Article supports contention that Covid-19 was spilled from the Wuhan lab

[darkswordsman17]

Knowing the origins of COVID would certainly be helpful in understanding and preparing for the risks of future new virus risks, and the expert consensus seems to be that COVID was introduced through mutations encouraged by cross species infections.

But that best guess falls far short of absolute proof (which we seldom have for anything) and therefore leaves plenty of room for people to rally around other theories - especially conspiracy theories that allow them to throw out contradictory information because it is all lies told by evil (world controlling) elites.

As long as we have people who question the existence of dinosaurs, claim men never landed on the moon, believe that 9/11 was an "inside job", we will also have people who are absolutely sure that COVID was a Chinese bioweapon. 🙄

I don't know how valuable that actually is. We know COVID can and has spread and mutated across species. We knew that before this outbreak even, in fact that's kinda why they were studying it in the labs.

We also know even with irrefutable proof some people will still make up conspiracy theories and other stupidity, so its not like it really changes much of anything. We know there were several potential vectors and so all of it should be used to try and prevent future ones, including making sure labs can't either intentionally or unintentionally be the source.

I am convinced the Chinese government had some hanky panky going on. The question is, what? Because I am not entirely convinced it was experimenting with COVID. Could they? Maybe. Again, the Chinese government is less than forthcoming.

At this point, does it really matter? There is no conclusive proof of anything, and at this point, I doubt there ever will be. Every "smoking gun" article is full of inaccuracies or outright lies.

As personal opinion, I would be surprised if China wasn't experimenting with biological weaponry. Even if there is no conclusive proof. But whether China was experimenting with biological weaponry or not, I doubt they meant to release something like COVID into the wild that hurt them just as much as it hurt everyone else.

Wait, you aren't convinced they were experimenting with COVID? It is absolute objective fact they were. The supposed question is if they maliciously intentionally released it a version they had intentionally engineered.

I agree, but questioning basic facts is absurd. Its not a conspiracy, in fact its a good thing that we study such horrible diseases.

I don't think there's any doubt about that, but then I doubt the US isn't doing that as well so.

This is not complicated. The key points:
1) China is no more or less evil than they were before this shit (pro tip: they are terrible and evil and generally the enemy). They are in it for China. They will fuck over the entire world right up to the point that it negatively affects them. The US government tolerates them because some asshats made them a key part of US cheap manufacturing back in the 70s and 80s. If you thought they were a good partner before covid-19, you are delusional. Stop being a dumbass. Unfortunately, really stupid people didn't understand the TPP and we are still stuck with China.

Regardless of the origins of covid-19, China should be treated the same as always. They are not friendly beyond the fact that they like our money. Full stop.

2) Some people think that there is some sort of "gotcha" and that Faucci personally benefited and allowed China to weaponize Covid-19 and therefore he was the problem with the pandemic. That evidence does not exist. And it has no bearing at all on the fact that it rolled across the planet because some people are too fucking dumb to listen to experts.

3) Smart people realize that the source of a pandemic is not as important as how we respond to it. If we follow guidelines and rules put forth by people who know what they are talking about, we can prevent the spread of any virus and the outcomes can be managed. The source of the virus did not make our inept administration struggle with what to do. Those partisan fucks decided what to do to maximize the benefits to them and their corrupt party. 2 hours of youtube videos does not give you (or the dumbass who made the video) the same expertise as someone who studies viruses all day for decades.

Ignoring the goddamn scientists is the exact opposite of how your respond to a fucking pandemic.
Write that down.
It will be important again at some point.

1.) The problem is there's a significant chunk of Americans who are as evil and out to intentionally harm Americans as the Chinese. We don't even need China to do anything because of how many Americans are willing to fuck the rest of us over.

 

[abj13]

I can grok all this, but I need something more than 'pshaw, they'd never do that'.

To reiterate, obfuscation breeds conspiracy.

Occam's razor, man.

It seems like you have to rectify your own internal logical approaches. When offered serious questions about the logic of genetic manipulation creating SARS-CoV-2, instead of following Occam's razor, you reject the concept and instead prefer obfuscation breeds conspiracy. And then later, the logic changes and now Occam's Razor is an acceptable logical tool (even if applied incorrectly). It really appears you are bending over backwards to support a conclusion you've already made, instead of using logic and evidence to form a conclusion.

If Occam's razor is something you do believe in, then the conclusion is simple. All other outbreaks and pandemics of novel viruses have occurred through random cross-species transmission to humans. In fact, a similar coronavirus transmission event occurred in 2003, in the same region of the world. The genetic data of SARS-CoV-2 strongly supports a natural transmission event, no evidence of bona fide genetic manipulation exists, as the virus even contained suboptimal genetic variants and a suboptimal furin cleavage site. All closely related variants have been found in bats and pangolin, not humans. Attempts to blame virologists for the source have relied on bad logic, bad science, and invoking of nonsensical series of events. Oh, and the origins of this event so far have been tracked back to one of the largest cities in China and major transportation hub where extensive animal-human contacts exist through various means of wet-markets etc.

If somebody could show me some true bona fide evidence that the virus was manipulated, I am all ears. I would love to see it. Despite that, even 3.5 years after the start of the pandemic, nobody has actually provided some real evidence. Its unfortunate, Q, flat earth, stolen elections etc exist because those "believers" want to form a conclusion, and then cherry-pick evidence and logical approaches to support it.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

genetic manipulation creating SARS-CoV-2

You keep going back to that, I've consistently stated that an intentional release of a manipulated virus is exceedingly unlikely, and that even a manipulated sample is far less likely than inappropriate/ineffective handling procedures.

It really appears you are bending over backwards to support a conclusion you've already made, instead of using logic and evidence to form a conclusion.

I've not come to a conclusion regarding this, my primary concern is that everyone else appears to have regardless of the lack of thorough examination. Yes that's my opinion but I'm entitled to that.

If Occam's razor is something you do believe in, then the conclusion is simple. All other outbreaks and pandemics of novel viruses have occurred through random cross-species transmission to humans. In fact, a similar coronavirus transmission event occurred in 2003, in the same region of the world. The genetic data of SARS-CoV-2 strongly supports a natural transmission event, no evidence of bona fide genetic manipulation exists, as the virus even contained suboptimal genetic variants and a suboptimal furin cleavage site. All closely related variants have been found in bats and pangolin, not humans. Attempts to blame virologists for the source have relied on bad logic, bad science, and invoking of nonsensical series of events. Oh, and the origins of this event so far have been tracked back to one of the largest cities in China and major transportation hub where extensive animal-human contacts exist through various means of wet-markets etc.

And the highest probability is likely a zootonic transmission, I'm perfectly happy with that explanation assuming the alternatives have been confidently eliminated. They haven't been confidently eliminated is my concern, and of additional concern, nobody else seems to care. Are you personally completely comfortable with the level due diligence this has gotten? Do you feel completely confident in saying 'yep, bounced from an animal, nothing that could have been done/could be done in the future to prevent this'?

 

[abj13]

You keep going back to that, I've consistently stated that an intentional release of a manipulated virus is exceedingly unlikely, and that even a manipulated sample is far less likely than inappropriate/ineffective handling procedures.

Yes, but you're the one giving credence to that conspiracy theory based on statements like "obfuscation breeds conspiracy."

I've not come to a conclusion regarding this, my primary concern is that everyone else appears to have regardless of the lack of thorough examination. Yes that's my opinion but I'm entitled to that.

And the highest probability is likely a zootonic transmission, I'm perfectly happy with that explanation assuming the alternatives have been confidently eliminated. They haven't been confidently eliminated is my concern, and of additional concern, nobody else seems to care. Are you personally completely comfortable with the level due diligence this has gotten? Do you feel completely confident in saying 'yep, bounced from an animal, nothing that could have been done/could be done in the future to prevent this'?

Who has provided a comprehensive story they are 100% certain of? Shoot, the very post you quote I state explicitly I am open to any and new evidence. People have carefully evaluated the facts, and scientists/analysts/etc are not kicking back in their chairs saying all the work is done. Why do you think there's an ongoing debate over the raccoon dog connection? Why are scientists still interested in more bat studies? Who has taken the results that exist so far and said, "ignore everything else, we're done because we've found it!" Just because there is still investigations occurring that doesn't mean the zoonotic source is a weak argument. The people who are haphazardly evaluating the situation are people like the writers of the "news story" from the OP. If someone is going to argue about China and their lockdown on information, that's a different point and a strawman. Scientists and other experts are not saying, "well since China isn't worried about it, we aren't either."

Why do you think research infrastructure like the NIH and NIAID have produced pandemic preparedness plans for future research and groups to discover pathogens of future pandemic potential?

 

[pmv]

If Occam's razor is something you do believe in, then the conclusion is simple. All other outbreaks and pandemics of novel viruses have occurred through random cross-species transmission to humans.

Is that definitely true? Was there not a flu pandemic that was believed to have escaped from a Russian lab?
Besides, that reasoning ignores the fact that circumstances change, as genetic manipulation tech has evolved/improved, so the distant past is not a legit guide to present probabilities. It doesn't seem a strong argument, to me.

The genetic data of SARS-CoV-2 strongly supports a natural transmission event, no evidence of bona fide genetic manipulation exists, as the virus even contained suboptimal genetic variants and a suboptimal furin cleavage site. All closely related variants have been found in bats and pangolin, not humans. Attempts to blame virologists for the source have relied on bad logic, bad science, and invoking of nonsensical series of events.

This bit is something I've been largely taking on faith, based on your confident assertions and the fact that you seem to have some legit qualifications/experience in the area. Trouble is I just don't have the expertise myself to be able to understand/judge the claims you've made on it, it's largely just a guess as to who seems trustworthy. TBH it's largely your posts on the topic that have me leaning towards "probably a natural origin", simply because you _sound_ as if you know what you are talking about. Not entirely sure whether it matters, anyway.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Yes, but you're the one giving credence to that conspiracy theory based on statements like "obfuscation breeds conspiracy."

That's akin to saying 'pointing out racism is racist'. Sorry but no, pointing out the fact that there's been a lack of transparency is not enabling conspiracy theories. The lack of transparency is doing that all on it's own.

Who has provided a comprehensive story they are 100% certain of? Shoot, the very post you quote I state explicitly I am open to any and new evidence. People have carefully evaluated the facts, and scientists/analysts/etc are not kicking back in their chairs saying all the work is done. Why do you think there's an ongoing debate over the raccoon dog connection? Why are scientists still interested in more bat studies? Who has taken the results that exist so far and said, "ignore everything else, we're done because we've found it!" Just because there is still investigations occurring that doesn't mean the zoonotic source is a weak argument. The people who are haphazardly evaluating the situation are people like the writers of the "news story" from the OP. If someone is going to argue about China and their lockdown on information, that's a different point and a strawman. Scientists and other experts are not saying, "well since China isn't worried about it, we aren't either."

Why do you think research infrastructure like the NIH and NIAID have produced pandemic preparedness plans for future research and groups to discover pathogens of future pandemic potential?

And now we're starting to meet in the middle, where most conversations end at 'any non-zoonotic origin possibility is conspiracy theory', you're at least willing to entertain the possibility. I may lean more heavily on 'no really, we need to consider it for real for real', but at least we're speaking the same language.

To your question, many outright dismiss the possibility either on the grounds of 'no evidence so we have to say no' or 'that's dumb why would they do that' (to include accidental release). I'm very happy the NIH and NIAID have been hard at work, but you'll note that both pandemic preparedness plans and pandemic studies don't necessitate investigating the origins of COVID, only the after-effects. It's worthy of study, HOWEVER if COVID's origins were non-zoonotic, there's a gap somewhere, whether it be procedures, auditing of procedures, following of procedures, something. It's possible that this is known to those that deem that they (and they alone) need to know it, and the vector through which this happened has already been plugged. I have to take several things on faith however, to feel comfortable with that.

 

[abj13]

That's akin to saying 'pointing out racism is racist'. Sorry but no, pointing out the fact that there's been a lack of transparency is not enabling conspiracy theories. The lack of transparency is doing that all on it's own.

No, that comparison doesn't even make sense. The lack of transparency is simply that, a lack on transparency. You are giving credence to the assumption that lack of transparency = they must be hiding something so its acceptable to speculate. Looking at the situation objectively, one would never jump to the conclusion. As you wrote, you are fine making that assumption: "Again, obfuscation from the source means speculation on the destination."

And now we're starting to meet in the middle, where most conversations end at 'any non-zoonotic origin possibility is conspiracy theory', you're at least willing to entertain the possibility. I may lean more heavily on 'no really, we need to consider it for real for real', but at least we're speaking the same language.

To your question, many outright dismiss the possibility either on the grounds of 'no evidence so we have to say no' or 'that's dumb why would they do that' (to include accidental release). I'm very happy the NIH and NIAID have been hard at work, but you'll note that both pandemic preparedness plans and pandemic studies don't necessitate investigating the origins of COVID, only the after-effects. It's worthy of study, HOWEVER if COVID's origins were non-zoonotic, there's a gap somewhere, whether it be procedures, auditing of procedures, following of procedures, something. It's possible that this is known to those that deem that they (and they alone) need to know it, and the vector through which this happened has already been plugged. I have to take several things on faith however, to feel comfortable with that.

You're going with the "many people are saying" argument? The study of COVID's origins has really moved to the WHO/CDC and has moved towards governmental sphere. Its really a mischaracterization to say "nobody else seems to care." The NIH cannot just spend 10 million dropping researchers into China. Instead they are using PREMISE and others to look at coronaviruses and other pathogens of concern for their emergence while deferring to other groups to push the actual COVID origins forward.

Furthermore, the NIH has specifically tackled the idea of safe laboratory practices regarding pathogens. This was published here and summarized by others here. I don't know how you can think nobody else seems to care, when multiple institutions (at least in the US) has been addressing potential problems. The NIH has not been sitting back saying, "well since nobody has proven it was a lab leak, we don't have to do anything about lab safety." They did the opposite and that's reassuring to me.

 

[abj13]

Is that definitely true? Was there not a flu pandemic that was believed to have escaped from a Russian lab?
Besides, that reasoning ignores the fact that circumstances change, as genetic manipulation tech has evolved/improved, so the distant past is not a legit guide to present probabilities. It doesn't seem a strong argument, to me.

You're kind of leaving off all the other points from that paragraph. When taking Occam razor, I think you have to take the totality of what I was mentioning in that paragraph.

The 1977 pandemic, which I presume you are thinking of, wasn't a novel virus. It was an older strain of flu from 20 years earlier that nobody has a great handle on where it came from. There's some thought it was simply being used as part of vaccine studies and ended up spreading. Some even speculated that something got frozen, and then thawed and exposed someone. You can read one of the summaries of it here. As the authors write in their last line: "While the events that led to the 1977 influenza epidemic cannot preclude a future consequential accident stemming from the laboratory, it remains likely that to this date, there has been no real-world example of a laboratory accident that has led to a global epidemic."

Interestingly enough, all the fears of it being bioengineered only came out with concerns of the flu gain of function research about the same time.

This bit is something I've been largely taking on faith, based on your confident assertions and the fact that you seem to have some legit qualifications/experience in the area. Trouble is I just don't have the expertise myself to be able to understand/judge the claims you've made on it, it's largely just a guess as to who seems trustworthy. TBH it's largely your posts on the topic that have me leaning towards "probably a natural origin", simply because you _sound_ as if you know what you are talking about. Not entirely sure whether it matters, anyway.

My practice has been always let the words do the talking. Anytime I read something where somebody is hammering home their qualifications instead of the content of their words is an immediate red flag. I try to provide evidence with everything I claim, and I think that's what you should be taking home. Not that somebody wrote this and to believe that person, but to look what is said, the evidence behind it and say, ah I believe this because of pieces of evidence X, Y, and Z. Otherwise, I'm just a schmo whose accomplishments in life are not worthy of being Twitter verified (pre-Musk).

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

No, that comparison doesn't even make sense. The lack of transparency is simply that, a lack on transparency. You are giving credence to the assumption that lack of transparency = they must be hiding something so its acceptable to speculate. Looking at the situation objectively, one would never jump to the conclusion. As you wrote, you are fine making that assumption: "Again, obfuscation from the source means speculation on the destination."

It means speculation from the layman. The layman jumps to conclusions. They're paranoid and easily swayed. They look at things emotionally, not objectively.

The NIH cannot just spend 10 million dropping researchers into China.

Sorry, is 10 million now a lot of money to the US government? 10 billion would still be a pittance to identify a potential gap resulting in the most costly (by modern standards) pandemic in world history.

Furthermore, the NIH has specifically tackled the idea of safe laboratory practices regarding pathogens. This was published here and summarized by others here. I don't know how you can think nobody else seems to care, when multiple institutions (at least in the US) has been addressing potential problems. The NIH has not been sitting back saying, "well since nobody has proven it was a lab leak, we don't have to do anything about lab safety." They did the opposite and that's reassuring to me.

If COVID was zoonotic, why would any changes or revisions to laboratory practices be necessary? If it was done 'just in case', doesn't that imply there's too low confidence to rule it out?

 

[abj13]

It means speculation from the layman. The layman jumps to conclusions. They're paranoid and easily swayed. They look at things emotionally, not objectively.

Sorry, is 10 million now a lot of money to the US government? 10 billion would still be a pittance to identify a potential gap resulting in the most costly (by modern standards) pandemic in world history.

Are you purposely now being pedantic? For the second part, Is there a reason you deleted out the rest of my statement that qualifies that sentence?

If COVID was zoonotic, why would any changes or revisions to laboratory practices be necessary? If it was done 'just in case', doesn't that imply there's too low confidence to rule it out?

I just want to confirm, you think that because the NIH decided to review safety practices in studying pathogens, that implies they lack confidence in the origins of COVID?

What happened to claiming that "nobody else seems to care?" Do you retract that false statement now?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Are you purposely now being pedantic? For the second part, Is there a reason you deleted out the rest of my statement that qualifies that sentence?

I quoted the part that was overt, that $10m is 'a lot' to the US government.

I just want to confirm, you think that because the NIH decided to review safety practices in studying pathogens, that implies they lack confidence in the origins of COVID?

What happened to claiming that "nobody else seems to care?" Do you retract that false statement now?

I'm trying to understand why, if the authority believes the pathogen to be zoonotic, why do laboratory procedures need to be revised? If they aren't confident, why not say so?

 

[abj13]

I quoted the part that was overt, that $10m is 'a lot' to the US government.

Um, no that's not at all what's meant by that sentence when you take it out of context like that.

I'm trying to understand why, if the authority believes the pathogen to be zoonotic, why do laboratory procedures need to be revised? If they aren't confident, why not say so?

Why do you assume that's the sole reason to conduct a review of laboratory practices? Sounds like you only what to believe there could be only one reason. Why is that? You're literally twisting yourself into knots trying to justify your false statement of "nobody else seems to care."

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Um, no that's not at all what's meant by that sentence when you take it out of context like that.

Alright then, let's walk through it.
"The NIH cannot just spend 10 million dropping researchers into China."
Why not. Does it lack funding?

Why do you assume that's the sole reason to conduct a review of laboratory practices?

I don't! If the reasons have nothing to do with the pandemic, why bring it up? If it does, it implies there's a thought it could be due to a lab leak. Am I missing a third option that somehow has nothing to do with the pandemic but was somehow relevant to the topic and thus was worth bringing up?

 

[abj13]

Alright then, let's walk through it.
"The NIH cannot just spend 10 million dropping researchers into China."
Why not. Does it lack funding?

Jurisdiction. Please read the entire paragraph. The fact I even have to say to read my post for a third time suggests you are purposely being pedantic to save face.

I don't! If the reasons have nothing to do with the pandemic, why bring it up? If it does, it implies there's a thought it could be due to a lab leak. Am I missing a third option that somehow has nothing to do with the pandemic but was somehow relevant to the topic and thus was worth bringing up?

Perfect, I was right that you were making such assumptions. So if your assumption is true that they did it because they lost faith in the zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2, then clearly they must have written out in the document. As linked above, can you show all of us where they state that?

I should be pretty easy to prove. If the reason they did the review is that they no longer believe in a zoonotic source, they must have said it, right?

You said "nobody else seems to care" when I've shown multiple examples of the contrary.

 

[Linux23]

Again, I ask you, what do you think you are going to do about it once you "pin it down"?

Exactly.

What we should be furious about is that fat, muther farking POFS, Fat, Cheeto, Orange orangutan narcissist Fat POS, downplayed the entire thing. He knew about this well in advanced and yet he did nothing to prepare us for this battle with Covid. He only cared about his numbers, his re-election, and the economy.

It boiled my blood that during the height of the pandemic, he wanted to reopen the country up for business. Damn it if little kids, mom and dad, grandma and grandpa and anyone else died right? All in the name of money.

I hope 'ole Hermain Cain keeps the lights on down there for when his fat orange clown boss gets down there, who sent him to an early grave in the first place, and for what??? Stupid f***!!!

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Jurisdiction. Please read the entire paragraph. The fact I even have to say to read my post for a third time suggests you are purposely being pedantic to save face.

Jurisdiction? Your original statement regarding this mentioned nothing about jurisdiction. You only brought up dollar amounts, I presumed based on your statement that funding was your primary concern. No shit jurisdiction is a problem, for the same reason we've got a lack of transparency.

So if your assumption is true that they did it because they lost faith in the zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2, then clearly they must have written out in the document. As linked above, can you show all of us where they state that?

I should be pretty easy to prove. If the reason they did the review is that they no longer believe in a zoonotic source, they must have said it, right?

When faced with an individual questioning the transparency of government agencies and authority, one probably shouldn't lean on 'trust the government' as your argument. I spent enough time working with the govt to understand that there's very few circumstances in which everything is revealed and even then it's for a reason.

What was the real reason for re-evaluating lab procedures, in your opinion?

 

[cytg111]

Verification of death.

Gonna go out on a limb here and suspicion that being concerned about a sleep cycle takes a back seat to worrying about being dead. lol

I get that, but that would be for my sake not for her and in conclusion counterproductive to her health.. Slap a fitbit on her and monitor her from the phone

 

[abj13]

Jurisdiction? Your original statement regarding this mentioned nothing about jurisdiction. You only brought up dollar amounts, I presumed based on your statement that funding was your primary concern. No shit jurisdiction is a problem, for the same reason we've got a lack of transparency.

LMAO. For the fourth time read the entire post. Read everything before and after that sentence. Notice the use of an adverb following that sentence? Apparently not. How about this? Why don't you not quote that one sentence, and quote the entire paragraph and report back to us what is said there.

When faced with an individual questioning the transparency of government agencies and authority, one probably shouldn't lean on 'trust the government' as your argument. I spent enough time working with the govt to understand that there's very few circumstances in which everything is revealed and even then it's for a reason.

What was the real reason for re-evaluating lab procedures, in your opinion?

Ah I see. So it sounds like the document says nothing of what you claim, and you can't find it. So instead of showing us that review was conducted because they no longer have confidence in the zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2, now your argument is that they just lie all the time.

I can tell you the reasons for the review is NOT because they lost confidence in the origin of SARS-CoV-2. You said it and claimed it. So where does it say it? Everybody who is reading your post is waiting for it. Why don't you show us? If they are lying, show us how? Why can't you do that?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

LMAO. For the fourth time read the entire post. Read everything before and after that sentence. Notice the use of an adverb following that sentence? Apparently not. How about this? Why don't you not quote that one sentence, and quote the entire paragraph and report back to us what is said there.

Ah I see. So it sounds like the document says nothing of what you claim, and you can't find it. So instead of showing us that review was conducted because they no longer have confidence in the zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2, now your argument is that they just lie all the time.

I can tell you the reasons for the review is NOT because they lost confidence in the origin of SARS-CoV-2. You said it and claimed it. So where does it say it? Everybody who is reading your post is waiting for it. Why don't you show us? If they are lying, show us how? Why can't you do that?

It's clear this conversation isn't going to go anywhere, given that we're talking on two different wavelengths. If I'm to lend a parting critique, I'd say that you need to understand that other people don't necessarily think the way you do, and things obvious to you are not obvious to others. In addition, things you presume to be truth, others will not, specifically surrounding intent.

We have a crisis of trust within our society at large, and behaviors and attitudes from authorities contribute to that. I would encourage anyone involved with, invested in, or knowledgeable of the systems that make our society function to continue to be as transparent and communicative as humanly possible.

During this discussion I've kept an incident in my mind as a poster child for how root cause analysis, and procedure review, audit, and remediation should be performed. Despite being incredibly embarrassing for the unit, air force, and US government, it was also fully publicized. That's what transparency looks like.

2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[abj13]

It's clear this conversation isn't going to go anywhere, given that we're talking on two different wavelengths. If I'm to lend a parting critique, I'd say that you need to understand that other people don't necessarily think the way you do, and things obvious to you are not obvious to others. In addition, things you presume to be truth, others will not, specifically surrounding intent.

We have a crisis of trust within our society at large, and behaviors and attitudes from authorities contribute to that. I would encourage anyone involved with, invested in, or knowledgeable of the systems that make our society function to continue to be as transparent and communicative as humanly possible.

During this discussion I've kept an incident in my mind as a poster child for how root cause analysis, and procedure review, audit, and remediation should be performed. Despite being incredibly embarrassing for the unit, air force, and US government, it was also fully publicized. That's what transparency looks like.

2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I think its finally apparent you decided to actually read what was posted and realized how childish you've been acting, since very start of you calling people names with "douchebag" and purposely misquoting people to distort what has been posted here. Perhaps you need to think about your hypocrisy. You complain about the lack of transparency, and then you turn around and accuse governmental organizations of lying, yet apparently you can't tell any of us the evidence behind their deception. Why do you think its ok for you to not be transparent?

And if you want procedure review, audit, and remediation, you should be applauding the efforts from the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity who you conveniently accused of lying.

 

[pmv]

My practice has been always let the words do the talking. Anytime I read something where somebody is hammering home their qualifications instead of the content of their words is an immediate red flag. I try to provide evidence with everything I claim, and I think that's what you should be taking home. Not that somebody wrote this and to believe that person, but to look what is said, the evidence behind it and say, ah I believe this because of pieces of evidence X, Y, and Z. Otherwise, I'm just a schmo whose accomplishments in life are not worthy of being Twitter verified (pre-Musk).

The problem is I don't know enough to understand your words! You seem to have been saying that there are (bio-)technical reasons to doubt that this virus, given all that is known about its structure, was at all likely to have been produced by deliberate manipulation (in finite time). I can just about vaguely grasp the points you made, but not remotely near well-enough to judge if your argument is complete and 'water proof'.

One often encounters vaguely plausible 'scientific' sounding arguments that depend on those making them simply knowing a little bit more than the audience does (for example, the 'saturation argument' against global warming by CO2 - where I know just about enough to grasp why it doesn't work as an argument - or that "lockdowns don't work" "paper" that dubiously invoked the name of Johns Hopkins to conceal it was really by some ideologically-driven economists).

In this case nobody has made an even-more-plausible-sounding counter-argument to what you've said, and I don't feel hugely invested in believing either origin-story aside from what arguments seem believable, so...

 

[cytg111]

You'll have to clarify what is meant by gain of function research that was occurring in Wuhan. Which specific experiments? Many of the reporting has confused where some of these research projects were done. Some of the experiments were actually conducted in the United States.
On top of that, one has to consider what they were doing. The primary researcher was interested in SARS-CoV-1 and very closely related bat coronaviruses. She studied those bat coronaviruses because they were closely related to SARS-CoV-1 and was important to understanding the origins of CoV-1. The logic behind her work made sense. But then why would she (or others) choose a strain of virus not closely related to SARS-CoV-1, that has unknown biology, and decided, yeah of all the coronaviruses I could work on, it will be that one!

Here's a family tree that contains many of bat coronaviruses, CoV-1, and CoV-2. If you are a researcher, wouldn't you work on Bat-SL-CoV because they are all closely related to CoV-1? Why would you choose, say the Zhejiang, Kenya, or Bulgaria species (clade 1 and 2)?

View attachment 84566

Even if you decide to work on a new virus. You can't just conjure up tools and techniques to study the virus overnight. You have to build the capacity to detect the virus, you have build methods to cultivate the virus in the lab. Even after all that work, developing techniques to build the virus can take several years. And somehow you have to find time to work on all this, while still working on other projects and publishing them. It does not add up.


I don't dispute the possibility that CoV-2 (or something super similar, e.g. <20 mutations) was sitting in a sample and accidentally got out. What I do dispute is that any idea of something more distantly related was being engineered/manipulated by WIV, and then escaped the lab. That's much of what the story in the OP proposes (and a few other conspiracy blog posts out there), that SARS-CoV-2 is the result of manipulations to RatG13 and it escaped. That makes no sense on the several levels I've written about.

And to reiterate a similar point, let's say you found the true precursor to SARS-CoV-2 in 2015. Why would you invest millions and years of work to work on something you have no confidence on will have any meaning on human health?

WIV clearly had their missions defined in the past, the original iteration was founded in the 1950's. China has been a major location for emergence of viruses of concern including SARS, Avian influenza, flaviviruses, and many others. It is also a major research institution in general, they support research of non-human virology fields. You can find papers from WIV in the 2000's where researchers were working on viruses from crayfish and studying bacteria.

Would you rather scientists study concerning viruses at the "source?" Or would you be comfortable loading Ebola, SARS, or smallpox samples into a plane or ship and moving them thousands of miles across the world?

And don't forget. Wuhan is the ninth most populous city in China. If SARS-CoV-2 emerged from Chicago or London (cities of similar size) would everyone be accusing virologists at Northwestern or the Imperial College of London? So much of certain people's fears have been built upon not knowing about Wuhan, realizing there's a research center named "virology," and jumping to some sort of nefarious connection. Yes, there's a woman there who works on coronaviruses. Ok, make the case then, show us why and how she was doing nefarious work at the same time, and had the capacity to do all these things.

1. I think this sums it pretty good. (TLDR: Even the experts disagree).

Is Rand Paul or Dr. Fauci Right About Gain-of-Function Research in Wuhan?

Gain-of-function is a research method that involves manipulating pathogens to give them a new aspect, such as making viruses more transmissible or dangerous to humans.

www.newsweek.com

One, Randy Paul is an idiot.
Two, Fauci was indeed not lying to congress
Three:
"The Wuhan lab used NIH funding to construct novel chimeric SARS-related coronaviruses able to infect human cells and laboratory animals," Ebright told the National Review in May. "This is high-risk research that creates new potential pandemic pathogens [i.e., potential pandemic pathogens that exist only in a lab, not in nature]. This research matches—indeed epitomizes—the definition of 'gain of function research of concern' for which federal funding was 'paused' in 2014-2017."

So "something" was going on. Though we've been through this before, was it @uclaLabrat that took us through the steps it would take to engineer it and how the technology to do so has not been invented yet? (to our knowledge...)

2. I have to ask, what is your credentials evaluating all this?

 

[abj13]

"The Wuhan lab used NIH funding to construct novel chimeric SARS-related coronaviruses able to infect human cells and laboratory animals," Ebright told the National Review in May. "This is high-risk research that creates new potential pandemic pathogens [i.e., potential pandemic pathogens that exist only in a lab, not in nature]. This research matches—indeed epitomizes—the definition of 'gain of function research of concern' for which federal funding was 'paused' in 2014-2017."

So "something" was going on. Though we've been through this before, was it @uclaLabrat that took us through the steps it would take to engineer it and how the technology to do so has not been invented yet? (to our knowledge...)

Ebright is choosing to use his own definition of "gain of function" research. Gain of function research to many researchers and to the government mean literally what it states, gain of function. Trying to define gain of function research as anything that creates something that doesn't exist in nature would mean that most biological research is gain of function.

For example, if someone purpopsely makes a mutation in some human cells in a petri dish, a mutation that has not been identified in nature to date (who has sequenced every human on Earth?) Ebright's definition would mean that's gain of function. But to anyone else, that's nonsensical.

Furthermore, Ebright is talking about experiments in which a bat coronavirus protein was swapped for another bat coronavirus protein. This was not swapping in and out pathogens like SARS-CoV-1 or MERS. There is big differences here. If someone made an insect virus that could kill more wasps, to me at least, that isn't as dangerous is making a Ebola-influenza hybrid. But that's just me.

2. I have to ask, what is your credentials evaluating all this?

Why do you ask? I cite the basis of my statements throughout my posts. Are you wanting to shoot the messenger and not the message?

 

[abj13]

The problem is I don't know enough to understand your words! You seem to have been saying that there are (bio-)technical reasons to doubt that this virus, given all that is known about its structure, was at all likely to have been produced by deliberate manipulation (in finite time). I can just about vaguely grasp the points you made, but not remotely near well-enough to judge if your argument is complete and 'water proof'.

One often encounters vaguely plausible 'scientific' sounding arguments that depend on those making them simply knowing a little bit more than the audience does (for example, the 'saturation argument' against global warming by CO2 - where I know just about enough to grasp why it doesn't work as an argument - or that "lockdowns don't work" "paper" that dubiously invoked the name of Johns Hopkins to conceal it was really by some ideologically-driven economists).

In this case nobody has made an even-more-plausible-sounding counter-argument to what you've said, and I don't feel hugely invested in believing either origin-story aside from what arguments seem believable, so...

Just ask! I'm more than happy to go more in-depth for someone curious into what I'm writing. Just let me know what I can clarify for you. Last time I used multiple ways to describe something in this very thread, I get called a douchebag for using "legos and crayons." Don't let that person's insecurity translate into the idea that you can't ask questions.

 

[cytg111]

Why do you ask? I cite the basis of my statements throughout my posts. Are you wanting to shoot the messenger and not the message?

- Credentials? Why should anyone take your word over Ebright's? It's all about that source criticism, what is the sources leanings, history of gotten shit right over time so on and so forth. Not being an expert myself I have to approach this with a little bit Bayesian reasoning right, I got one expert (Ebright) saying it *is* gain of function, I got another saying that it's "muddying the water" and I have another handful of experts backing Fauci that says it's NOT gain of function. That means to me that it's 90% likely NOT gain of function.
On the other hand I have known you for all of three seconds, what weight do your words have? If I put hours into it I can come up with something similar to you to "prove" the opposite point... But why would I. It makes no sense.
Let me put it another way. I can follow your line of reasoning quite well, and to me it sounds very plausible. Problem is that I am not qualified to 1. judge the information you did provide and 2. judge the information you didnt provide. Know what you dont know and all that.

(as an evolved species, if we cant trust our institutions, experts in their fields, the house of cards comes down).

Ebright is choosing to use his own definition of "gain of function" research. Gain of function research to many researchers and to the government mean literally what it states, gain of function. Trying to define gain of function research as anything that creates something that doesn't exist in nature would mean that most biological research is gain of function.