I really enjoyed this interview. Jamie's candor, measured responses and non-condescending answers were thought-provoking and very information driven. Unlike Dr. Collins, who I believe was knowingly covering for his people, Jamie came across like he actually cares about the other arguments rather than just being sanctimonious. I also appreciate he gave 5 hours of his time!,(reply>), @RYAN HUESEMAN Me too. I dont think we will know for some time, but until then we have to follow science and be open minded to as many options as it takes to win. I appreciate the conversation, and thank for health wishes! I hope you and yours have a happy AND healthy Holidays!,(reply>), @Mike Nunz I can agree with most of what you said. I hope we find out the whole truth beyond a shadow of a doubt as soon as possible. Also good luck with your condition,(reply>), @RYAN HUESEMAN The argument for prosecuting those responsible for (possibly *) messing with nature and/or causing this Pandemic is different than the argument for how the heck we deal with it moving forward.<br><br>I accept that the horse is out of the stable and we have to fight it. Im not a denier nor am I anti-vax. However, I strongly oppose any attempt at covering the truth; the origins and the machinations as to why it may have been created in the first place.<br><br>Governments sharing medical/scientific info existed for a long time, surely before Trump. The origins of the Wuhan Lab have nothing to do with Trump as Dr. Metzl explained on this podcast. In no way do I think the Trump Administration had anything to do with the origins of this virus; funding for it pre-existed Trump. Fauci was in his position prior to Trump. The NIH has been funding other bio-research since before Trump.<br><br>Now why do I think there is a cover-up? I dunno, would you want to responsibility for unleashing this virus on humanity?! I wouldnt, and I dont think China or the US would want anything to do with that admission. It's really that simple.<br><br>As to bio-ethical research, there are two sides to that, also discussed in this podcast: do you support gain of function research and potentially alter virus and disease with the goal of potentially predicting it's behavior for future intervention and treatment, or do you let nature take its course and be reactive more than proactive? Personally, I see positives and negatives to both and as someone who suffers from a complex Neuro-vascular condition himself, Id be dishonest if I didnt think Ive benefited from proactive research.<br><br>But, Ill say this, and I quote Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park, "Nature finds a way". Humanity messing with nature is god-like, and it may not be in our best interest to cosplay as gods...,(reply>), @Mike Nunz Okay but why, especially under the Trump organization, would China and US Government be cooperating to make a bioweapon. If they were trying to take something in nature, tweak it to find out how to keep people safe from that mutation, then that would be terrible but the intentions were sincere and it fits there job description. To assign maliciousness to it, without substantial evidence, is useless. If it comes out that you're right, I'll be right there advocating for the prosecution of anyone that conspired to make a bioweapon. Otherwise I think its best to trust the experts that have prevented many people dying from other pandemics around the world. Nature often cooks up much worse than what people can when it comes to diseases.,(reply>), @RYAN HUESEMAN I think they (NIH, Chinese Government, etc) played Doctor Frankenstein, fucked with nature, nature got ugly, and we got The Monster aka Covid. Ever since, they've all been trying to do damage control and the messaging, signaling and leadership has been poor.<br><br>I think the virus was purposely created; that is, to make it something that they could potentially control if it ever did come out. I dont think the leaking of it was on purpose, that was a catastrophic mistake that the world has to deal with.