Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Covid-19 likely to be man made
Options
Comments
-
No you haven't those have already been debunked
??
Can you debunk the MI5 former boss?
https://news.sky.com/story/former-head-of-mi6-says-theory-coronavirus-was-made-in-wuhan-lab-must-not-be-dismissed-as-conspiracy-12021693
I haven't seen any of it debunked yet. Some links would be helpful.0 -
mcsean2163 wrote: »??
Can you debunk the MI5 former boss?
Yes. He hasn't presented any credible evidence, so there's nothing to debunk.
A majority of scientists presently believe it was transmitted from animals, for which there is evidence. From your own article:But the widely held view among scientists is that the novel coronavirus most likely occurred naturally.
They believe it probably passed from an animal - the prime suspect is a bat - to a human, possibly via an intermediary species, but without any genetic engineering or man-made modifications.
"There is no doubt that this was a natural event," said Dr Rachael Tarlinton, an associate professor of veterinary virology at the University of Nottingham.0 -
Yes. He hasn't presented any credible evidence, so there's nothing to debunk.
A majority of scientists presently believe it was transmitted from animals, for which there is evidence. From your own article:
A majority of scientists presently believe.
Beliefs are not evidence. Scientists used to believe in the corpuscular theory until Einstein et al brought forward duality. As you see a majority can be wrong.
We have an MI5 boss who speaks mandarin and you distrust him because there is no way that such a disease could have escaped from an institute with bats in it that were being used to study coronaviruses?0 -
mcsean2163 wrote: »A majority of scientists presently believe.
Beliefs are not evidence. Scientists used to believe in the corpuscular theory until Einstein et al brought forward duality. As you see a majority can be wrong.
It's not a religious belief. It's based on science. So far the virus doesn't seem to have any man-made elements according to many virologists and experts who have spent months studying it. Quite the contrary it appears to be have originated in mammals/birds, and transmitted to humansWe have an MI5 boss who speaks mandarin and you distrust him because there is no way that such a disease could have escaped from an institute with bats in it that were being used to study coronaviruses?
He's one individual, and he hasn't presented any credible evidence.0 -
This only happened after very strong evidence was provided.mcsean2163 wrote: »A majority of scientists presently believe.
Beliefs are not evidence. Scientists used to believe in the corpuscular theory until Einstein et al brought forward duality. As you see a majority can be wrong.
Duality of matter is now currently believed by a majority. Are you claiming that this truth is now somehow untrue simply because a majority believe it?0 -
Advertisement
-
This only happened after very strong evidence was provided.
Duality of matter is now currently believed by a majority. Are you claiming that this truth is now somehow untrue simply because a majority believe it?
Obviously not.
Several scientists with no funding from China have come out with claims that it was manmade. I've no idea whether that's true as I'm not a virologist.
Here is a very simple and obvious theory that has not been debunked.
A bat was captured with covid19, brought to the Wuhan institute of virology and studied. A scientist was infected and visited the Wuhan wet market.
A later retracted Chinese paper was published to that effect.
How on earth is that not feasible? China are now denying entry to WHO officials. That would be one of the first things I would look at if I were an investigator. Instead.... we must believe it was a bat from a cave 1000 miles away sold in a wet market that doesn't sell bats.0 -
mcsean2163 wrote: »T
Here is a very simple and obvious theory that has not been debunked.
A bat was captured with covid19, brought to the Wuhan institute of virology and studied. A scientist was infected and visited the Wuhan wet market.
A later retracted Chinese paper was published to that effect.
How on earth is that not feasible?
Evidence that this happened? name of the infected scientist? when did they go to the market? (with credible sources)
Maybe it did happen, but so far it's been a case of not much more than "it's believed to have originated in Wuhan" + "there's a lab in Wuhan" = must have been leaked by the lab0 -
mcsean2163 wrote: »Obviously not.
Several scientists with no funding from China have come out with claims that if was manmade or not. I've no idea whether that's true as I'm not a virologist.
Can you provide a link to this study?
Where was it published?
What other studies also support it's conclusion?
What responses to this study did you read and what lead you to believe they were all invalid/fraudulent?0 -
Evidence that this happened? name of the infected scientist? when did they go to the market? (with credible sources)
Maybe it did happen, but so far it's been a case of not much more than "it's believed to have originated in Wuhan" + "there's a lab in Wuhan" = must have been leaked by the lab
Retracted means taken back in this instance, scrubbed.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200214144447/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339070128_The_possible_origins_of_2019-nCoV_coronavirus
Obviously if there was indisputable evidence, I wouldn't have to post retracted studies.
Some details..........
WIV was the prime suspect until a mysterious paper, released on ResearchGate in early February, pointed at the possibility of an infection acquired from the Wuhan Centre for Disease Control. Indeed, its close proximity to the Huanan Seafood Market - less than 3 miles away - combined with its lower BSL rating (BSL-2), also makes it a likely candidate.
The paper was released by Botao Xiao and Lei Xiao, from the South China University of Technology. It has since been redacted from ResearchGate.
Botao Xiao and Lei Xiao’s profiles also appear to have disappeared from ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Botao_Xiao leads to a directory search page.
According to Google Scholar, Botao Xiao has published peer reviewed papers in the fields of "Biophysics, Synthetic Biology, Molecular Biology, Biomedical Engineering, Biomechanics":
Nothing strange about that?
It's really weird that people have concocted so many stories around the obvious. Somehow communist dictatorship China messed up and rather than stop the spread early they let planes to leave Wuhan, while restricting Chinese nationals movement within China. Taiwan warned, WHO ignored.0 -
mcsean2163 wrote: »Retracted means taken down.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200214144447/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339070128_The_possible_origins_of_2019-nCoV_coronavirus
Obviously if there was indisputable evidence, I wouldn't have to post retracted studies.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/scientists-strongly-condemn-rumors-and-conspiracy-theories-about-origin-coronavirusA group of 27 prominent public health scientists from outside China is pushing back against a steady stream of stories and even a scientific paper suggesting a laboratory in Wuhan, China, may be the origin of the outbreak of COVID-19. “The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumours and misinformation around its origins,” the scientists, from nine countries, write in a statement published online by The Lancet yesterday.
Earlier this year Covid cases spread from minks to humans in Denmark
https://www.who.int/csr/don/06-november-2020-mink-associated-sars-cov2-denmark/en/Since June 2020, 214 human cases of COVID-19 have been identified in Denmark with SARS-CoV-2 variants associated with farmed minks, including 12 cases with a unique variant, reported on 5 November. All 12 cases were identified in September 2020 in North Jutland, Denmark.
Do we 100% know where it came from? No (not yet)
Is it man-made? little or no credible evidence
Was it transmitted from animals? highly likely
Was it secretly leaked from the lab in Wuhan? little or no direct evidence
The current consensus is that someone contracted it from birds/mammals in China and it spread from there (like many similar viruses)0 -
Advertisement
-
People want to believe it was man made, as we believe we are the center of the universe and that we have more control than we actually do.0
-
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/scientists-strongly-condemn-rumors-and-conspiracy-theories-about-origin-coronavirus
Earlier this year Covid cases spread from minks to humans in Denmark
https://www.who.int/csr/don/06-november-2020-mink-associated-sars-cov2-denmark/en/
Do we 100% know where it came from? No (not yet)
Is it man-made? little or no credible evidence
Was it transmitted from animals? highly likely
Was it secretly leaked from the lab in Wuhan? little or no direct evidence
The current consensus is that someone contracted it from birds/mammals in China and it spread from there (like many similar viruses)
The authors put forward the theory, accident followed by cover up.
Your link:
“We’re in the midst of the social media misinformation age, and these rumors and conspiracy theories have real consequences, including threats of violence that have occurred to our colleagues in China,” Daszak, a disease ecologist, told ScienceInsider. “We have a choice whether to stand up and support colleagues who are being attacked and threatened daily by conspiracy theorists or to just turn a blind eye. I’m really proud that people from nine countries are able to rapidly come to their defense and show solidarity with people who are, after all, dealing with horrific conditions in an outbreak.”
Showing solidarity I'd not the same as showing evidence. Oh I'm tired. Bye for now.0 -
mcsean2163 wrote: »The authors put forward the theory, accident followed by cover up.
Yes, in one paper which was not taken very seriously. Light on direct details and substantiated evidence. In contrast to that there are many papers and significant evidence that the virus was transmitted from animals
I've actually seen this conspiracy evolve from:
1. It's man-made and deliberately released from a Chinese lab
to
2. It's man-made and accidentally released from a Chinese lab
to
3. It's not man-made and was accidentally released from a Chinese lab
All three using the same evidence and one paper. It's not impossible, but it's weak as hell.0 -
Yes, in one paper which was not taken very seriously. Light on direct details and substantiated evidence. In contrast to that there are many papers and significant evidence that the virus was transmitted from animals
I've actually seen this conspiracy evolve from:
1. It's man-made and deliberately released from a Chinese lab
to
2. It's man-made and accidentally released from a Chinese lab
to
3. It's not man-made and was accidentally released from a Chinese lab
All three using the same evidence and one paper. It's not impossible, but it's weak as hell.
The paper I linked was 3 on your list and posted in February. So you must be reading in reverse order because 3 was the first legitimate theory.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200214144447/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339070128_The_possible_origins_of_2019-nCoV_coronavirus0 -
mcsean2163 wrote: »The paper I linked was 3 and posted in February. So you must be reading in reverse order because 3 was the first legitimate theory.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200214144447/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339070128_The_possible_origins_of_2019-nCoV_coronavirus
Fine, if you are proposing this theory, can you please address the below questions:
1. When was it leaked from the lab?
2. What was the name or names of the scientist(s)?
3. Was it man-made or animal transmitted?
4. If animal transmitted, how do we know the scientist(s) were affected?
With evidence for each.
This theory has been put forward many times here, and each time it's incredibly vague. It's basically along the lines of: "there's a lab in Wuhan, virus came from lab" and that's literally it. No, don't ask me to read the paper or "google it" thanks, if we have the most elementary of details then the above (at a very minimum) should be addressable or answerable.
Again, I am not claiming it's impossible, but I am claiming it's details are so vague and sparse that it's pretty much unacceptable in it's current state.0 -
Fine, if you are proposing this theory, can you please address the below questions:
1. When was it leaked from the lab?
2. What was the name or names of the scientist(s)?
3. Was it man-made or animal transmitted?
4. If animal transmitted, how do we know the scientist(s) were affected?
With evidence for each.
This theory has been put forward many times here, and each time it's incredibly vague. It's basically along the lines of: "there's a lab in Wuhan, virus came from lab" and that's literally it. No, don't ask me to read the paper or "google it" thanks, if we have the most elementary of details then the above (at a very minimum) should be addressable or answerable.
Again, I am not claiming it's impossible, but I am claiming it's details are so vague and sparse that it's pretty much unacceptable in it's current state.
Address your questions to the author of the paper.
I'm afraid I don't have the time to do your investigation for you.
There's a resource on GitHub that might help in your investigations.
https://project-evidence.github.io/
Good luck.0 -
mcsean2163 wrote: »Address your questions to the author of the paper.
I'm afraid I don't have the time to do your investigation for you.
Sorry no. You are proposing this theory. If you haven't bothered to read up the paper or anything else on it and can't give even a basic timeline for it, then don't just info-dump on other people and say "read up on it"
I've wasted my time with many Covid CT's here.
It's very simple, provide the basic details/timeline for this conspiracy and we can move from there. If not, then I have no idea why you believe something you can't detail beyond "there's a lab in Wuhan, it must have come from there".0 -
Sorry no. You are proposing this theory. If you haven't bothered to read up the paper or anything else on it and can't give even a basic timeline for it, then don't just info-dump on other people and say "read up on it"
I've wasted my time with many Covid CT's here.
It's very simple, provide the basic details/timeline for this conspiracy and we can move from there. If not, then I have no idea why you believe something you can't detail beyond "there's a lab in Wuhan, it must have come from there".
I haven't proposed anything. I've read the GitHub article and a lot more around it.
I think the questions they raise are interesting and should be answered.
I've given you some leads and it's up to you what you want to do. I have a masters degree and it's like someone asking me to explain an advanced concept from my thesis that has no knowledge of the domain. If you read up and want help fine, if you want me to write a research paper for you free of charge, not right now.0 -
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/scientists-strongly-condemn-rumors-and-conspiracy-theories-about-origin-coronavirus
Earlier this year Covid cases spread from minks to humans in Denmark
https://www.who.int/csr/don/06-november-2020-mink-associated-sars-cov2-denmark/en/
Do we 100% know where it came from? No (not yet)
Is it man-made? little or no credible evidence
Was it transmitted from animals? highly likely
Was it secretly leaked from the lab in Wuhan? little or no direct evidence
The current consensus is that someone contracted it from birds/mammals in China and it spread from there (like many similar viruses)
I note how you switch from 'little or no credible evidence' to 'highly likely'.
Is 'highly likely' linked to more evidence than 'little or less credible evidence'?0 -
Nymag sums things up nicely.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/coronavirus-lab-escape-theory.html
There is no direct evidence for these zoonotic possibilities, just as there is no direct evidence for an experimental mishap — no written confession, no incriminating notebook, no official accident report. Certainty craves detail, and detail requires an investigation. It has been a full year, 80 million people have been infected, and, surprisingly, no public investigation has taken place. We still know very little about the origins of this disease.
For me, it is appalling that all lines of enquiry are not being fully investigated, especially as the vaccine work is done. It's appalling that this discussion topic is in conspiracies. Every effort should be put into ensuring a virus worse than covid19 doesn't suddenly appear.0 -
Advertisement
-
Haraldkare wrote: »I note how you switch from 'little or no credible evidence' to 'highly likely'.
Is 'highly likely' linked to more evidence than 'little or less credible evidence'?
Yes
This subject has been discussed at length on this forum, the current overwhelming consensus among scientists, experts, virologists and the intelligence community is that the virus is not man-made, that hasn't changed. As if to underscore the point, as mentioned previously, a variant made the leap from minks to humans in Denmark this year.
"No credible evidence supporting claims of the laboratory engineering of SARS-CoV-2"
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/22221751.2020.1733440
"CLAIM: COVID-19 is a man-made virus intentionally manufactured in a lab and released to the public.
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Scientists say the molecular structure of SARS-CoV-2 rules out the possibility that the virus was created in a lab."
https://apnews.com/article/9391149002
https://www.asianscientist.com/2020/06/features/coronavirus-origin-not-man-made/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-intelligence-idUSKBN22C2PN
https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-not-human-made-in-lab.html
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/virologists-vigorously-debunk-study-origins-coronavirus/story?id=710978460 -
Yes
This subject has been discussed at length on this forum, the current overwhelming consensus among scientists, experts, virologists and the intelligence community is that the virus is not man-made, that hasn't changed. As if to underscore the point, as mentioned previously, a variant made the leap from minks to humans in Denmark this year.
"No credible evidence supporting claims of the laboratory engineering of SARS-CoV-2"
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/22221751.2020.1733440
"CLAIM: COVID-19 is a man-made virus intentionally manufactured in a lab and released to the public.
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Scientists say the molecular structure of SARS-CoV-2 rules out the possibility that the virus was created in a lab."
https://apnews.com/article/9391149002
https://www.asianscientist.com/2020/06/features/coronavirus-origin-not-man-made/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-intelligence-idUSKBN22C2PN
https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-not-human-made-in-lab.html
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/virologists-vigorously-debunk-study-origins-coronavirus/story?id=71097846
Nobel prize winner says made in a lab.
https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/Disputed-French-Nobel-winner-Luc-Montagnier-says-Covid-19-was-made-in-a-lab-laboratory
So too does Dr Li Meng.
You sound very certain. I am very uncertain. I don't know the truth and I'd like a proper investigation in China.
I have no idea what you want.
Everyone to shut up about the mystery of the origin? Or everyone to agree with a theory not backed proof and not question why the labs in Wuhan were scrubbed and why the WHO still has not been permitted to investigate?
You're clearly not expert enough to read Dr Li Meng's paper and therefore decide for yourself. I don't get it
What is it you want?0 -
This is an argument from authority.mcsean2163 wrote: »Nobel prize winner says made in a lab.
https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/Disputed-French-Nobel-winner-Luc-Montagnier-says-Covid-19-was-made-in-a-lab-laboratory
Why does it matter what a nobel prize winner believes?
Nobel prize winners can believe all sorts of wacky stuff. Just because they have a Nobel prize in one particular subject, it doesn't mean they are an infallibly wise sage.
For example this guy believes a lot of bizarre stuff about bacteria producing radio waves and believes in homoepathy.
On the flip side, there's thousands of experts, all of which are as qualified as him, who claim that covid is not man made. Why should we listen to this one guy over them?
Are the other experts just all bad at their jobs or corrupt?0 -
This is an argument from authority.
Why does it matter what a nobel prize winner believes?
Nobel prize winners can believe all sorts of wacky stuff. Just because they have a Nobel prize in one particular subject, it doesn't mean they are an infallibly wise sage.
For example this guy believes a lot of bizarre stuff about bacteria producing radio waves and believes in homoepathy.
On the flip side, there's thousands of experts, all of which are as qualified as him, who claim that covid is not man made. Why should we listen to this one guy over them?
Are the other experts just all bad at their jobs or corrupt?
Luc is not the only scientist to assert that covid19 is man made. The ones that have done so have been pillored.
I don't know what is truly happened but I don't like the indisputable facts .
1. Taiwan warned WHO that the virus was human to human transmissible, the WHO ignored the warning until weeks later when China confirmed.
2. China prevented an investigation by WHO.
3. The only biolab in China studying gain of function coronavirus research is in Wuhan and has links with scientific research worldwide.
Good article here on the biolab
https://www.nature.com/news/inside-the-chinese-lab-poised-to-study-world-s-most-dangerous-pathogens-1.21487
Can you imagine how the world would react if it was the biolab? Do you think the scientists working on similar research would be applauded?
I would like a full official investigation into the origin of the worst Pandemic in 21st century. Is that too much to ask?0 -
mcsean2163 wrote: »Luc is not the only scientist to assert that covid19 is man made. The ones that have done so have been pillored.
But you've dodged my questions.
Why does it matter that he's a nobel prize winner? Why did you bring this up?
Was it just as an argument from authority?
Why do you trust him on this claim when he also claims some wacky stuff like DNA having radio emissions and homoepathy working? Do you believe these claims also?
And again, why do you disregard and ignore the other scientists, equally as qualified as him, who all agree that the virus is not man made?
Do you believe that all of these scientists are just bad at their job? Or do you believe they are all part of some global conspiracy to cover up the fact the virus is man made?0 -
But you've dodged my questions.
Why does it matter that he's a nobel prize winner? Why did you bring this up?
Was it just as an argument from authority?
Why do you trust him on this claim when he also claims some wacky stuff like DNA having radio emissions and homoepathy working? Do you believe these claims also?
And again, why do you disregard and ignore the other scientists, equally as qualified as him, who all agree that the virus is not man made?
Do you believe that all of these scientists are just bad at their job? Or do you believe they are all part of some global conspiracy to cover up the fact the virus is man made?
I brought it up to show scientific opinion is not uniform. Confirmation bias is not just made up.
I have complely answered your the question.
You have not answered mine.0 -
But no one's arguing otherwise.mcsean2163 wrote: »I brought it up to show scientific opinion is not uniform.
And it doesn't really explain why you brought up the fact he's a nobel prize winner.
Nor does it explain why why should take his claim any more seriously than his claims about DNA radio signals and homeopathy.
Honestly, I think you brought it up as an argument from authority and thought that his status as a nobel prize winner would sound impressive.
Yes. As we have since where conspiracy theorists have been only listening to fringe scientists who claim things that aren't backed up by evidence.mcsean2163 wrote: »Confirmation bias is not just made up.
No sorry, you've not answered any of them.mcsean2163 wrote: »I have complely answered your the question.
You have not answered mine.
You've not explained why you brought the fact that this guy was a nobel prize winner.
You have not explained why you believe his claims.
You have not explained the discrepancy between this claims and his other unscientific claims.
You have not stated whether or not you believe those other claims.
You have not explained why you discount the majority of scientists who believe and argue that the virus is not man made.
And then, I don't see any questions from you that you've actually asked.0 -
mcsean2163 wrote: »Luc is not the only scientist to assert that covid19 is man made. The ones that have done so have been pillored.
As mentioned many times in these threads, there are will always be isolated experts with different views, e.g. there is a group of doctors and physicians who don't believe vaccines work.
The key is always to look at the consensus.
If 1000 experts maintain X and 4 maintain Y, then, to the best of our knowledge, X is the strongest theory
Likewise if that is 600 and 400 respectively.
In the case of whether Covid is man-made or natural, the overwhelming number of scientists, virologists and experts maintain that it is natural. This is backed up by a large weight of evidence.0 -
As mentioned many times in these threads, there are will always be isolated experts with different views, e.g. there is a group of doctors and physicians who don't believe vaccines work.
The key is always to look at the consensus.
If 1000 experts maintain X and 4 maintain Y, then, to the best of our knowledge, X is the strongest theory
Likewise if that is 600 and 400 respectively.
In the case of whether Covid is man-made or natural, the overwhelming number of scientists, virologists and experts maintain that it is natural. This is backed up by a large weight of evidence.
And as has been excruciatingly explained to you ad nauseum is the fact that the consensus has been wrong in the past0 -
Advertisement
-
ShatterAlan wrote: »And as has been excruciatingly explained to you ad nauseum is the fact that the consensus has been wrong in the past
Not really no, and that's a bad argument.
If we want to know whether this virus is man-made or natural we look at the current scientific consensus. Why? because to the best of our knowledge that is most likely to be correct. It doesn't mean it's infallible, in fact, expert consensus can and has changed in the past, that's because new information and evidence can come to light.
The current overwhelming scientific view is that this virus is natural.
As mentioned there are always isolated "experts" on Youtube claiming all sorts of things. People with extreme views or bad logic consistently cling to the views of those individual experts, whilst ignoring the consensus.0
Advertisement