Covid-19 likely to be man made

King Mob

TefalBrain wrote: »

Surely this needs to be moved from the conspiracy theories section? This is now the most likely scenario according to numerous sources.

Which sources? Most of the ones I've seen still contend that the zoonotic origin is the more likely.

And it's in the conspiracy theory section because people are suggesting things about the virus beyond the idea that a natural virus escaped from a lab.
For example, it's been suggested that the virus was entirely created from whole cloth. Another claim is that there's a big global conspiracy to cover up the origin of the virus.

Dohnjoe

TefalBrain wrote: »

Surely this needs to be moved from the conspiracy theories section? This is now the most likely scenario according to numerous sources.

There is little evidence that the virus was "man-made", which sources are you referring to?

banie01

TefalBrain wrote: »

Surely this needs to be moved from the conspiracy theories section? This is now the most likely scenario according to numerous sources.

Read back over the last week or so of the thread.
All issues raised with the Wuhan lab 3 November infections have been addressed and the mention of the possibility of alteration in an email to Fauci from Jan 2020 is well covered by saneman's recent posts.

Then, could you outline which "part" you think is true?

De Novo creation of a weaponised virus and deliberate release, or accidental release?
Alteration of existing virus as part of research and deliberate or accidental release?
Investigation and collection of Corona virus from zoonotic sources for research at Virology lab and accidental or deliberate release?

Or is there a different spin you feel is true?

Then could you outline any evidence to support your conviction?

It may well be that Covid and it's spread from Wuhan is the result of a leak.
But without credible evidence? It's basically shouting I know it was China without any evidence.

The evidence that Trump relied on for his and Pompeo's effort to blame China has been disregarded by the US and a completely new- fresh start investigation stood up to review the origin of the outbreak.

Mic 1972

TefalBrain wrote: »

Surely this needs to be moved from the conspiracy theories section? This is now the most likely scenario according to numerous sources.

This is already in the conspiracy theory section.
Which in itself doesn't disqualify the point of view of scientists who have put forward their concerns about the origin of the virus. Especially after the outcome of the initial investigation is now up for debate again

patnor1011

astrofool wrote: »

This is just a bizarre response, all available evidence points to a zoonotic origin, there, here is one posted in Nature last year with references and evidence included along with a few possible methods that the virus jumped to humans:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

There is more, but as a starting point, provide evidence that refutes some of the evidence in the peer-reviewed Nature article.

Yeah. And you try to read your peer reviewed article mainly conclusion to see that it is just hypothesis as to this date there is no evidence pointing to origin of said virus

King Mob

patnor1011 wrote: »

Yeah. And you try to read your peer reviewed article mainly conclusion to see that it is just hypothesis as to this date there is no evidence pointing to origin of said virus

No, there is evidence towards the zoonotic origin of the virus.
The reasons for this are outlined in the article.

I think you just don't understand what the words "evidence" "hypothesis" and "proof" actually mean in a scientific context.

splashuum

TefalBrain wrote: »

Surely this needs to be moved from the conspiracy theories section? This is now the most likely scenario according to numerous sources.

I argued this a long time ago and the suggestion was laughed at by the Mods.

splashuum

Tokyo wrote: »

Mod: Moved to conspiracy theories forum.

Can you move this back to current affairs now?

Dohnjoe

splashuum wrote: »

Can you move this back to current affairs now?

There is little evidence that the virus is man-made and that hasn't changed much.

What has changed is that the Biden admin is holding an investigation, part of which is to try and determine the origin of the virus, one of the theories is that it could have accidentally leaked from the lab.

A number of people are conflating the two, repeatedly.

To simplify: accidental lab-leak ≠ "man-made"

Trigger

splashuum wrote: »

Can you move this back to current affairs now?

Mod: No.

Mic 1972

10,000 emails from Fauci leaked

"...In one email sent to Fauci last April, an executive at EcoHealth Alliance, the global nonprofit that helped fund some research at China's Wuhan Institute of Virology, thanked Fauci for publicly stating that scientific evidence supports a natural origin for the coronavirus and not a lab release"

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/03/health/anthony-fauci-emails/index.html

Timberrrrrrrr

Mic 1972 wrote: »

10,000 emails from Fauci leaked

"...In one email sent to Fauci last April, an executive at EcoHealth Alliance, the global nonprofit that helped fund some research at China's Wuhan Institute of Virology, thanked Fauci for publicly stating that scientific evidence supports a natural origin for the coronavirus and not a lab release"

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/03/health/anthony-fauci-emails/index.html

He also said

"I have always said, and will say today to you, John, that I still believe the most likely origin is from an animal species to a human, but I keep an absolutely open mind that if there may be other origins of that, there may be another reason, it could have been a lab leak," Fauci told Berman. "I believe if you look historically, what happens in the animal-human interface, that in fact the more likelihood is that you're dealing with a jump of species. But I keep an open mind all the time. And that's the reason why I have been public that we should continue to look for the origin.

Unicorn Milk Latte

No emails were leaked.


Fauci's emails were disclosed via Freedom of Information Act, which is a perfectly normal, legal process.


Fauci has stated, ad nauseam, that a lab leak origin is highly unlikely, but thorough scientific methodology demands to look into it, because it's a theoretical possibility, however small.

Mic 1972

Unicorn Milk Latte wrote: »

No emails were leaked.

Fauci's emails were disclosed via Freedom of Information Act, which is a perfectly normal, legal process.

same thing, emails are now out there

Dohnjoe

Mic 1972 wrote: »

same thing, emails are now out there

And the conspiracy community are busy leaving out context in order to sow conspiracy narratives.

lucernarian

Dohnjoe wrote: »

And the conspiracy community are busy leaving out context in order to sow conspiracy narratives.

Do you think Alina Chan with her tweets is part of the conspiracy community? It's a little disingenuous to talk about "context" when the WHO/China investigation did not include investigating a lab origin of any kind in its terms of reference.

PintOfView

Mic 1972 wrote: »

10,000 emails from Fauci leaked

"...In one email sent to Fauci last April, an executive at EcoHealth Alliance, the global nonprofit that helped fund some research at China's Wuhan Institute of Virology, thanked Fauci for publicly stating that scientific evidence supports a natural origin for the coronavirus and not a lab release"

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/03/health/anthony-fauci-emails/index.html

Everything Fauci is quoted as saying there is coherent, consistent, and makes sense.
What's your problem, and why are you selectively quoting, and trying to spin it?

In relation to what you quoted, Fauci also says
"You can misconstrue it however you want -- that email was from a person to me saying 'thank you' for whatever it is he thought I said, and I said that I think the most likely origin is a jumping of species. I still do think it is, at the same time as I'm keeping an open mind that it might be a lab leak."

Why didn't you give the full picture of what was said?
You effectively decided to misconstrue it?
How are you different to the misinformation merchants?

Dohnjoe

lucernarian wrote: »

It's a little disingenuous to talk about "context" when the WHO/China investigation did not include investigating a lab origin of any kind in its terms of reference.

No, because I was referring to something else, the conspiracy community's general response to Fauci's emails.

banie01

Mic 1972 wrote: »

same thing, emails are now out there

It really isn't.
Leaked, implies secret or restricted information that people sought to suppress has been "leaked".
It implies that despite an effort to suppress it's gotten out there.

That's not what happened here though.
In a demonstration of how transparency and accountability should work.
An FOI request was made, and on foot of that the requested communications were released to the public.

Doesn't sound as exciting or as conspiratorial as "leaked" though does it?
Leaked makes it seem like hidden knowledge has been discovered, rather than just someone handing over the somewhat redacted emails.

Dohnjoe

banie01 wrote: »

It really isn't.
Leaked, implies secret or restricted information that people sought to suppress has been "leaked".
It implies that despite an effort to suppress it's gotten out there.

That's not what happened here though.
In a demonstration of how transparency and accountability should work.
An FOI request was made, and on foot of that the requested communications were released to the public.

Doesn't sound as exciting or as conspiratorial as "leaked" though does it?
Leaked makes it seem like hidden knowledge has been discovered, rather than just someone handing over the somewhat redacted emails.

"I don't care about the truth, I only want the conspiracy, any conspiracy will do"

Mic 1972

PintOfView wrote: »

Everything Fauci is quoted as saying there is coherent, consistent, and makes sense.
What's your problem, and why are you selectively quoting, and trying to spin it?

In relation to what you quoted, Fauci also says
"You can misconstrue it however you want -- that email was from a person to me saying 'thank you' for whatever it is he thought I said, and I said that I think the most likely origin is a jumping of species. I still do think it is, at the same time as I'm keeping an open mind that it might be a lab leak."

Why didn't you give the full picture of what was said?
You effectively decided to misconstrue it?
How are you different to the misinformation merchants?

If i put the link, you want the summary
if I put the summary, you want the link


You guys are never happy LOL


instead of going around in circle spamming the thread as usual, you can address the fact that Fauci's email are painting a dodgy picture of what may have gone on in the background.
I'm glad that mainstream media is finally free to talk. Even Facebook stopped censoring discussions about the origin of Covid

lucernarian

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No, because I was referring to something else, the conspiracy community's general response to Fauci's emails.

Do you think the signatories of the letter to Science are part of the conspiracy community? The likes of Alina Chan or Prof. Ralph Baric?

I'm trying to get a measure of the meaning of the phrase, whether it's there to point out a fringe of Twitter lunatics, or a tool of rhetoric used to dismiss legitimate scientific discussion about the general topic.

banie01

lucernarian wrote: »

Do you think Alina Chan with her tweets is part of the conspiracy community? It's a little disingenuous to talk about "context" when the WHO/China investigation did not include investigating a lab origin of any kind in its terms of reference.

I certainly don't.
I also think her expressed of the lab leak and her dissatisfaction with journalists asking "how likely a lab leak is?"

Squares very well with a competent researcher who wants to follow the evidence to a conclusion, rather than create a conclusion and fit evidence to it.

mcmoustache

Unicorn Milk Latte wrote: »

No emails were leaked.

Correct. Yesterday, Dipshít Twitter was describing it as a leak and were being corrected constantly by Reality Twitter.

PintOfView

Mic 1972 wrote: »

If i put the link, you want the summary
if I put the summary, you want the link

If you are claiming something you need to justify it with the source so others can judge for themselves.
You put in both a summary and the link, thanks, and in my judgement you were cherry picking to skew the picture.

Mic 1972 wrote: »

instead of going around in circle spamming the thread as usual, ...

Are you talking to me?
I'm an infrequent poster on this thread, how do you conclude I spam the thread?

Mic 1972 wrote: »

you can address the fact that Fauci's email are painting a dodgy picture of what may have gone on in the background.

I don't have time to read 10,000 emails, so I'll wait and see what those that read them come up with.
I have an open mind on this. If Fauci is found to have done anything wrong I'll acknowledge it,
until then I'll stay with my impression that Fauci seems reasonable.

If you have a reason to think that Fauci's emails paint a dodgy picture please explain why?

Mic 1972 wrote: »

I'm glad that mainstream media is finally free to talk. Even Facebook stopped censoring discussions about the origin of Covid

Since when were the mainstream media not free to talk?
I've seen discussion on the origin of Covid since it started.

The theories then were pretty much the same as now,
a) it could have passed from animal to human, or
b) it might have been a virus that escaped from a lab

mcmoustache

Mic 1972 wrote: »

same thing

How? Is a fatal heart attack the same as being bludgeoned to death with a dildo? I mean they both lead to the same outcome.

Fils

link

Lewis_Benson

In the first post....

“Donald Trump recently stated"

I stopped there.

Mic 1972

mcmoustache wrote: »

How? Is a fatal heart attack the same as being bludgeoned to death with a dildo? I mean they both lead to the same outcome.

source?

mcmoustache

Mic 1972 wrote: »

source?

The source of the questions? That would be me. Here's a link for reference.

Unicorn Milk Latte

PintOfView wrote: »

Since when were the mainstream media not free to talk?
I've seen discussion on the origin of Covid since it started.

This.

I remember when virologists were asked mid-2020 about the origin, they said the exact same thing that Fauci says today:

No chance of being lab made, a very small possibility of a natural virus escaping from a research lab, very high probability of natural occurrence, because there have been lots of precedents with other viruses. Let's investigate scientifically, (not politically).



The main stream media being 'not free to talk' is a paranoid conspiracy fantasy.

It's a global pandemic, so 'media' means all media in many countries with vastly different political systems, cultures, interests.


Here in the real world: if the main stream media see news that would be sensational, like a virus created in a lab, there is no chance they would ignore it - it's their business, not releasing something like that would put any news outlet at a disadvantage to their competitors.

mcsean2163

Interesting podcast on covid19 origin and commentary on how mainstream organisations such as Facebook blocked discussion of a potential lab leak

https://thefedorachronicles.com/podcast/2021/2021-05-27-lab-leak-mainstream.html

Dohnjoe

lucernarian wrote: »

Do you think the signatories of the letter to Science are part of the conspiracy community? The likes of Alina Chan or Prof. Ralph Baric?

I don't know them, so I can't tell you that. I am only interested in the scientific consensus, which is that the virus is natural, not "man-made"

I'm trying to get a measure of the meaning of the phrase, whether it's there to point out a fringe of Twitter lunatics, or a tool of rhetoric used to dismiss legitimate scientific discussion about the general topic.

Any popular conspiracy forum, e.g. Reddit's conspiracy community

Unicorn Milk Latte

Context:

Facebook is still the number one source of misinformation on the planet.

If Facebook removes 'information', it's means that it's so batsh*t crazy that it's too much even for the disinformation kings.

mcsean2163

Vanity fair writeup on DRASTIC team that were dismissed as idiots by a poster on this forum.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins

This is a great quote.

Dr. Richard Ebright, board of governors professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University, said that from the very first reports of a novel bat-related coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, it took him “a nanosecond or a picosecond” to consider a link to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Only two other labs in the world, in Galveston, Texas, and Chapel Hill, North Carolina, were doing similar research. “It’s not a dozen cities,” he said. “It’s three places.”

Dohnjoe

Unicorn Milk Latte wrote: »

This.

I remember when virologists were asked mid-2020 about the origin, they said the exact same thing that Fauci says today:

No chance of being lab made, a very small possibility of a natural virus escaping from a research lab, very high probability of natural occurrence, because there have been lots of precedents with other viruses. Let's investigate scientifically, (not politically).



The main stream media being 'not free to talk' is a paranoid conspiracy fantasy.

It's a global pandemic, so 'media' means all media in many countries with vastly different political systems, cultures, interests.


Here in the real world: if the main stream media see news that would be sensational, like a virus created in a lab, there is no chance they would ignore it - it's their business, not releasing something like that would put any news outlet at a disadvantage to their competitors.

Yes but that isn't "exciting" enough for some

It's far more interesting to believe it was deliberately altered or created in a lab and released as some sort of "bio-weapon" or that the "bio-weapon under development accidentally leaked the lab".

Those who believe the above are clearly latching on to a separate theory, that it could have accidentally leaked from the lab, and melding the two together.

Cheering on one by cheering on the other.

banie01

Had a read through Alina Chan's Twitter feed and she was kind enough to direct me to an older thread that dealt with a claimed early detection in Barcelona in @March 2019(Discredited totally).
And of far more interest to me, her review of the Italian study claiming late Sept/Early Oct detections of Covid antibodies.

https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1349163446143746052?s=19

Her review makes a very compelling case to shape the Italian detections as false positives, due to a poor and unverified assay.

That pushes the outbreak back to Wuhan in December and means that refutes my earlier holding of the Italian study as undermining the possibility of 3 Wuhan lab assistants being possibly patient 0.

It puts Wuhan, the lab and the Chinese response and transparency with regards to their Data and sample history firmly front and centre in the investigation.
Her explanation and review of the studies claiming earlier Ex-china detections do a robust job of refuting those findings IMO.
Her tweet above and the studies linked from her twitter provide for interesting reading.

So I'd like to put my previously stated support for the Italian study and my excusing of its methodology aside and withdraw my support for pre-December 2019 circulation of Covid outside of Wuhan/China.

King Mob

So since Fauci's emails have been "leaked" and there's nothing in there about the virus being released on purpose to create a pandemic, can we all agree that this particular theory has been completely disproven?

Markus Antonius

Unicorn Milk Latte wrote: »

No emails were leaked.


Fauci's emails were disclosed via Freedom of Information Act, which is a perfectly normal, legal process.


Fauci has stated, ad nauseam, that a lab leak origin is highly unlikely, but thorough scientific methodology demands to look into it, because it's a theoretical possibility, however small.

This BBC article completely contradicts what you are saying:

"This May, Dr Fauci said he is "not convinced" the virus originated naturally and expressed support for an investigation."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57336280

How about you park the paraphrasing and give us some quotes?

Unicorn Milk Latte

Markus Antonius wrote: »

How about you park the paraphrasing and give us some quotes?

Sure. Fauci, from earlier today:

geospatial

So, the first problem in the interview is the interviewer asked about April 2020 as the date the lab conspiracy was raised. The email to Fauci from Anderson suggesting the virus could be engineered was January 31st. So when the journalist starts out with an erroneous question you have to somewhat disregard the answer.

The lab leak conspiracy was raised by a number of Chinese dissidents in early January. Any journalist worth their salt would know that.

geospatial

Sorry, being new I can't post links.

The genome for SARS-2 was released in mid January, and research virologists worldwide immediately started to study it. January 31st a leading US research virologist emailed Fauci with his impressions there was evidence of unnatural evolution or perhaps engineering in a new SARS virus. Within three days the director of the company responsible for US funding of the lab in Wuhan was crafting a response and emailing fellow virologists for support. A conference call was held between Feb 1 and 3 involving leading US virologists, who were either funding or collaborating with gain of function research in Wuhan. Within a few days everyone was on board with a narrative, within two weeks Anderson had publicly rebutted his earlier hypothesis in his letter to Nature. The virus was from natural origin, end of story.

End of science. Anderson's letter to Nature (it's a correspondence not a research paper) published in March and written in early February is an absolute disgrace to science as he had no idea at that point how the virus had evolved. To claim as he did that "our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 was not a laboratory construct or a purposely manipulated virus" is utter bull****, he had no way of knowing that at the time. We still have no idea ffs, 16 months later.

But we will find out, in that I trust.

King Mob

geospatial wrote: »

But we will find out, in that I trust.

So, if the American investigation that's now underway finishes and says that there's no evidence to show a lab origin or that the lab origin is false, will you accept that that conclusion?

Tenger

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Interesting podcast on covid19 origin and commentary on how mainstream organisations such as Facebook blocked discussion of a potential lab leak...........

I immediate dislike this source due to their use of the term "Mainstream Media" and "the Left".

Obvious bias from the podcast description. Looking at other episodes it's a pro Trump podcast.


Back on topic, obviously there is a chance that the virus was man-made, or maybe of natural origins but manipulated in a lab.
But based on history and probability it was more likely to be Zoonotic origin (which doesn't mean "bar soup") You can believe the latter while being open to the former.

Thus I would still support an international investigation into the origins of Covid-19. A similar investigation for SARS was able to trace it back to a specific cave system in China.

splashuum

I’m having serious issues trying to comprehend peoples thinking. Imagine believing the virus occurred naturally in a wet market when coincidentally the biggest virology lab in China is a only few hundred metres down the road from it. You have to seriously wonder whether common sense gone has out the window?

banie01

splashuum wrote: »

I’m having serious issues trying to comprehend peoples thinking. Imagine believing the virus occurred naturally in a wet market when coincidentally the biggest virology lab in China is a only few hundred metres down the road from it. You have to seriously wonder whether common sense gone has out the window?

Other than coincidence?
What actual evidence is there to support your assertion?
Also, when you started the thread your assertion was that the virus is man-made?
Do you still think so?
Is it a De Novo creation? A Bio-weapon gone awry?
A deliberate or accidental release?

There is also a very good reason that the Wuhan lab is where it is.
There is a long history of zoonotic emergence in the area, there are massive bat and small mammal populations in the vicinity and a concurrent history of both human consumption and close contact with said mammals.
That could further allow for coincidence rather than leak.

The lab needs to be investigated, health records and sample history held in Wuhan needs review and assessment.
But, again you are rushing headlong into a conclusion with zero supporting evidence other than coincidence.

Regarding the virus origin and progenitor.
An interesting paper here, it's pre-print so review is not underway but feel free to shoot it down.
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/advance-article/doi/10.1093/molbev/msab118/6257226

In particular:

We report the likely most recent common ancestor of SARS-CoV-2, reconstructed through a novel application and advancement of computational methods initially developed to infer the mutational history of tumor cells in a patient. This progenitor genome differs from genomes of the first coronaviruses sampled in China by three variants, implying that none of the earliest patients represent the index case or gave rise to all the human infections. However, multiple coronavirus infections in China and the USA harbored the progenitor genetic fingerprint in January 2020 and later, suggesting that the progenitor was spreading worldwide months before and after the first reported cases of COVID-19 in China. Mutations of the progenitor and its offshoots have produced many dominant coronavirus strains, which have spread episodically over time. Fingerprinting based on common mutations reveals that the same coronavirus lineage has dominated North America for most of the pandemic in 2020.

geospatial

King Mob wrote: »

So, if the American investigation that's now underway finishes and says that there's no evidence to show a lab origin or that the lab origin is false, will you accept that that conclusion?

That depends on the evidence presented. I actually lean towards natural origin myself, most likely cell passaging in a mink farm, but that's just my opinion. I'm concerned about all the obfuscation going on though, like claiming their was no "gain of function" research going on in Wuhan.

The only way to truly exclude lab origin is to get access to the lab notebooks and data from the WIV. The recent WHO investigation didn't even ask to get access to this data which in itself is staggering. Will the US investigation get access to it in your opinion?

Mic 1972

splashuum wrote: »

I’m having serious issues trying to comprehend peoples thinking. Imagine believing the virus occurred naturally in a wet market when coincidentally the biggest virology lab in China is a only few hundred metres down the road from it. You have to seriously wonder whether common sense gone has out the window?

Agreed
Also, there are very few labs in the world currently doing the type of virus research that is being done in Wuhan.
If the Wuhan lab had really nothing to do with the virus we would have been swamped with evidence of it

King Mob

splashuum wrote: »

I’m having serious issues trying to comprehend peoples thinking. Imagine believing the virus occurred naturally in a wet market when coincidentally the biggest virology lab in China is a only few hundred metres down the road from it. You have to seriously wonder whether common sense gone has out the window?

What's hard to understand?
Why would people believe in things for which there's no evidence supporting them?

Sure it's a coincidence that there was a big viral lab nearby where the virus was first identified. But as Bainie09 points out, there's probably reasons for that coincidence.

Additionally, the fact that it was was so close to the lab would discount several of the popular conspiracy theories being suggested here.
If the plot was to release a virus to cause/fake a global pandemic, why release it in a place so obvious that it would give the game away? It makes no sense to do that, so we can conclude that that theory is probably wrong, right?

Again, no one single person here has said that it was impossible that the virus escaped from a lab.

King Mob

geospatial wrote: »

That depends on the evidence presented.

I think that this causes a problem, especially in the more conspiracy minded than yourself.
We're seeing people declare the fact the US is taking the lab origin more seriously as proof the lab origin is true.
But I think that if/when the investigation doesn't support the lab origin, people will start declaring that the Americans are involved in the conspiracy again.

If the American investigation doesn't produce evidence adequate to your standards, do you believe that this will be due to a cover up on their part?
If that's the case, why do you believe that they are now giving more credence to the lab origin theory?

geospatial wrote: »

I'm concerned about all the obfuscation going on though, like claiming their was no "gain of function" research going on in Wuhan.

Sure. This is an actual concern and it seems that most conspiracy theorists have either missed this or simply don't care because it's not very exciting.
It's also an issue that's independent of the lab origin. It's entirely possible that the virus is completely natural, but elements in the US still don't want to expose if there was gain of function research in the lab. Or they don't even want people to look too closely at the possibility there was.

geospatial wrote: »

The only way to truly exclude lab origin is to get access to the lab notebooks and data from the WIV. The recent WHO investigation didn't even ask to get access to this data which in itself is staggering. Will the US investigation get access to it in your opinion?

No, probably not. China doesn't seem like it's going to cooperate with another investigation.

There are other ways to show a lab origin however, if claims of gain of function or manufacture are true.

If the claim is that the virus is completely natural and completely indistinguishable from a naturally occuring virus, then isn't that just the most likely explanation?