Covid-19 likely to be man made

geospatial

astrofool wrote: »

And again, they offer no evidence at all to favour a lab leak, they just don't think there is enough evidence to discount it.

I apologize for answering a question with a question, but just for clarity.
Are you familiar with what the lab origin hypothesis is and why some scientists think it could be plausible?

astrofool

This is where it gets frustrating, it's around in circles, if you want to ask an open ended question like that, at least follow up with why you're asking the question and dodging what's being asked your way.

You have framed the 18 scientists letter as if the 18 scientists were proponents of a lab leak, particularly highlighting the letters reference to the investigations outcome multiple times ("extremely unlikely"), the letter patently does not say that, can you at least agree with this statement?

geospatial

astrofool wrote: »

This is where it gets frustrating, it's around in circles, if you want to ask an open ended question like that, at least follow up with why you're asking the question and dodging what's being asked your way.

You have framed the 18 scientists letter as if the 18 scientists were proponents of a lab leak, particularly highlighting the letters reference to the investigations outcome multiple times ("extremely unlikely"), the letter patently does not say that, can you at least agree with this statement?

Nowhere have I said or suggested the 18 signatories are "proponents" of a lab leak. What the letter clearly states is that with no findings in clear support of either a natural spillover or a lab accident, the assessment of one as "likely to very likely" and the other as "extremely unlikely" is questioned. Furthermore they state the two theories were not given balanced consideration. This is quite similar to what President Biden has said in his statement of May 26th: "the majority of elements (of the intelligence community) do not believe there is sufficient information to access one to be more likely than another".

I hope you agree something has changed since 2020 when the scientific consensus appeared to be an overwhelming conclusion of natural origin, as apparently also did the US intelligence community. So what has changed?

I'm not interested in going round and round either, but it's a simple question. Are you familiar with the hypothesis and why many scientists think it is plausible?

mcsean2163

astrofool wrote: »

This is disingenuous, the calling card for a conspiracy theorist is that every investigation that goes against their theory should spawn another investigation. In this case there has been an investigation, the investigation found no evidence, no new evidence has come to light since then. The US is conducting another investigation, people on this thread are asking those pushing the lab leak theory will they accept the outcome of this investigation and the proponents of the lab leak theory are saying not if it says there wasn't a lab leak.

The other aspect of it is that if it was a lab leak, what does this mean, and there it becomes incoherent again.

And when I say disingenuous, you have posters referring to trumps statement but then ignoring the fact he said COVID would disappear, that it's harmless that they would have it covered in 15 days etc.

Will you accept the findings of the current investigation?

I'm not part of any group here and don't controls any 'posters' on this thread.

My only thoughts on Trump in this context are that he should've been more diplomatic and less stupid when discussing covid19. I'm certainly not a Trump supporter however I'm not a Biden supporter either, democrats/ republicans both seem much the same except for abortion, God and culture wars.

If scientists I value, e.g. Metzel, Chan, Ebright, etc. i.e. scientists with no conflicts of interest, are content with the finding then most likely so will I.

King Mob

Note how people now seem to be dodging the question about whether or not they'll accept the investigations conclusions.

This is pretty telling I think and indicated that all this faux objectivity will go out the door if the investigation doesn't support a lab leak.

Now we're hearing how the investigation is objective and welcome and isn't part of a cover up.
We will be hearing the exact opposite if they don't produce the correct answer.

Certain folks here know this so don't want to commit to a definite statement of support in case they want to cry conspiracy later.

astrofool

geospatial wrote: »

Nowhere have I said or suggested the 18 signatories are "proponents" of a lab leak. What the letter clearly states is that with no findings in clear support of either a natural spillover or a lab accident, the assessment of one as "likely to very likely" and the other as "extremely unlikely" is questioned. Furthermore they state the two theories were not given balanced consideration. This is quite similar to what President Biden has said in his statement of May 26th: "the majority of elements (of the intelligence community) do not believe there is sufficient information to access one to be more likely than another".

I hope you agree something has changed since 2020 when the scientific consensus appeared to be an overwhelming conclusion of natural origin, as apparently also did the US intelligence community. So what has changed?

I'm not interested in going round and round either, but it's a simple question. Are you familiar with the hypothesis and why many scientists think it is plausible?

Great, so at least we can agree that all the letter from 18 scientists says and that they specifically aren't favoring a lab leak as likely, thus invoking those scientists as supporting a lab leak theory is disingenuous.

I'm aware of the hypothesis however I'm also aware of the lack of evidence for it thus far, on the balance of evidence available it seems less likely to have occurred than a natural spillover. I do not believe the US investigation will find anything different, but will be interested if they do.

geospatial

astrofool wrote: »

Great, so at least we can agree that all the letter from 18 scientists says and that they specifically aren't favoring a lab leak as likely, thus invoking those scientists as supporting a lab leak theory is disingenuous.

Correct, in the absence of direct evidence for either hypothesis they are calling for an open and transparent investigation, where both are equally investigated.

In answer to your earlier question, I would absolutely accept the outcome of such an investigation.

patnor1011

Oh well, even Fauci now entertain the idea that "COVID-19 may be 'engineered virus: Fauci"

https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/269967361/covid-19-may-be-engineered-virus-fauci

So from no way Jose and something something "but consensus!" we go back to where it all started. Nothing is proven or disproven so far.

King Mob

patnor1011 wrote: »

So from no way Jose and something something "but consensus!" we go back to where it all started. Nothing is proven or disproven so far.

Again, utter misrepresentation.

Noone claimed it was impossible that the virus came from a lab.

You and other conspiracy theorists keep lying and claiming people did so you can pretend to have scored a point.
But you can't actually point to any examples of anyone actually saying this.
So, you misrepresent and ignore any requests for you to back up your misrepresentation.

Unicorn Milk Latte

Argh, not Fauci again.

These days, Fauci says the same as everyone, extremely unlikely, but worth investigating. Video in this earlier post, just a few pages ago.


When in early 2020 people in the US government tried to point fingers at China and suggested a lab leak, their clear and unapologetic reason was racism, not science.


To play the victim card today, and pretend it was broadly dismissed to suppress science, rather than jump on a racist misinformation train, is disingenuous.



There is a subtext about 'investigating China' that also suggests a 'US = world police' and white supremacy approach.
Like breaking into your neighbour's house, and rummaging through the drawers, because you're suspicious and have a right to do so out of natural superiority.


A reasonable approach would be to treat them in the same way the investigators would like to be treated. Create a multinational team - definitely not US controlled - that meets Chinese scientists at eye level, and suggests co-operation in good faith.

Tenger

I'm highly amused at the "I don't like Fauci" mindeset.
It's so obvious that this is propaganda from the far right in the USA. (similar to the "NASA are lying to us" element of Flat Earthers)

The US CDC/NIH is obviously quite prominent in Global health circles. But to assume they are creating this entire situation without any opposing nation raising flags is just ****ing moronic.

Timberrrrrrrr

patnor1011 wrote: »

Oh well, even Fauci now entertain the idea that "COVID-19 may be 'engineered virus: Fauci"

https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/269967361/covid-19-may-be-engineered-virus-fauci

So from no way Jose and something something "but consensus!" we go back to where it all started. Nothing is proven or disproven so far.

Which is what everyone has been saying all along!

mcsean2163

I'd like to reiterate my position.

I was asked if I would accept the outcome of the next investigation, I believe referring to the US one.

We had a WHO China joint investigation that was later disowned by the WHO and renamed a study. The outcome was that frozen food contamination was more likely than a lab leak and Dr Tedros intervened in opposition to that conclusion. No doubt Dr Tedros will be seen by some here as a conspiracy theorist.

I don't know the composition or bias of the current US investigation. The NIH/ Eco Health Alliance have serious conflicts of interest.

I will wait and see before deciding. That's the rational approach.

To accuse someone of being a conspiracy theorist for being rational is irrational.

King Mob

mcsean2163 wrote: »

I will wait and see before deciding. That's the rational approach.

To accuse someone of being a conspiracy theorist for being rational is irrational.

Nope. What's going to happen is that you're waiting to see if the investigation will support your preferred outcome or not.

If they support the lab leak, you'll be using that investigation as if they were perfectly pure and telling gospel truth.
If they don't support the lab leak, you'll say that they are part of the conspiracy now.

It has nothing to do with what the actual investigation does or who's doing it.

If you believe the investigation is part of the cover up, why not just say so and provide the evidence for this?
If you believe the investigiation is not part of the cover up, why not just state that you'll accept their conclusion.

Sitting on the fence like this is a transparent tactic to allow yourself wiggle room if the investigation doesn't go the way you want it.

State your beliefs now, rather than later when you can change them for convenience.

silliussoddius

Tenger wrote: »

I'm highly amused at the "I don't like Fauci" mindeset.
It's so obvious that this is propaganda from the far right in the USA. (similar to the "NASA are lying to us" element of Flat Earthers)

The US CDC/NIH is obviously quite prominent in Global health circles. But to assume they are creating this entire situation without any opposing nation raising flags is just ****ing moronic.

Fauci committed the ultimate sin, not being a boot licker to the god emperor.

mcsean2163

To reiterate, I do not have a preference of outcome. Rather I want a proper open and transparent investigation. If the transition animal is found brilliant. If a lab leak is discovered brilliant.

The key is to determine the source and prevent reoccurrence.

Happy Father's Day to all the dad's.

King Mob

mcsean2163 wrote: »

To reiterate, I do not have a preference of outcome. Rather I want a proper open and transparent investigation. .

So what is the current investigation?
Is it not open and transparent?
If it's not, why is it not and what leads you to believe this?
If you don't know, why have you not looked into it when you claim to be "interested in the investigation"?

Waiting until after to declare your belief in this matter is just barefaced hedging bets.

geospatial

Unicorn Milk Latte wrote: »

There is a subtext about 'investigating China' that also suggests a 'US = world police' and white supremacy approach.
Like breaking into your neighbour's house, and rummaging through the drawers, because you're suspicious and have a right to do so out of natural superiority.


A reasonable approach would be to treat them in the same way the investigators would like to be treated. Create a multinational team - definitely not US controlled - that meets Chinese scientists at eye level, and suggests co-operation in good faith.

I think it's important to remember that the research conducted at the WIV was joint US-China research, not alone was the research partly funded by the US, but US scientists trained WIV scientists in the techniques used. So if there were a lab origin outcome and the lab is somehow culpable, then the US is culpable as well.

mcsean2163

I've worked on many scientific reports/ projects for clients. Not one accepted the findings of a report before it was written. In fact, I have had reports challenged.

This is normal. I do not intend to state I will accept a report before I see it. As i said, I hope for a transparent and objective investigation and discovery of the actual source.

I've had enough on this thread. I won't be contributing here any further.

Anyone can say whatever they want without fear or being challenged or misrepresent me in whatever manner they wish.

Adios

Dohnjoe

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Anyone can say whatever they want without fear or being challenged or misrepresent me in whatever manner they wish.

It's a public discussion forum, not an echo chamber. It's normal and healthy to challenge views, especially here, where there's a lot of how shall we say, disinfo and fringe views

geospatial

Sounds like a second WHO investigation is likely.

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/559297-sullivan-us-will-not-be-issuing-threats-or-ultimatums-to-china-in

King Mob

mcsean2163 wrote: »

I've worked on many scientific reports/ projects for clients. Not one accepted the findings of a report before it was written. In fact, I have had reports challenged.

This is normal. I do not intend to state I will accept a report before I see it. As i said, I hope for a transparent and objective investigation and discovery of the actual source.

I've had enough on this thread. I won't be contributing here any further.

Anyone can say whatever they want without fear or being challenged or misrepresent me in whatever manner they wish.

Adios

The question you were asked was very simple.
Do you believe the current investigation is legitimate or not?
Rather than answer you are leaving in a strop. This is pretty telling I think.

You don't want to provide an answer so you can alter your beliefs after the fact.
If the investigation supports the lab leak it will be above reproach. If they don't support a lab leak they will be part of the conspiracy.
It will have nothing to do with the contents of the investigation report.

geospatial

Can anyone think of a reason why the CCP would vigorously oppose another WHO investigation, a reason that has nothing to do with the origin of Covid 19? It is well worth reading these chronologies of the first 100 days for clues, especially the first 50 days.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7378494/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7378498/

cnocbui

Looks like this topic might get a new lease of life:

Chinese vice-minister of State Security, Dong Jingwei, has reportedly defected to the US and given information about the Wuhan Institute of Virology which is at the centre of the COVID-19 lab leak theory.

Dong was responsible for China’s counter-intelligence activities and if the reports are true, it would be the highest-level defection in the history of the People’s Republic of China.

The rumour of the defection has been spreading on Chinese language media and Twitter in recent days, which included reports that Dong fled to the US via Hong Kong with his daughter in February.

It was given a boost in credibility after SpyTalk, a newsletter covering US intelligence, reported Dong was believed to have given Washington information about the Wuhan laboratory that led to the Biden administration giving the lab leak theory extra credence.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/wouldn-t-normally-comment-marise-payne-declines-to-confirm-rumoured-chinese-defection-20210620-p582jf.html

If this person has defected and is stating that the virus was man made and leaked from the lab, then that would be enough evidence for a lot of people.

geospatial

cnocbui wrote: »

Looks like this topic might get a new lease of life:

If this person has defected and is stating that the virus was man made and leaked from the lab, then that would be enough evidence for a lot of people.

If this is true it could explain why the US government has got more interested in pursuing an investigation, including pushing for a new WHO investigation.

The story could also be based on the individual disappearing, which wouldn't be unheard of in China if he had blotted his copybook.

Unicorn Milk Latte

If you look at recent news about the US government - like the idea to send infected Americans returning from travel abroad to Guantanamo Bay - putting blame on China instead of investigating their own failures seems like a sensible strategy for US politicians.

Mic 1972

Unicorn Milk Latte wrote: »

If you look at recent news about the US government - like the idea to send infected Americans returning from travel abroad to Guantanamo Bay - putting blame on China instead of investigating their own failures seems like a sensible strategy for US politicians.

That's random.


An investigation is required to assess whether the virus came from the Wuhan lab, regardless of US political strategies.
In fact, if politics stayed out of it from the beginning, we wouldn't have been fed lies

Dohnjoe

Mic 1972 wrote: »

That's random.


An investigation is required to assess whether the virus came from the Wuhan lab, regardless of US political strategies.
In fact, if politics stayed out of it from the beginning, we wouldn't have been fed lies

A transparent objective investigation. Which could be next to impossible with China. That's the issue with all this, there's a significant possibility we may never get a definitive answer on the origins of Covid.

Unicorn Milk Latte

Just imagine, for a second, that Russia or China had a remote detention camp, where they hold 'enemies of the state' indefinitely without charge, and torture them. And government suggestions come to light to send people ill with Covid there.

International investigation? Nah, they're the good guys.

geospatial

Well, this is interesting.

When the WHO visited Wuhan earlier this year they were given data on the first Covid cases detected and tested in Wuhan, there were 13 cases that had the complete genome sequenced (of 41 total cases through Jan 1/2020), 11 of the 13 were linked to the Huanan seafood market. One thing that has baffled researchers since 2020 is that these early sequences are not as close a match to known bat coronaviruses most similar to SARS-2 compared to sequences taken from patients at later dates, including outside China in late January. It suggested there must be earlier cases that are a better match.

Jesse Bloom, a researcher from Seattle (Bloom Labs), has done some digging and found a series of SARS-CoV-2 sequences that were deposited to the NIH database in early 2020 from the Wuhan University. It included 35 positive samples of early Covid patients at a local hospital. He couldn't access it initially as it had been removed from the database later, this can be done by sending an email request to the NIH. However the NIH do Google Cloud backup so they were able to retrieve the data. The sequences are a closer match to existing bat coronaviruses than the samples presented to the WHO, suggesting they are earlier cases than those from the seafood market and that Covid was spreading in Wuhan before the data presented to the WHO suggests. This had long been suspected based on news reporting out of China before a news blackout in late January.

This raises the question of how many patient sequences were actually ran and suppressed / not disclosed. It fits with the warnings that went to all scientists in China in January not to share or publish any Covid related information without approval or "be held accountable". Clearly the early CCP narrative was the outbreak came from the seafood market and closing it stopped the spread. The official numbers make zero sense, 41 cases up to Dec 31, the seafood market was blamed and closed Jan 1, and then no cases until January 20th when 240 were announced. That's not how this or any respiratory virus spreads, as we well know. Unofficial numbers from modelers have Wuhan's real numbers as at least 300 by December 31st, and 9,000 by January 23rd when the city of Wuhan was locked down.

Why would you ask to delete data that could be used to help identify the origins of Covid? In this author's opinion "to obscure their existence".

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.18.449051v1.full.pdf+html