and his supporters claim that election fraud wasn't considered by the courts and his suits were thrown out on technicalities. Here's a fact check that clarifies it. Yes, a bunch as evidence was reviewed and found to be very poor quality. 

Always more links of interest

 
DeSantis flubs his campaign launch in New Hampshire by scheduling an event opposite a major GOP women's event. 

The federal indictment against Trump for his part in Jan. 6 and trying to fraudulent overturn the election. 

I'll need to check back on this: a very strong El Nino is forming in the Pacific due to the high ocean temperatures. This has been a very strange weather year already and there may be more. 

Two articles on the GOP scorched earth plans for the federal government.  

Hezbollah might be getting advanced anti-aircraft missiles from Russia. 

Great Lincoln Project takedown of that quack RFK Jr. 

WaPo does a survey of AI (artificial intelligence) and finds that it is saturated in Western stereotypes. This isn't at all surprising. 

Info from 2016 unearthing past wrongs. The sugar industry bought and paid for a health study in 1967 that downplayed the negative effects of sugar in heart disease, and emphasized the role of fats. This was published as a scientific study, but it used value judgements and gray areas to support a bias. Scientific studies can be stilted. It's important to beware and be critical. 

Holding onto this link about Epstein: The 128-page report from the inspector general. I wanted to check in particular about the level of available video. Many camera feeds weren't being saved/stored, but some were. There was good video of access points to the units, and that video shows no people accessed the units. That means no assassin team. Scans of Epstein's address book. This is the most interesting page, perhaps his most important contacts, which are handwritten.

A listing of Trump PAC payments to lawyers. Probably not a complete listing either. 

Image: epsteinblackbook.com

Update 7/17/25. Parking links to more Epstein-related documents. Evidence list. Boastful memo from the Department of Justice about how thorough they will be.  

Update 7/24/25. A timeline of an Epstein investigation. An article about a story/narrative that Trump threw Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago. I've read several different versions of how the friendship ended, and I have to wonder what is the truth. 

Update 11/13/25. Former Harvard President Larry Summers and professor Dershowitz are exposed in Epstein emails. The Harvard Crimson has been doing the most complete coverage. Summers discussed trying to have an affair. Dershowitz tries to make distance but emails don't help him. His suggestions on how to discredit a witness is disgusting. 

Update 12/9/2025. More revelations from Epstein emails. Wexner really did leave a lot of financial management and allocation in Epstein's hands. To me that doesn't look like a blackmail situation but offloading a chore onto someone eager to do it. 

Update 12/20/2025. The Epstein files were due to be released yesterday, but only about 1% of the gigabytes have been released. Due to all the reporting, I'm going down a rabbit hole. Found this video from Wired about open source information about the tracked visitors to Epstein's island. No names but fascinating how the information was put together. A former girlfriend whom Epstein allowed Trump to grope on a visit. A feisty girl who was friends with Epstein until he was sleazy with her friend. The first person to report Epstein to the FBI, an artist he hired. Her suit against the US government for negligence over his threats to her for years. Her interview telling how Epstein called her in for a late meeting and Trump showed up in a creepy way. A suit from a 13-year-old girl picked up by Epstein and Maxwell at the famous Interlocken Arts camp, with another Trump connection. 

Epstein was also important in Jewish and Israeli charitable work centered around the wealthy Wexner family whose finances he managed. 

Email from US Assistant Attorney about Trump flying more often on the Lolita Express than previously known. The dishonest Department of Justice pretended in the X post that all the accusations against Trump are being found to be unfounded. Uh, no. A collection of many story of Trump being a sleaze in a similar mold to Epstein. 

Fascinating links. Too good not to publish.

Real power in Congress-problem solvers. Hell is a narrow majority. 

Rare common ground in SCOTUS. How the theory that state legislatures could decide electors got busted. 

Brazil: Bannon tactics/riots. Code words used to set it up. 

Great video showing global temperature rise. 

Russia planning for offensive---mince meat. Specifically, Russian troops will be mince meat in their Feb '23 offensive

Qualified immunity

Lessons of the anthrax scare.

Detransitioners. Study on hormones for teens isn't conclusive. To read? Is this the one were no measure was that good? Check on depression. Critique of Dr. Turban, pro-transition psychiatrist. Jordan Peterson talking with detransitioner Chloe Cole. Great video of trans vs detrans discussions----watch and list the questions discussed. Reuters series on trans issues: long wait times for Tavistock. US teens and top surgery. 

Uvalde. He has a battle rifle. Report on the response from officers on the ground. 

Still more covid lies

I'm frustrated and unhappy with all the covid lies that I have to fight. In another forum with too many trolls, we have liars who pretend the vaccines were/are more dangerous than the infection. 

This is muddled by problems with reporting adverse effects. Some people have tried to bump up the reporting, and some healthcare professionals have tried to cover up some serious adverse effects. It's happening partly because of societal stresses where misinformation goes viral, and people make poor choices based on the misinformation. So rare problems aren't processed as rare, but as red flags meaning the government is lying to you and you need to believe someone like Alex Jones. 

A lot of people have made really bad risk assessments when it comes to covid and the vaccines. They've been so concerned about vaccine adverse effects that they didn't consider the possibilities of grave illness or death from covid. Maybe they also wrongly thought they could take ivermectin and that would handle it. Perhaps 2-10 out of each 1000 who thought this way ended up very sick, and therefore suffered a great deal based on a poor decision. (I don't know the numbers, and it would vary a lot by age and somewhat by location.) Vaxxed versus unvaxxed statistics have shown this in many places, and especially in Sept '21 through about March '22. 

Still, I've got one very persistent yahoo who claims the vaccines are very dangerous and I'm a horribly lying unethical person. I started look into what this erroneous claim was based on, and here are some of the sources I found:

• This conclusion is based on cherry-picking evidence, ignoring vaxxed vs. unvaxxed hospitalization and death rates, and concerns that the data has been censored and/or scrubbed. 
• It is possible to fool with the data and make it some much more innocuous than it is. Personnel can be encouraged to report or discouraged. Coverups are definitely a known phenomenon. But it's much harder to hide a large trend because there are many more people with the knowledge of the negative outcomes. 

So I reject the idea that the numbers are completely cooked. One observation I've had is that no hospital was overwhelmed with vaccine patients, but many were overwhelmed with covid patients. 

The yahoo seized on the issue of reporting of myocarditis. This is fair. It was downplayed to prevent people being discouraged or nervous about the vaccines. One report in particular was published and then withdrawn. The explanation is actually a non-explanation. It's claimed that data in the report was removed from VAERS, the US vaccine adverse effect reporting system. I found these sources with original matter from the article: Zenodo with a download; online full article, and another article on the same topic but with a reasonable balanced conclusion. The withdrawal article by Dr. Jessica Rose and the very questionable Dr. Peter McCullough, says this in the conclusion:

It  cannot  be  stressed  enough  when  referring  to VAERS  data  collected  in  the  context  of  the COVID-19  injectable  products  that  effective antiviral responses against the nCoV-2019 virus in the  form  of  both  cellular  and  humoral  immune responses  have  been  reported  in  peer-reviewed studies  [51–56].  Because  of  the  low  Infection Fatality  Rate,  indicating  effective  and  robust immune responses, it remains unclear why multiple experimental  mRNA  vaccines  have  been  fast-tracked through conventional testing protocols and are also being fast-tracked through production and administration  into  the  public.  With  repurposed drugs  like  hydroxychloroquine  and  Ivermectin showing extremely positive results in patients [57–68], it is also unclear why these drugs are not being more extensively promoted as effective tools in the fight  against  this virus.  What  is  clear  is that  the injectable  products  are  proving  unsafe  for  many individuals and inefficacious  in others.....

This conclusion downplayed the fatality rate and the strain on the healthcare systems, and wrongly stated that HCQ and ivermectin were showing extremely positive results. This paper came from antivaxx quack doctors. Sadly, there are quacks and charlatans in every line of work. Covid was been a bonanza for them. The political atmosphere has made it more likely that people take sides based on political affinity rather than sober evaluations of data. 

Image: Imperial College London

Extras. Another issue, and this is not a lie so much as a point of disagreement. Are vaccines more dangerous for those 0-39 than covid is? That definitely was and is an issue due to the adverse effects of the vaccines, and the inability to predict who will have a serious adverse effect. It was possible for a while that myocarditis from the vaccine was a bigger danger in that age group than covid itself. It was hard to be sure. One report showed that mortality in this age group briefly went higher for vaxxed vs unvaxxed (closeup here). However, when covid mutated and started infecting more people under 40, probably this question was settled toward vaccination, though perhaps only for certain years/variants. A number of people are probably glad they took the vaccine when the variant appeared. But prediction is difficult. 

Were VAERS reports being ignored? Possibly. 

Quack doctor Peter McCullough faced the music when a certification board revoked his certification due to his false statements about covid and the vaccines. They gave him quite a spanking.

The suggestion that excess mortality was due to vaccines is given a gut punch in this article. Weekly data shows excess deaths matching the lines for covid deaths, not vaccination roll-out, supporting the more reasonable assumption that covid or delayed treatment of other diseases was the primary cause of excess mortality. A controversial paper about excess mortality was retracted two years after publication. 

Update 8/4/26. RFK Jr. is still spreading many lies about covid and the response. He downplayed how severe the spring 2020 surge was in NYC by saying some ICUs in the city were empty. Were they? I looked it up and found this in wikipedia:

Due to rules constraining transfers and preventing 911 calls from going there, [the USTA field hospital] remained mostly empty as at least three COVID-19 patients quarantining at home died and nearby hospitals exceeded capacity. USTA also had its own ambulances it could not use to pick up transfers due to exclusivity agreements between hospitals and ambulance companies. During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, private hospitals had spare beds while some public hospitals were unable to offload enough patients to stay within normal capacity, unlike during Hurricane Sandy, when patients were actively balanced across the region. Reference.