Covid-19 likely to be man made

geospatial

King Mob wrote: »

But they did investigate the possibility of a lab leak.
They specifically addressed it in the conclusion.
Why are you claiming that they didn't?

But they didn't. Not in any serious fashion, not to the expectation of the director general of the WHO, and not to the expectation of the US government, and other governments. Frankly, not to the expectation of anyone serious about investigating the origins of a pandemic that has killed over 3 million people and counting. How could you investigate the possibility of a lab leak without seeing the data from the lab in question? How could you conclude it was "extremely unlikely" without seeing such data?

Have you read the letter published in Science magazine from 18 prominent scientists calling for an open and transparent investigation after the WHO concluded their investigation. I agree with them 100%. Do you agree with them?

I've given you the two areas of evidence I would like to see to rule out a lab leak, the location data of the first few hundred cases in Wuhan in December 2019, and the lab data from the WIV. Any credible investigation should have access to both.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6543/694.1

King Mob

geospatial wrote: »

But they didn't.

Sorry, you've again dodged my question.
Please go back and address it if you want to continue this discussion.
I have addressed all of your questions directly.
If you can't do the same with one question...

geospatial

King Mob wrote: »

Sorry, you've again dodged my question.
Please go back and address it if you want to continue this discussion.
I have addressed all of your questions directly.
If you can't do the same with one question...

I'm not dodging anything and there's no one forcing you to continue any discussion. I'm the one exhibiting extreme patience here in answering you multiple times and making my position abundantly clear.

I expect an open and transparent investigation, and fully expect it given we have had a pandemic that has killed 3 million people and counting. I expect this investigation to actually investigate the possibility of a lab leak, something the WHO investigation did not, as stated by the director general of the WHO. I would like the possibility of a lab leak to be ruled out with evidence. If SARS-2 was never inside the WIV as has been claimed, then why would there be any reluctance to demonstrate this?

The way to rule it out is to have access to the lab data of the WIV and an analysis of the first few hundred cases of Covid in December 2019. Any investigation that excludes that evidence in my opinion and in the opinion of many credible scientists is flawed and frankly not credible.

Those are my standards for an open and transparent investigation. Do you think it's unreasonable to demand such?

King Mob

geospatial wrote: »

I'm not dodging anything and there's no one forcing you to continue any discussion. I'm the one exhibiting extreme patience here in answering you multiple times and making my position abundantly clear.

But sorry, you're still dodging the question I asked.

I asked why you are hedging your answer.
You have suggested that the US investigation would reach a conclusion without providing adequate evidence.

You have stated that you don't believe the investigation is part of a cover up. You have stated that the investigation is legitimate and serious.
If this is the case, it doesn't make sense for them to then make a conclusion that is false and/or not supported by the evidence.

I've asked you for what other reason they might make a false conclusion or a conclusion that's not supported by adequate evidence.
I can't think of any. I don't think you can either.

So, why then do you add a caveat to your answer? Why suggest that the investigation might do something you don't believe they will do?
It's a pretty simple question.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh..it doesn't matter..
He'll accuse you of not answering and keep asking it anyway..

Ahem..

geospatial

King Mob wrote: »

Again, you seem to have missed my question:
I think what you are doing is a misrepresentation here.
Why do you believe he was doing this?
Also, since you believe he was involved in this cover up, why didn't his investigation completely rule out the idea of a lab leak?

Specifically on Peter Daszak. You claim he had no conflict of interest. On January 31st Kristian Anderson sent an email to Dr Fachi expressing concerns that the virus could have been engineered. Dr Fachi took this seriously enough to contact Daszak and others and convene a conference call. By February 3rd, Peter Daszak had drafted a letter later published in Lancet, and was campaigning other scientists to sign it. The letter states he had no competing interests.

The letter expresses solidarity with Chinese scientists for their "openness and transparency", a claim that was derisory then and is now over a year later given their refusal to provide any of their data. You don't think this is a conflict of interest given he was funding the same scientists? He also states in the letter than anyone claiming SARS-2 did not have a natural origin was a conspiracy theorist. Was Andersen a conspiracy theorist?

geospatial

Deleted User wrote: »

Ahem..

I should have listened.

geospatial

King Mob wrote: »

But sorry, you're still dodging the question I asked.

You are now misquoting me. I didn't hedge my answer, I clarified it as you seem to have trouble grasping my point. Here is my answer from earlier:

"I'm going to wait until the US government issues it's report or makes an announcement and judge it then. If for example they say we concluded the virus had a natural origin and did not leak from the Wuhan lab and give no evidence then I would not find that convincing. If they for example were to provide evidence from medical, genomic and/or statistical studies that the virus could not have been engineered or leak from the lab I would be convinced".

I am clearly stating I expect to see evidence in support of their findings. I have clarified further to state what evidence I would expect to see, location data on the first few hundred cases, and lab data from the WIV.

Those are my requirements for an open and transparent investigation. They are shared by the scientists who wrote the letter to Science magazine. You are free to disagree and believe the WHO investigation was credible and there is no need for further investigation. The director general of the WHO disagrees with you, the US government disagrees with you, other governments disagree with you. Maybe you are wrong?

I have zero interest in pursuing this question further with you, as my position is crystal clear. If you need further explanation, read the Science mag letter I posted above, I am 100% in agreement with it's contents.

King Mob

geospatial wrote: »

I should have listened.

I'll take that as a no to answering the question then.

Unfortunately that puts me at a bit of a handicap, given that to address your other points, I'll have to ask more questions.

geospatial wrote: »

The letter expresses solidarity with Chinese scientists for their "openness and transparency", a claim that was derisory then and is now over a year later given their refusal to provide any of their data. You don't think this is a conflict of interest given he was funding the same scientists?

No, I don't think this is a conflict of interest.

What are you claiming is the conflict of interest? That he wrote the letter or that he was funding the same scientists?
What is the nature of the conflict of interest? Financial?

And to be clear, are you claiming he's lying when he claims the scientists (not the CCP) were "open and transparent"?

geospatial wrote: »

He also states in the letter than anyone claiming SARS-2 did not have a natural origin was a conspiracy theorist. Was Andersen a conspiracy theorist?

That's not what he says. You are misquoting him.
He doesn't call anyone a conspiracy theorist.
He states that there are conspiracy theories that the virus is not natural.
This is something you agreed on when you agreed that the idea that the claim the virus was a bioweapon is a conspiracy theory.

He could have been more precise in his wording, but again, a lot of people in the media, and in the White House were not being careful with their wording either.https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/30/us/politics/trump-administration-intelligence-coronavirus-china.html

And again, in the post you quote, I asked a question you did not address.
Since you believe Daszak was involved in this cover up, why didn't his investigation completely rule out the idea of a lab leak?
Why does his report say that the lab leak idea is "highly unlikely" (something you agree with) and not "impossible"?

Danzy

It's more than worth consideration that the city market where Covid19 began is a few hundred yards from the world's leading research facility in to Corona viruses.

Viruses are modified all the time in labs, part of the learning process. If this was modified, it seems to be in the original form.

An accidental escape rather than deliberate.

King Mob

geospatial wrote: »

You are now misquoting me. I didn't hedge my answer, I clarified it as you seem to have trouble grasping my point. Here is my answer from earlier:

"I'm going to wait until the US government issues it's report or makes an announcement and judge it then. If for example they say we concluded the virus had a natural origin and did not leak from the Wuhan lab and give no evidence then I would not find that convincing. If they for example were to provide evidence from medical, genomic and/or statistical studies that the virus could not have been engineered or leak from the lab I would be convinced"..

Ok. But again the question is: Why would they possibly do that?
The only reasons I can think of is if they are either completely incompetent or they are covering something up.
You agree that either of these things are true.
You can't seem to provide another reason why they would do this.

So why qualify your answer with an impossibility?

It's a bit like saying "I'll believe them unless they drop trou and take a **** on the stage."
It's a bit of a pointless qualifier since they're not likely to do that.

geospatial wrote: »

there is no need for further investigation. The director general of the WHO disagrees with you, the US government disagrees with you, other governments disagree with you. Maybe you are wrong?
.

Didn't claim that. This is a misrepresentation.

geospatial

King Mob wrote: »

And again, in the post you quote, I asked a question you did not address.
Since you believe Daszak was involved in this cover up, why didn't his investigation completely rule out the idea of a lab leak?
Why does his report say that the lab leak idea is "highly unlikely" (something you agree with) and not "impossible"?

Again you are misquoting me. I have not said there was a cover up, I said there was a serious attempt led by Daszak in early February and onwards to stifle any discussion of a lab leak, or any discussion of an unnatural origin. Why was he leading this effort? I believe he had a conflict of interest given his association with the WIV. Why for example would he not disclose that in his letter? That would be called transparency.

It's not "his " report, he was a member of the team. I did not agree the lab leak idea is "highly unlikely", you are confused here. I think the more likely is the virus evolved in nature and was not engineered, but I don't have a strong opinion on whether a natural virus that had been collected in the field leaked from the lab. That is why I would like to see evidence that it did not, evidence the virus was never inside the lab as is claimed.

Why do you not support an open and transparent investigation?

King Mob

geospatial wrote: »

Again you are misquoting me. I have not said there was a cover up, I said there was a serious attempt led by Daszak in early February and onwards to stifle any discussion of a lab leak, or any discussion of an unnatural origin.

There wasn't a cover up, but this guy was trying to cover stuff up?


In what way did he actively "stifle" anything?

geospatial wrote: »

Why was he leading this effort? I believe he had a conflict of interest given his association with the WIV.

Ok. What is the nature of that conflict of interest precisely. How did it influence his claims? How did it influence the investigation?

geospatial wrote: »

Why for example would he not disclose that in his letter? That would be called transparency.

Why would he disclose easily obtainable information in an opinion letter?
How would his connection to the lab alter or call into question anything he wrote in his letter?

geospatial wrote: »

It's not "his " report, he was a member of the team.

Ok. Why then did it not say the lab leak was impossible?

geospatial wrote: »

Why do you not support an open and transparent investigation?

Lol.
Didn't say that either.

geospatial

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. But again the question is: Why would they possibly do that?
The only reasons I can think of is if they are either completely incompetent or they are covering something up.
You agree that either of these things are true.

They would do that if they accept the findings of the recent WHO investigation (as you appear to do) and not demand the actual evidence that would clear up the issue of lab leak, and it will have to be a demand. We know the CCP do not want to release the data, we know they will do everything to stop any serious investigation.

I believe it's naive to think that scientists at the WIV are somehow distinct from the CCP. The attached fact sheet from the US government makes a further claim, that the WIV is not just a civilian lab but is engaged in research with the Chinese military. Perhaps this is also driving the new investigation.

I am actually quite confident the US government will get access to the data, and clear up the issue of the lab leak. I think the world deserves answers.

https://permanent.fdlp.gov/websites/www.state.gov/2021/www.state.gov/fact-sheet-activity-at-the-wuhan-institute-of-virology/index.htm

King Mob

geospatial wrote: »

They would do that if they accept the findings of the recent WHO investigation (as you appear to do) and not demand the actual evidence that would clear up the issue of lab leak, and it will have to be a demand.

Ok. So you're claiming that the investigation might be part of the cover up of the WHO investigation.

This contradicts many of the claims you've been making over these last few pages.
You've claimed that the new investigation is not part of the cover up and it's entirely serious.
So, therefore you believe they wouldn't just accept the findings of the WHO.

And then we're back to you bringing up an impossibility to qualify your answer.

geospatial

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. What is the nature of that conflict of interest precisely. How did it influence his claims? How did it influence the investigation?

How did it influence the investigation? He is on record stating he did not ask to see any lab data at the WIV, and that he didn't need to see it as "he knew what they were doing". As you say yourself, lol.

That's why you need non scientists involved in the investigation that will demand answers, scientists are generally not good at confrontation.

Can you think of any legitimate reason not to ask to see their data?

geospatial

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. So you're claiming that the investigation might be part of the cover up of the WHO investigation.

No, I'm saying imo the WHO did not do a credible job and I expect the US government to do a proper investigation. Anything less would be a huge disappointment.

I have no evidence as yet of the nature of the investigation, so I'm not making any claims. I'm pointing out what my expectations are.

King Mob

geospatial wrote: »

How did it influence the investigation? He is on record stating he did not ask to see any lab data at the WIV, and that he didn't need to see it as "he knew what they were doing". As you say yourself, lol.

Well given you have misrepresented a quote from him before, and you've misrepresented me several times, I don't believe you are accurately representing him here either.

Nor does this actually address the question I asked.
Why would he do this if it's such a failure and an obvious display of corruption?
How does he benefit from doing this?
Why the **** would he admit to doing this if it gives the game away?

Additionally, as you claimed, there were other people on the team. How come none of these people pulled him up on this obvious breach?

The answer most likely is that what he said and did isn't actually a conflict of interest, but some people like yourself are trying to misconstrue it as a conflict of interest.

geospatial wrote: »

That's why you need non scientists involved in the investigation that will demand answers, scientists are generally not good at confrontation.

What an odd thing to claim...

geospatial wrote: »

Can you think of any legitimate reason not to ask to see their data?

Not really. I'm not a scientist or an investigator, so anything I'd suggest would just be off the top of my head speculation.

Maybe you can tell us why they didn't ask for the data and then admitted as much? Why didn't they just claim to have seen the data?

King Mob

geospatial wrote: »

No, I'm saying imo the WHO did not do a credible job and I expect the US government to do a proper investigation. Anything less would be a huge disappointment.

I have no evidence as yet of the nature of the investigation, so I'm not making any claims. I'm pointing out what my expectations are.

No, you're changing your claim now:

I asked you why the US investigation would reach a conclusion that they had no evidence for.
You said: "They would do that if they accept the findings of the recent WHO investigation (as you appear to do)"

Why would they accept the findings of an investigation that you believe is flawed and inadequate?
As you've agreed, the US investigation is not part of a cover up and they are not incompetent or unmotivated.
So why would they suddenly out of no where and for no reason accept the WHO investigation, announce their conclusions and present them with no evidence?
This to you is an impossibility?
Why bring it up to qualify your answer?

geospatial

King Mob wrote: »

Maybe you can tell us why they didn't ask for the data and then admitted as much? Why didn't they just claim to have seen the data?

Have you read the fact sheet I posted? The 3 claims of the US government are that researchers fell ill at the WIV in the autumn of 2019 with Covid like symptoms, that the WIV has been conducting dangerous gain of function experiments on bat coronaviruses (in an unsafe lab, the state department deemed it unsafe in 2018), and that the WIV is a mixed civilian and military lab. These are pretty serious allegations, all three have been denied by the CCP who have charged that Biden is conducting a smear campaign.

Why would Daszak be reluctant to look for their data? Because if it turned out they actually are lying and all of the above US allegations are true, he is directly implicated as he was both funding them and collaborating with them. You don't think that would damage his reputation and the reputation of other US researchers working with the WIV?

geospatial

King Mob wrote: »

Why would they accept the findings of an investigation that you believe is flawed and inadequate?

If they backed down.

I don't control the US government or it's investigation. I'm outlining what I expect from the US investigation, based on their claims on their website. I expect the US government to get access to data at the WIV and in Wuhan to clear up the issue of the lab leak. It's not an unreasonable expectation.

Whether they do it or not in reality depends on how much they want to confront the CCP. The stakes are fairly high.

King Mob

geospatial wrote: »

Have you read the fact sheet I posted?

No I haven't.
I not interested in chasing down random links when you are constantly ignoring points and questions I'm bringing up.

If you were actually addressing my questions in full and directly like I am with yours, then maybe I might be inclined.

geospatial wrote: »

Why would Daszak be reluctant to look for their data? Because if it turned out they actually are lying and all of the above US allegations are true, he is directly implicated as he was both funding them and collaborating with them. You don't think that would damage his reputation and the reputation of other US researchers working with the WIV?

Yet, according to you, he is damaging his reputation by failing to declare conflicts of interest and making false claims and reports, all in very obvious ways.
It doesn't make sense for him to do this. It doesn't make sense to avoid damage to your reputation by damaging your reputation even more.

If your accusations are true, and he doesn't want to be implicated in something, he would just ask for the data, and then claim to have not known anything about the research. Or better yet, get stonewalled by the Chinese government, then just say that he can't make any conclusions because the Chinese government are hiding things.

Or at the very least, he could not freely admit to what you believe is obvious failures and corruption, and then just declare the lab leak is impossible.

King Mob

geospatial wrote: »

If they backed down.

Why would they back down?
Why would they then lie about their conclusion as part of this back down?

Like you said, the investigation isn't part of a cover up and it's entirely serious and competent. So it doesn't make sense they would just "back down" then lie and claim to reach a conclusion they can't support.

And what's the difference between "backing down" and covering up exactly?

geospatial

King Mob wrote: »

No I haven't.
If your accusations are true, and he doesn't want to be implicated in something, he would just ask for the data, and then claim to have not known anything about the research.

How could he claim to not know anything about the research when his name is on published research from the WIV? Are you familiar with gain of function research and why it's controversial even among scientists, long before this pandemic? Why do many scientists regard gain of function research as insanity?

If there is one benefit of this awful pandemic, it is that we now know there are at least three labs (2 in US 1 China) developing SARS chimera viruses to study how dangerous they can become. My opinion on this is there are enough dangerous viruses already, without us making more dangerous ones. Peter Daszak is convinced it is critical to do such research, and has campaigned with Fauci to lift the moratorium on such research. I think it should be banned, the risks far outweigh the benefits.

As an aside I believe I have been very respectful and patient in my responses with you, if you think otherwise you are free to end the discussion.

geospatial

King Mob wrote: »

Why would they back down?

Do you think the CCP will just roll over and say come in and look at all our data?

To get the required access to data will take serious confrontation with the CCP with serious consequences if they don't comply. I could see a scenario where the US government could decide for a variety of reasons it is not worth putting extreme pressure on China. Is it worth an economic war at a time when economies are just starting to recover, it is worth the risk of a hot war?

Backing down is not a cover up, it would just be a failure.

King Mob

geospatial wrote: »

How could he claim to not know anything about the research when his name is on published research from the WIV?

This being the conflict of interest he was trying to keep secret, yea?

Which research from the WIV has his name on it and talks about gain of function research specifically on Covid?
If there's none, then he can claim not to know anything about it.

To me, that sounds like a better plan than doing blatantly obviously corrupt things like you're suggesting.

geospatial wrote: »

As an aside I believe I have been very respectful and patient in my responses with you, if you think otherwise you are free to end the discussion.

Cool. So why are you ignoring the majority of my questions?

geospatial wrote: »

Do you think the CCP will just roll over and say come in and look at all our data?

But you're saying that they would have done that for the WHO investigation if only scientists were better at confrontation?

geospatial wrote: »

Backing down is not a cover up, it would just be a failure.

Sure. But backing down, but then making a false conclusion that can't be supported by evidence is a cover up.

You keep trying to change the goal posts here to avoid the question.

Again I'm asking what other reason would make the US investigation provide a conclusion against the lab leak isn't supported by evidence.
You suggested that they might despite discounting all possible reasons why they would do so.

geospatial

King Mob wrote: »

This being the conflict of interest he was trying to keep secret, yea?
Which research from the WIV has his name on it and talks about gain of function research specifically on Covid?
If there's none, then he can claim not to know anything about it.
To me, that sounds like a better plan than doing blatantly obviously corrupt things like you're suggesting.
Cool. So why are you ignoring the majority of my questions?

The majority of your questions have been the same question asked 20 times.

He has only developed a conflict of interest since February 2020, before that he was a researcher funding and participating in research. Why is it that nobody involved now wants to talk about gain of function research and even denies it is going on? There is no published research on gain of function on SARS-2 obviously, but can you not see if such research were uncovered how badly it would reflect on him? Or if the virus was leaked from the lab, how badly that would reflect on him and the NIH for funding the lab?

Can you not imagine the public reaction if it were found that Covid was due to a lab leak and the US government were funding the lab? I would really like for that not to be the case, which is why I support an open and transparent investigation. As should the CCP, unless they have something to hide.

The easiest way for the US govt to back down would be to say we found no evidence of a lab leak. I would not be happy with that outcome if the relevant evidence was not sought.

King Mob

geospatial wrote: »

The majority of your questions have been the same question asked 20 times.

No they're not. This is a cop out.
And if I repeat a question it's because it's being ignored.

geospatial wrote: »

He has only developed a conflict of interest since February 2020, before that he was a researcher funding and participating in research. Why is it that nobody involved now wants to talk about gain of function research and even denies it is going on? There is no published research on gain of function on SARS-2 obviously, but can you not see if such research were uncovered how badly it would reflect on him? Or if the virus was leaked from the lab, how badly that would reflect on him and the NIH for funding the lab?

So there's not anything actually showing that he knows or knew that the such research was going on there.
Thus, if he was involved in a cover up like you're alleging, it makes far more sense for him to deny involvement rather than blurt out things and do things that also give the game away.

What believe what he is doing now reflects badly on himself and the NIH. You believe that he is engaging in a cover up and he's being very blatant about it.

geospatial wrote: »

Can you not imagine the public reaction if it were found that Covid was due to a lab leak and the US government were funding the lab? I would really like for that not to be the case, which is why I support an open and transparent investigation. As should the CCP, unless they have something to hide.

Sure. So does this not affect the current investigation?

geospatial wrote: »

The easiest way for the US govt to back down would be to say we found no evidence of a lab leak. I would not be happy with that outcome if the relevant evidence was not sought.

Ok great. So if they were backing down, they wouldn't reach a conclusion that a lab leak didn't happen and then fail to produce evidence for it.

So that's another impossibility you big up to qualify your answer for some reason.

You said that the US government might announce their investigation falsely determined there was no lab leak and not provide evidence for this conclusion.

You have agreed that they would not do this because they are involved in a cover up.
You have agreed that they would not do this because they are incompetent.
You have agreed they would not do this to cover them "backing down".

Why else would they do such a thing?
If you can't suggest a reason, why did you bring it up as a qualifier to your answer?

That vanity fair article points to a cover up..

geospatial

King Mob wrote: »

No they're not. This is a cop out.
If you can't suggest a reason, why did you bring it up as a qualifier to your answer?

You are misrepresenting everything I have stated. Literally everything. Having read back a bit on this thread, you do it to everyone who disagrees with you.

Here is my position on the US investigation, for the 15th time.

I welcome a full open and transparent investigation. Do you?

I expect it to actually investigate the possibility of a lab leak. Do you?

To investigate that possibility I believe the US govt need to get access to WIV data. Do you?

I expect the findings to be publicly announced with supporting evidence. Do you?

I have defined this evidence as the lab data from WIV and location data on the first few hundred actual cases of Covid in Wuhan. Is this a reasonable expectation?

I believe a finding of "we found no evidence of a lab leak", with no actual data secured from the WIV would be a very poor outcome. Do you agree?