Coronavirus

Cheerful Spring2 · 05-07-2020 5:06pm

Deleted User wrote: »

The paper does not say the inserts are artificial. They can naturally occur. So no, it did not pass review with the claim of it being man made.

Inserted sections are not natural., thats whole point of the paper. The authors are claiming changes were made. You confusing mutation with inserts.

05-07-2020 5:10pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Inserted sections are not natural., thats whole point of the paper. The authors are claiming changes were made. You confusing mutation with inserts.

You must tell these researchers that insertions can't naturally occur. Also, please read the abstract. The paper has nothing to do with proving the virus being man made.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200511142202.htm

Cheerful Spring2 · 05-07-2020 5:14pm

Deleted User wrote: »

You must tell these researchers that insertions can't naturally occur. Also, please read the abstract. The paper has nothing to do with proving the virus being man made.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200511142202.htm

Is this a Chinese paper, the authors have all Chinese names. Research coming out of China now is suspect because of this event. China is actively covering up what happened here.

ohnonotgmail · 05-07-2020 5:16pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Is this a Chinese paper, the authors have all Chinese names. Research coming out of China now is suspect because of this event. China is actively covering up what happened here.

So basically you only believe a source when it tells you what you already believe?

Timberrrrrrrr · 05-07-2020 5:17pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

So basically you only believe a source when it tells you what you already believe?

Hasn't this always been the way with CS?

ohnonotgmail · 05-07-2020 5:18pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Hasn't this always been the way with CS?

fair point. well made.

05-07-2020 5:19pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Is this a Chinese paper, the authors have all Chinese names. Research coming out of China now is suspect because of this event. China is actively covering up what happened here.

It went through an American publisher whether the authors are Chinese or not is irrelevant. It didn't go through a predatory journal so it's legitimately peer reviewed.

Cheerful Spring2 · 05-07-2020 5:20pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

So basically you only believe a source when it tells you what you already believe?

I don't believe China research is valid. They used their power and wealth to influence the WHO, and they made many false statements back when the virus started.

ohnonotgmail · 05-07-2020 5:23pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I don't believe China research is valid. They used their power and wealth to influence the WHO, and they made many false statements back when the virus started.

so the research has been peer reviewed but you dont think it is valid. presumably you can point to what parts of the research are invalid? or is it simply a case of Chinese research = Bad and that is the end of it?

Cheerful Spring2 · 05-07-2020 5:36pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so the research has been peer reviewed but you dont think it is valid. presumably you can point to what parts of the research are invalid? or is it simply a case of Chinese research = Bad and that is the end of it?

Just got more interesting online. Published today.

Virus samples sent to the Wuhan Institute of Virology seven years ago closely resemble Covid-19, according to a report in the Sunday Times that highlights unanswered questions about the origins of the global pandemic.

Scientists in 2013 sent frozen samples to the Wuhan lab from a bat-infested former copper mine in southwest China after six men who had been clearing out bat feces there contracted a severe pneumonia, the newspaper said.

Three of them died and the most likely cause was a coronavirus transmitted from a bat, the Sunday Times reported, citing a medic whose supervisor

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-05/covid-like-virus-was-sent-to-wuhan-in-2013-sunday-times-says?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=business&__twitter_impression=true

Notmything · 05-07-2020 5:48pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Just got more interesting online. Published today.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-05/covid-like-virus-was-sent-to-wuhan-in-2013-sunday-times-says?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=business&__twitter_impression=true

Does this not contradict your argument that the virus was manmade if it existed years before it was 'discovered'?

Cheerful Spring2 · 05-07-2020 6:03pm

Notmything wrote: »

Does this not contradict your argument that the virus was manmade if it existed years before it was 'discovered'?

False. You guys can’t read. I never claimed they developed this virus in a lab from nothing. I always maintained it has a familiarity to other bat viruses. My position was the made changes to the virus and got leaked. There were man made manipulations of the virus genome that you will not find in nature, big difference.

Notmything · 05-07-2020 6:23pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

False. You guys can’t read. I never claimed they developed this virus in a lab from nothing. I always maintained it has a familiarity to other bat viruses. My position was the made changes to the virus and got leaked. There were man made manipulations of the virus genome that you will not find in nature, big difference.

But you haven't even been able to offer any evidence for what you are claiming. The paper doesn't claim what you say it does.

Everything depends on your definition of what inserted means, and there is no evidence to disprove that those changes could have been inserted naturally through a mutation or through the evolution of the virus.

enno99 · 06-07-2020 1:07am

Notmything wrote: »

But you haven't even been able to offer any evidence for what you are claiming. The paper doesn't claim what you say it does.

Everything depends on your definition of what inserted means, and there is no evidence to disprove that those changes could have been inserted naturally through a mutation or through the evolution of the virus.

C1
to put something inside something else:
Insert the key in/into the lock.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/inserted

seems pretty clear

Im sure these scientists know the difference between insert and evolve ,mutate

Dohnjoe · 06-07-2020 1:20am

Relevant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y50i1bI2uN4

enno99 · 06-07-2020 4:22am

He has been following this from the start

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD3ztjqYGbg

he explains it well

Dohnjoe · 06-07-2020 10:11am

enno99 wrote: »

He has been following this from the start

he explains it well

He's not a virologist, he's essentially a goldbug who specialises in fear-mongering videos about financial armageddon in order to scare people into buying gold. These types of people predict economic doomsday every other tuesday, so when a fall does happen, they take credit for it - and their careers are based on it

Cheerful Spring2 · 06-07-2020 12:16pm

Notmything wrote: »

But you haven't even been able to offer any evidence for what you are claiming. The paper doesn't claim what you say it does.

Every media site disagrees with your guys take on this but continue its fun reading your posts.

– A joint study by British-Norwegian authors claim that the coronavirus’s spike protein contains sequences that appear to be artificially inserted. The study published by the Quarterly Review of Biophysics.

The first author is Professor Angus Dalgleish of the University of London and the second author is Norwegian virologist Birger Sorensen. They published in Cambridge University’s QRB Discovery. The study claims that Sars-CoV2, which is the cause of COVID-19, did not evolve naturally. It was artificially manipulated.

The spike proteins of the virus contain “inserted sections,” A

https://asianews.press/2020/06/12/coronavirus-is-lab-made-in-china-norwegian-virologist-claims/

ohnonotgmail · 06-07-2020 12:19pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Every media site disagrees with your guys take on this but continue its fun reading your posts.

https://asianews.press/2020/06/12/coronavirus-is-lab-made-in-china-norwegian-virologist-claims/

the words of a journalist not the scientists themselves. normally you dont believe anything in the mainstream media but suddenly you are all for it. very odd.

Cheerful Spring2 · 06-07-2020 12:23pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the words of a journalist not the scientists themselves. normally you dont believe anything in the mainstream media but suddenly you are all for it. very odd.

Inserted sections is mentioned in Page 3 of the study. Why would Sorenson claim the inserts are not natural when interviewed later by the media? There study spoke to it, you just bought into one poster nonsense on here.

ohnonotgmail · 06-07-2020 12:25pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Inserted sections is mentioned in Page 3 of the study. Why would Sorenson claim the inserts are not natural when interviewed later by the media? There study spoke to it, you just bought into one poster nonsense on here.

the paper does say inserted. it does not say artificially inserted. very different things.

Cheerful Spring2 · 06-07-2020 12:30pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the paper does say inserted. it does not say artificially inserted. very different things.

Soreson spoke to the media about his study. He claims the inserts are not natural, the part you missed and ignored here. If he was misquoted he would have said so by now!

Quote from the same link.

Birger Sorenson told the news agency that he believes the virus is related to a number of “gain of function studies” being carried out in China.

To artificially increase the transmissibility of a virus and for its ease to repeat scientific experiments, the virus are manipulated. Often referred to as “chimera.”

Dohnjoe · 06-07-2020 12:37pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Every media site disagrees with your guys take on this but continue its fun reading your posts.

Not true. The current scientific consensus is that the disease has a natural origin. As mentioned many times before you seem to have difficulty understanding consensus, or even what it is

If 100 scientists support X and 1 scientist supports Y - there isn't a 50/50 chance of either being correct. X is the stronger theory (overwhelmingly)

Likewise if 50 scientists support Y - you may think "that's a lot" so it must be true, but not if 5,000 scientists support X. X is the stronger theory.

06-07-2020 1:02pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Soreson spoke to the media about his study. He claims the inserts are not natural, the part you missed and ignored here. If he was misquoted he would have said so by now!

Quote from the same link.

It doesn't matter what Sorenson said in an interview. Those claims didn't get through peer review. This is viewed as one of the reasons it got rejected initially. Hence the claims being removed.

Cheerful Spring2 · 06-07-2020 3:04pm

Deleted User wrote: »

It doesn't matter what Sorenson said in an interview. Those claims didn't get through peer review. This is viewed as one of the reasons it got rejected initially. Hence the claims being removed.

Like I said, this is just another snapshot of how things works, similar to 9/11, where scientists are harassed and forced into changing their real opinions here about the virus.
Now a political sideshow with some scientists and journals siding with China viewpoint on this issue. The scientists here may have watered down their actual opinion in the last paper, but the inserts section talked about in the study are not natural. Sorensen has spoken to the press to what he found.

Telegraph.

According to the Telegraph, the paper was initially rejected by leading academic journals, and “was watered down to remove explicit accusations against China,

06-07-2020 3:14pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Like I said, this is just another snapshot of how things works, similar to 9/11, where scientists are harassed and forced into changing their real opinions here about the virus.
Now a political sideshow with some scientists and journals siding with China viewpoint on this issue. The scientists here may have watered down their actual opinion in the last paper, but the inserts section talked about in the study are not natural. Sorensen has spoken to the press to what he found.

Telegraph.

Eh, so basically you're admitting the peer reviewed paper doesn't make the claim you claimed it did. Journals are not in a conspiracy with China. Their evidence for the claim was insufficient, that's the reality. It's not harassment to reject a paper from publication. This is not unusual.

Cheerful Spring2 · 06-07-2020 3:25pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Eh, so basically you're admitting the peer reviewed paper doesn't make the claim you claimed it did. Journals are not in a conspiracy with China. Their evidence for the claim was insufficient, that's the reality. It's not harassment to reject a paper from publication. This is not unusual.

Proto it came out yesterday, they basically found covid 19 in 2013.

The world’s closest known relative to the Covid-19 virus was found in 2013 by Chinese scientists in an abandoned mine where it was linked to deaths caused by a coronavirus-type respiratory illness

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/seven-year-covid-trail-revealed-l5vxt7jqp

What likely happened here is they brought the new virus to the lab and made inserts to make it bind more easily to human cells. Probably looking into making a new vaccine? The 4 to 5 inserts is the only difference between covid 19 and the virus found in 2013. The virus from the cave/mine is 96 to 97 percent match.

Explains why the virus was kept isolated for seven years.

Dohnjoe · 06-07-2020 3:34pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Proto it came out yesterday, they basically found covid 19 in 2013.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/seven-year-covid-trail-revealed-l5vxt7jqp

What likely happened here is they brought the new virus to the lab and made inserts to make it bind more easily to human cells. Probably looking into making a new vaccine? The 4 to 5 inserts is the only difference between covid 19 and the virus found in 2013. The virus from the cave/mine is 96 to 97 percent match.

You just made up that entire bolded part.

Cheerful Spring2 · 06-07-2020 3:41pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You just made up that entire bolded part.

Truth coming out slowly. China is trying to cover this up.

A virus 96 per cent identical to the coronavirus that causes Covid-19 was found in an abandoned mine in China seven years ago, according to an investigation.

The bat-infested copper mine in Mojiang, western China, was home to a coronavirus that left six adult men sick with pneumonia and three of them dead.

Scientists took samples from the bats' faeces, found on the cave floor, and stored them in a laboratory 1,000 miles away in Wuhan for years while studying them.

Bat virus, named RaBtCoV/4991 at the time, now appears to be the closest relative to SARS-Cov-2, which is causing Covid-19, a Sunday Times investigation has found[

China had covid 19 in 2013 and was experimenting with it for years. The wet market is nonsense. Connect the dots is hard for you of course

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8491491/Coronaviruss-closest-ancestor-SEVEN-YEARS-ago-bat-infested-China.html

Dohnjoe · 06-07-2020 3:51pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

China had covid 19 in 2013 and was experimenting with it for years.

Within the space of a post, you've turned your imagined scenario into fact.

Coronaviruses were first discovered in the 1930's, the human variant in the 60's. The one they allegedly discovered in that cave 7 years ago seems (so far) to be the closest ancestor to what we have now.

Coronavirus

Comments