Covid-19 likely to be man made

mcsean2163

thecretinhop wrote: »

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/us-sitting-raft-unexamined-virus-origin-intel-former-official-says-almost-no-evidence

a rag etc blah blah

Yes, it's incredible. It's really exposed the virtue signalling conspiracy bashers as miscreants that take joy in gas lighting and attacking honest and curious people.

I worked in one of Ireland's biggest success stories and i believe a huge part of that success was one guy who wasn't afraid to ask stupid questions.

In this case, the biggest research center into bat coronaviruses in China and possibly the world is located in Wuhan and they disabled access to their virus database in 2019. Shouldn't that too be investigated?

Instead of a polite answer and an investigation, it's been "conspiracy nut!! Crazy! Prove it! Show a peer reviewed paper that proves it! You are StuPiD! I don't like your answers"

There are some very strange people out there... hopefully a proper investigation will follow and we'll get some answers.

Same content in the new York times as per ZH.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/27/us/politics/coronavirus-origins-intelligence.html#click=https://t.co/1jnc3qjUmK

mcmoustache

patnor1011 wrote: »

Of course not. Purely coincidental. From what we know they probably ordered bat soup takeaway from wuhan wet market.
"Science" and current consensus among majority say it could not happen any other way.

They don't say that though. The consensus has been that it could have come about via natural species jump or from a lab. It's just that there was zero evidence of it coming from a lab outside of the ramblings of a known liar and it was therefore assigned a low probability. Now that there is more evidence, the consensus is shifting a bit in terms of how people assign probabilities to events.

King Mob

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Instead of a polite answer and an investigation, it's been "conspiracy nut!! Crazy! Prove it! Show a peer reviewed paper that proves it! You are StuPiD! I don't like your answers"

And more misrepresentations.

No one here has said any of those things.

Do you consider misrepresentation to be acceptably polite?

lucernarian

thecretinhop wrote: »

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/us-sitting-raft-unexamined-virus-origin-intel-former-official-says-almost-no-evidence

a rag etc blah blah

Who tf is Tyler Durden? A fictional character from a movie? This is pretty poor evidence from a journalistic or scientific standpoint, akin to the paper at the start of the thread. That article is like the Roswell stuff more suited to the purpose of this forum.

patnor1011

mcmoustache wrote: »

They don't say that though. The consensus has been that it could have come about via natural species jump or from a lab. It's just that there was zero evidence of it coming from a lab outside of the ramblings of a known liar and it was therefore assigned a low probability. Now that there is more evidence, the consensus is shifting a bit in terms of how people assign probabilities to events.

So it was not rambling and lies then. You characterize what happened as "assigned low probability" when truth is that it was outright dismissed and even aggressively pursued as conspiracy theory. A lot of people earned conspiracy theorist badge and a ban trying to go against "consensus".

lucernarian

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Yes, it's incredible. It's really exposed the virtue signalling conspiracy bashers as miscreants that take joy in gas lighting and attacking honest and curious people.

I worked in one of Ireland's biggest success stories and i believe a huge part of that success was one guy who wasn't afraid to ask stupid questions.

In this case, the biggest research center into bat coronaviruses in China and possibly the world is located in Wuhan and they disabled access to their virus database in 2019. Shouldn't that too be investigated?

Instead of a polite answer and an investigation, it's been "conspiracy nut!! Crazy! Prove it! Show a peer reviewed paper that proves it! You are StuPiD! I don't like your answers"

There are some very strange people out there... hopefully a proper investigation will follow and we'll get some answers.

Same content in the new York times as per ZH.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/27/us/politics/coronavirus-origins-intelligence.html#click=https://t.co/1jnc3qjUmK

Not sure that's fair. Most folks with enough education / experience to rationally analyse scientific papers are not able to feasibly "take a stance" on an issue that might not otherwise impact their careers and additionally call into question their agenda for doing so. It's obvious that the letter in Science calling for a proper investigation was published because DJ Trump was no longer spouting incoherent nonsense from the White House.

Most people in research fields are trying to pursue knowledge incrementally on a subject that they have relevant experience in. The moment politics is introduced into the equation, it will inevitably polarise people. The response from China about the US calls for a full investigation has been pathetic though. Like a cheating partner trying to explain the flirty texts with a colleague, excuse the simplistic comparison.

Unicorn Milk Latte

It is important to differentiate between two entirely different 'lab origin' theories:

1. The virus was created in a lab.
This has been widely dismissed as nonsense in the scientific community.


2. A lab was researching how viruses that occur naturally in animals can be transmitted to humans. Due to negligent care, Sars-Cov 2 was released from this lab by accident.
This is a hypothesis that most scientists agree on should be looked into, even if it's not terribly likely.


To add to the confusion, many articles in mainstream media have mixed these two, and are currently trying to walk back and clarify.

lucernarian

Unicorn Milk Latte wrote: »

It is important to differentiate between two entirely different 'lab origin' theories:

1. The virus was created in a lab.
This has been widely dismissed as nonsense in the scientific community.


2. A lab was researching how viruses that occur naturally in animals can be transmitted to humans. Due to negligent care, Sars-Cov 2 was released from this lab by accident.
This is a hypothesis that most scientists agree on should be looked into, even if it's not terribly likely.


To add to the confusion, many articles in mainstream media have mixed these two, and are currently trying to walk back and clarify.

There is extremely circumstantial and vague evidence for either a gain-of-function accidental release hypothesis or a natural-virus accidental release hypothesis. a large issue is the meaning of the word "man-made", as an accidental release can imply human negligence etc while we also have to consider the troubling furin cleavage site that's not currently backed up by any evidence-based hypothesis, and has circumstantial evidence to indicate at least the potential for human interference.

What appears to be dismissed as nonsense is the idea it was developed as a bioweapon, or a tool to inflict harm on humanity.

lucernarian

lucernarian wrote: »

There is extremely circumstantial and vague evidence for either a gain-of-function accidental release hypothesis or a natural-virus accidental release hypothesis. a large issue is the meaning of the word "man-made", as an accidental release can imply human negligence etc while we also have to consider the troubling furin cleavage site that's not currently backed up by any evidence-based hypothesis, and has circumstantial evidence to indicate at least the potential for human interference.

What appears to be dismissed as nonsense is the idea it was developed as a bioweapon, or a tool to inflict harm on humanity.

And the question this poses is that there needs to be an open and transparent investigation, which is why that letter in Science was published, along with the Biden Administration calling for the same this week.

King Mob

lucernarian wrote: »

... also have to consider the troubling furin cleavage site that's not currently backed up by any evidence-based hypothesis, and has circumstantial evidence to indicate at least the potential for human interference.

Are there any studies into this?

lucernarian wrote: »

What appears to be dismissed as nonsense is the idea it was developed as a bioweapon, or a tool to inflict harm on humanity.

Do you believe that this should be dismissed as nonsense?

Unicorn Milk Latte

And, to add some context:

There has been research of Coronaviruses since the 1960s.


Several pre-SARS-COV-2 types of coronavirus are extremely common and widespread, they cause common cold.


Here is an overview of the different variants of SARS-COV-2. Interesting, because it shows that the original Wuhan variant was pretty much irrelevant outside of China. Also interesting to see how many variants there are.


The graph looks confusing at first, filtering by country or type (like B 1.1.7 - the variant first identified in Britain) can help with making sense of it.

lucernarian

Unicorn Milk Latte wrote: »

And, to add some context:

There has been research of Coronaviruses since the 1960s.


Several pre-SARS-COV-2 types of coronavirus are extremely common and widespread, they cause common cold.


Here is an overview of the different variants of SARS-COV-2. Interesting, because it shows that the original Wuhan variant was pretty much irrelevant outside of China. Also interesting to see how many variants there are.


The graph looks confusing at first, filtering by country or type (like B 1.1.7 - the variant first identified in Britain) can help with making sense of it.

Couldn't see a graph in what you posted. Also worth noting that "cold" research has involved alphacoronaviridae and not betacoronaviridae, pre SARS in 2003. Happy to be proven wrong on that. There is a dearth of information pre-2003 because much of the research, if I remember correctly, was about a hypothetical vaccine for the common cold and predicting outbreaks.

Unicorn Milk Latte

lucernarian wrote: »

Couldn't see a graph in what you posted.

I was referring to the part at the top left, with the 'Phylogeny' heading.


It's a timeline, going from left to right, with a 'tree' showing how variants occur, and how they are related.


If you scroll down to the 'Filter by country' section and click on Ireland, then scroll back up to the Phylogeny graph, you see how it has changed, to show only the variants that occurred in Ireland.

lucernarian

Unicorn Milk Latte wrote: »

I was referring to the part at the top left, with the 'Phylogeny' heading.


It's a timeline, going from left to right, with a 'tree' showing how variants occur, and how they are related.


If you scroll down to the 'Filter by country' section and click on Ireland, then scroll back up to the Phylogeny graph, you see how it has changed, to show only the variants that occurred in Ireland.

I'm sorry, maybe it's a "mobile user" thing but I can't see any link or source in your post.

Unicorn Milk Latte

lucernarian wrote: »

I'm sorry, maybe it's a "mobile user" thing but I can't see any link or source in your post.

Here's the link to the variant overview again, this time with the full URL:

https://nextstrain.org/ncov/global


Just tried it on Safari on iOS to make sure, works.

lucernarian

Unicorn Milk Latte wrote: »

And, to add some context:

There has been research of Coronaviruses since the 1960s.


Several pre-SARS-COV-2 types of coronavirus are extremely common and widespread, they cause common cold.


Here is an overview of the different variants of SARS-COV-2. Interesting, because it shows that the original Wuhan variant was pretty much irrelevant outside of China. Also interesting to see how many variants there are.


The graph looks confusing at first, filtering by country or type (like B 1.1.7 - the variant first identified in Britain) can help with making sense of it.

Now that I can see the graph, the phylogenetic tree, as that's what it basically is, uses the Hu virus as a single point of ancestry. (Hu meaning Hubei, China I think, the province in which Wuhan is located). I'm not seeing what context this offers with regards to the thread topic?

Unicorn Milk Latte

lucernarian wrote: »

I'm not seeing what context this offers with regards to the thread topic?

OK, here's some context:
thought experiment: a lab develops a bioweapon and releases it. Ideally, this virus would have strong genetic advantages. A virus that mutates often and quickly would completely defy the purpose of it being a weapon.


And - when you're unaware (like I was..) just how quickly natural variants develop, and how fast the ones with genetic advantages become dominant, it's easier to believe in a lab accident narrative.



Just to be clear - I'm not saying that a lab accident origin is impossible - just that it seems much less likely, considering the fast, natural mutation/selection cycle that can be observed in the Covid timeline.

thecretinhop

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9629563/Chinese-scientists-created-COVID-19-lab-tried-cover-tracks-new-study-claims.html

another rag. hacks as well not proper scientists...

King Mob

thecretinhop wrote: »

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9629563/Chinese-scientists-created-COVID-19-lab-tried-cover-tracks-new-study-claims.html

another rag. hacks as well not proper scientists...

Yes, the Daily Mail is also a sensationalist rag.

Not sure why you keep dumping these links then highlighting why people shouldn't take them seriously.

Rather than posting from dubious sources and far right mouthpieces, why not just post the study directly?
I suspect that it's because the study doesn't actually say what the articles say, and they and you are trying to avoid people realising that.
Or the paper isn't as definitive or repuatble as the article and yourself would like people to think.

Have you read the actual paper? Or just the article from the Daily Mail?

Yellow_Fern

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, the Daily Mail is also a sensationalist rag.

Not sure why you keep dumping these links then highlighting why people shouldn't take them seriously.

Rather than posting from dubious sources and far right mouthpieces, why not just post the study directly?
I suspect that it's because the study doesn't actually say what the articles say, and they and you are trying to avoid people realising that.
Or the paper isn't as definitive or repuatble as the article and yourself would like people to think.

Have you read the actual paper? Or just the article from the Daily Mail?

The Daily mail isnt far right but even if it was, that wouldn't prove or disprove the study, in anyway. Daily Mail publishes an awful lot of academic papers. Including one of mine. When they cover published papers wouldn't normally pull random claims out of thin air but they can over egg things. This covid paper isnt yet published so we can't judge. Here is the Times coverage.

A British scientist who was shunned for claiming that the coronavirus was manufactured and leaked from a Chinese laboratory has welcomed President Biden’s demand for US intelligence agencies to trace its source.

Angus Dalgleish, 71, a vaccine researcher and professor of oncology at St George’s Hospital in Tooting, south London, argues that Sars-Cov-2 leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology because of poor biosecurity. “I’m a great believer in the universal law of human incompetence,” he said.

He goes further than others who support the “leak” theory by arguing that the virus’s spike protein contains artificially inserted sequences. “This coronavirus is ideally adapted for infecting bats,” he said. “The changes required to infect humans are extremely unlikely to have occurred naturally.”

For a concise rundown of the developments that matter, combined with expert analysis, sign up to receive our dedicated daily coronavirus newsletter
Sign up now Dalgleish and his collaborators struggled to find a publisher for their paper last year because, he claims, the scientific establishment did not want to upset China. The study was published “disguised as a vaccine paper” and has been downloaded 200,000 times.

Dalgleish said: “I was basically ostracised. I was fearful — really frightened by the way I was being treated. I was told I was not an expert on coronaviruses and I should just shut up. We couldn’t believe that people with whom we’d collaborated and published papers with in the past would shun us — I was warned I was out of my depth and I shouldn’t get into this and I’d make a fool of myself.”

Dalgleish said that President Trump’s adoption of the leak theory and use of phrases such as “Wuhan flu” and “the Chinese virus” damaged scientific debate on the subject. Dalgleish added: “People said to me, ‘The biggest problem you have is that Trump agrees with you’. Even though he knew nothing about it and didn’t understand it, no scientist wanted to get into bed and agree with Trump.”

Intelligence agencies in the US and Britain also said there was no evidence to contradict the Chinese explanation that the virus originated in a live animal market in Wuhan. China has said the US “does not care about facts or truth, nor is it interested in serious scientific origin tracing”. No 10 has called for “all possible theories” to be examined.

Dalgleish said that his position was supported by Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6 who now chairs the University of London board of trustees.

He fears that “politics has squashed scientific debate” on the most important issue of the century. He added: “We tried to enter into debate with one group and they dismissed us as rank amateurs — I’ve never come across that in science before. The breakthroughs I’ve been involved with in science come when people disagree with something you present, then you talk afterwards and get into the real argument and realise you’re both partially right.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-scientist-feels-vindicated-as-focus-turns-to-wuhan-lab-h9x7jtvnj

King Mob

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

The Daily mail isnt far right

I was referring to the previous link that poster dumped.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117290102&postcount=378

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

but even if it was, that wouldn't prove or disprove the study, in anyway. Daily Mail publishes an awful lot of academic papers. Including one of mine. When they cover published papers wouldn't normally pull random claims out of thin air but they can over egg things. This covid paper isnt yet published so we can't judge. Here is the Times coverage.

Generally though, when science is announced in the popular press before the actual paper is published or reviewed or responded to, then end up not actually amounting to much.
The example in the OP illustrated this.

The claims that a paper struggled to get published because of a conspiracy is also something we've heard a lot around these parts.

Notice also the difference in headlines:

EXCLUSIVE: COVID-19 'has NO credible natural ancestor' and WAS created by Chinese scientists who then tried to cover their tracks with 'retro-engineering' to make it seem like it naturally arose from bats, explosive new study claims

vs

UK scientist feels vindicated as focus turns to Wuhan lab

Yellow_Fern

King Mob wrote: »

I was referring to the previous link that poster dumped.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117290102&postcount=378


Generally though, when science is announced in the popular press before the actual paper is published or reviewed or responded to, then end up not actually amounting to much.
The example in the OP illustrated this.

maybe but I dont know how anyone would keep tabs of that.

King Mob wrote: »

I was referring to the previous link that poster dumped.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117290102&postcount=378


Notice also the difference in headlines:

vs

The Times is waiting to see the paper. Very unlikely that the Daily Mail is making that up. Not waiting for peer review or media embargos doesn't make you far right. Sensationalist sure but that is different.

King Mob

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

maybe but I dont know how anyone would keep tabs of that.

Things like global medical and health organisations.
Reviews of the array of studies as a whole rather than relying on single papers.

Not relying on what the Daily Mail claims.

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

The Times is waiting to see the paper. Very unlikely that the Daily Mail is making that up.

But there's a difference between making things up and spinning things.
There's exargating and misrepresenting. There's omitting things.

There's lots of ways to manipulate facts without "making things up."
The Daily Mail is quite well know for this:
https://www.pne-online.net/forum/index.php?threads/things-the-daily-mail-say-causes-cancer.48020/

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Not waiting for peer review or media embargos doesn't make you far right. Sensationalist sure but that is different.

But I didn't call the Daily Mail far right. I explained this in my last post. You copy pasted where I did this twice for some reason, so I know you didn't miss it.

Yellow_Fern

King Mob wrote: »

Things like global medical and health organisations.
Reviews of the array of studies as a whole rather than relying on single papers.

Not relying on what the Daily Mail claims.


But there's a difference between making things up and spinning things.
There's exargating and misrepresenting. There's omitting things.

There's lots of ways to manipulate facts without "making things up."
The Daily Mail is quite well know for this:
https://www.pne-online.net/forum/index.php?threads/things-the-daily-mail-say-causes-cancer.48020/

All of those Daily Mail stories are based on peer-reviewed studies. You could do the same from any big paper that covers international news.

Aslo zerohedge isnt far right. Its anti establishment not far right.

lucernarian

Unicorn Milk Latte wrote: »

OK, here's some context:
thought experiment: a lab develops a bioweapon and releases it.

This is where you lost me. That's a useless presupposition. There is zero evidence to say that SARS-CoV-2 is a bioweapon in the UN treaty sense at least. What we do know is that the lab along with the UNC lab had pioneered methods of creating chimeric coronavirus that specifically involved introducing spike proteins more suited to human ACE2 receptor binding, and infecting mice with those.

I did read the rest of your post though. The SARS-CoV-2 clade shows a rate of mutation that is peculiarly stable for ssRNA viruses like it. Something like two orders of magnitude slower to mutate, compared to extant known strains of SARS and its emergence in humans.

This preprint: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.01.073262v1.full also notes that the earliest known SARS-CoV-2 variant was already well-adapted to human infection and transmission.

lucernarian

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

All of those Daily Mail stories are based on peer-reviewed studies. You could do the same from any big paper that covers international news.

Aslo zerohedge isnt far right. Its anti establishment not far right.

The author of that particular article is using a pseudonym to make a very weak point. And I don't think that site is purely anti-establishment, it doesn't seem to have much content that deals with issues of poverty and the disadvantages that ethnic minorities face in capitalist, "well-developed" societies

King Mob

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

All of those Daily Mail stories are based on peer-reviewed studies.

Yes. It then manipulates them and sensationalises them to draw eyeballs.

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

You could do the same from any big paper that covers international news.

Yet, the link you provided to the Times does not do this.

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Aslo zerohedge isnt far right. Its anti establishment not far right.

No, it's far right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge

Thank you for at least now accurately presenting my point.

mcmoustache

patnor1011 wrote: »

So it was not rambling and lies then. You characterize what happened as "assigned low probability" when truth is that it was outright dismissed and even aggressively pursued as conspiracy theory. A lot of people earned conspiracy theorist badge and a ban trying to go against "consensus".

The people pushing the lab theory were doing it without any evidence. It's fair to say that they were full of shíte. If people pointed to evidence that it came from a lab, calling them cranks, kooks, dipshíts, retards. idiots and other assorted words that people associate with conspiracy theorists would have been unfair but that's not what happened.

Dohnjoe

patnor1011 wrote: »

Of course not. Purely coincidental. From what we know they probably ordered bat soup takeaway from wuhan wet market. "Science" and current consensus among majority say it could not happen any other way.

And there it is, "science". A universal method put in inverted commas.

silliussoddius

Dohnjoe wrote: »

And there it is, "science". A universal method put in inverted commas.

And bat soup. Reducto ad tinfoil

thecretinhop

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9632921/Is-Patient-Su-Covids-Patient-Zero-asks-IAN-BIRRELL.html

still no proof eh Km?

patnor1011

Riiiigtht. There was a lot of talk about how science can show us that virus jumped species most likely in wuhan wet market and blaming it particularly on Chinese culinary special - bat soup.
Now it appears Wuhan lab was behind and not wet market chefs.
Since Trump came with it it was dismissed as rambling without evidence but some extremely intelligent board posters may overlooked simple fact that some of the evidence they so desperately demanded may have been classified.

King Mob

thecretinhop wrote: »

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9632921/Is-Patient-Su-Covids-Patient-Zero-asks-IAN-BIRRELL.html

still no proof eh Km?

No. There is still no proof.

Are you just going to keep dumping links from sensationalist websites and run away before actually defending them?

King Mob

patnor1011 wrote: »

Riiiigtht. There was a lot of talk about how science can show us that virus jumped species most likely in wuhan wet market and blaming it particularly on Chinese culinary special - bat soup.

You keep claiming this is what people are arguing. It's a misrepresentation.
If we were doing the same to you, you'd be whinging non-stop.

Please show one example of any one here claiming this.
If you can't, please don;t just ignore this question. Just admit that you can't.

patnor1011 wrote: »

Now it appears Wuhan lab was behind and not wet market chefs.
Since Trump came with it it was dismissed as rambling without evidence but some extremely intelligent board posters may overlooked simple fact that some of the evidence they so desperately demanded may have been classified.

What evidence did Trump have access to?
Was this the same kind of evidence he used when he claimed that the virus wasn't going to be a big deal? Was this the same kind of evidence he used when he claimed injecting bleach would cure it?

King Mob

King Mob wrote: »

You keep claiming this is what people are arguing. It's a misrepresentation.
If we were doing the same to you, you'd be whinging non-stop.

Ye do this constantly in this forum..

King Mob

Deleted User wrote: »

Ye do this constantly in this forum..

You're welcome to show this.
This accusation has been made many times, and either no one has supported it or it's been shown to be false.

Or perhaps you can pull up Patnor for it since it's something that he's just done.
Can you point to any examples of anyone here " blaming it particularly on Chinese culinary special - bat soup"?

pearcider

King Mob wrote: »

No. There is still no proof.

Are you just going to keep dumping links from sensationalist websites and run away before actually defending them?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9629563/Chinese-scientists-created-COVID-19-lab-tried-cover-tracks-new-study-claims.html

Quote: Dr. Sørensen and British Professor Angus Dalgleish said initial attempts to publish their findings were rejected by major scientific journals

And John Cena apologises to the Chinese communist party for defending taiwan. He had no problem getting published.

But still none dare call it a conspiracy.

<mod snip>

King Mob

pearcider wrote: »

Quote: Dr. Sørensen and British Professor Angus Dalgleish said initial attempts to publish their findings were rejected by major scientific journals

Ok. And how do you know this is actually true?
Do you just believe everything you are told by the mainstream media?

What journals did they submit the papers to? What reasons did the journals give to reject them? How do you know all of those reasons are false?

pearcider wrote: »

And John Cena apologises to the Chinese communist party.

Yes, noted virologist John Cena...

What has this to do with anything?

pearcider wrote: »

But still none dare call it a conspiracy.

Ok. You believe there's a conspiracy.
What is it?

Are you claiming that China somehow controls all scientific journals as well as professional wrestling?

<mod snip>

pearcider

It’s all there in the paper. Of course even a fool could see The Chinese communist party had the means and the motive to launch a bio weapon against america following trumps trade war which was doing incredible damage to their economy. At the end of the day, the whole thing stinks. It came from the labs of the WIV (labs that the CDC built over the protests of the french) and their communist pals in the WHO and the CDC covered it up. But it’s a conspiracy. <mod snip>

King Mob

pearcider wrote: »

It’s all there in the paper.

No, it's not contained in that link. If it was, you'd be quoting it directly and in full to rub it in my face.
The paper is not actually out yet, nor would it actually contain any of that information either.
What's happening here is that you read this claim (in a mainstream media source) and just believed it without question. You did nothing to verify it. You just accepted it was true because it lines up with your conspiracy theory.

pearcider wrote: »

Of course even a fool could see The Chinese communist party had the means and the motive to launch a bio weapon against america following trumps trade war which was doing incredible damage to their economy.

Ok. So you believe that the conspiracy is that the Chinese government created and released this virus to get at America.
They did this by releasing it in the China and in a way that makes it obvious it was them?

pearcider wrote: »

At the end of the day, the whole thing stinks. It came from the labs of the WIV (labs that the CDC built over the protests of the french) and their communist pals in the WHO and the CDC covered it up. But it’s a conspiracy.

Ok. So also, the WHO and CDC and WWE are all controlled by the communists.
How is this control achieved?
<mod snip>

alrightjack89

Reading through this thread is quite sad

Every single conversation is killed in its tracks by a poster with his fact checka, that is replying to every post

Can he not let the conspiracy theory guys talk freely without interrupting and go to coronavirus threads where that head in sand behavior is lauded and appreciated

Especially now that lab leak is gaining traction in msm

sydthebeat

alrightjack89 wrote: »

Reading through this thread is quite sad

Every single conversation is killed in its tracks by a poster with his fact checka, that is replying to every post

Can he not let the conspiracy theory guys talk freely without interrupting and go to coronavirus threads where that head in sand behavior is lauded and appreciated

Especially now that lab leak is gaining traction in msm

We saw in January 6th that allowing conspiracy theories go unchecked becomes a very dangerous thing and can lead to gullible people doing dangerous things.

Do you think people pushing conspiracy theories should not be bound to prove what they are saying??

Maybe all conspiracy theory threads should be in the sci-fi forum then?

Trigger

Mod: back on topic, if you think a post is breaking the charter report it. Leave the moderation to the mods

SafeSurfer

sydthebeat wrote: »

We saw in January 6th that allowing conspiracy theories go unchecked becomes a very dangerous thing and can lead to gullible people doing dangerous things.

Do you think people pushing conspiracy theories should not be bound to prove what they are saying??

Maybe all conspiracy theory threads should be in the sci-fi forum then?

It’s only considered a conspiracy theory if the idea is not supported by government.

The US arming Muslim fanatics, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, all conspiracy theories that are rarely referenced but they were conspiracy theories.

Detritus70

I'm don't even have to read this thread or the OP to say this:
Bollocks.

athlone573

Persuasive article on medium.com here :

https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-the-clues-6f03564c038

I think it's fair to say we don't know whether covid was man-made. Even Biden's administration are still looking into it.

mcsean2163

athlone573 wrote: »

Persuasive article on medium.com here :

https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-the-clues-6f03564c038

I think it's fair to say we don't know whether covid was man-made. Even Biden's administration are still looking into it.

Yes and nice to see him give a shout out to some members of drastic. I'm still curious about the paper that described some of the early patients...

https://peerj.com/articles/10246/

Put it this way, it could be helpful (or not?) to know in advance of next winter the actual origin of covid19.

Dohnjoe

alrightjack89 wrote: »

Reading through this thread is quite sad

Every single conversation is killed in its tracks by a poster with his fact checka, that is replying to every post

Can he not let the conspiracy theory guys talk freely without interrupting and go to coronavirus threads where that head in sand behavior is lauded and appreciated

Especially now that lab leak is gaining traction in msm

Translation: "This poster keeps asking perfectly straightforward and rational questions that challenge other poster's views on a public discussion forum, that is not on"

Dohnjoe

athlone573 wrote: »

Persuasive article on medium.com here :

https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-the-clues-6f03564c038

It's a blog, and the writer is controversial
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Wade

The consensus of virologists and scientists is that the virus is natural, so they were generally ruling out that the virus was man-made.

Not that a natural virus could have escaped a laboratory.

bb1234567

Where the theory falls through for me is why a bio weapon would be created that is relatively mild..with a pretty select at risk group. Why would you make a weapon that kills senior citizens with health issues. Not the most effective way to cripple a country really is it?