Covid-19 likely to be man made

mcsean2163

King Mob wrote: »

But no one's arguing otherwise.
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.



No sorry, you've not answered any of them.
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.

I raised Luc as he shows opinion is not uniform as does this Russian microbiologist.

https://www.thesun.ie/news/5352053/coronavirus-wuhan-lab-russia-microbiologist-claims/

China has investments in a LOT of universities and making claims against them is not without danger. It's rare that whistle blowers put their heads above the parapet as their paymasters don't like it.

There are many prominent scientists who have stuck their necks out only for lunatics like you to tell them to get lost. There was only one Edward Snowden and years of spying with many complicit people.

As said, repeatedly, I don't know the truth but would like the who investigation to proceed.

In a murder investigation, the first suspects are family, not someone living in a cave 1000 miles away.

Was it natural and escaped from a wuhan institution while being studied? Lots of experts saying this was a possibility.
Was it engineered? Unlikely but dissenting voices.
Why is China still hiding and forbidding entry to WHO?

I want a full investigation and answers. I honestly am beginning to wonder if you're a bad actor? There should be open disclosure in line with modern medical practices. You seem to be advocating a return to the past when patients were kept in the dark.

If we encounter each other in the real world I'll do my utmost to prevent you are your ilk from returning our country to a culture where mother and baby mass graves were acceptable.

Someone wants a proper investigation and they're the ones at fault. That line of thinking is repulsive to me.

Dohnjoe

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Was it natural and escaped from a wuhan institution while being studied? Lots of experts saying this was a possibility.

Is there any concrete evidence of this from any of these experts?

King Mob

mcsean2163 wrote: »

I raised Luc as he shows opinion is not uniform

Yes. And as I said, no one is claiming otherwise.

The question however was why did you bring up the fact he was a nobel prize winner?
You avoided this question along with all of the others.

mcsean2163 wrote: »

I want a full investigation and answers. I honestly am beginning to wonder if you're a bad actor? There should be open disclosure in line with modern medical practices. You seem to be advocating a return to the past when patients were kept in the dark.

If we encounter each other in the real world I'll do my utmost to prevent you are your ilk from returning our country to a culture where mother and baby mass graves were acceptable.

Someone wants a proper investigation and they're the ones at fault. That line of thinking is repulsive to me.

lol.:rolleyes:

TheRealPONeil

King Mob wrote: »

But you've dodged my questions.

..... they are all part of some global conspiracy to cover up the fact the virus is man made?

"You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity."

mcsean2163

King Mob wrote: »

Yes. And as I said, no one is claiming otherwise.

The question however was why did you bring up the fact he was a nobel prize winner?
You avoided this question along with all of the others.



lol.:rolleyes:

I brought up the fact Luc won a Nobel prize because it's the highest honour one can get in science. Luc won it for his work on HIV.

Luc Montaigner and Françoise Barré-Sinoussi discovered a retrovirus in patients with swollen lymph glands that attacked lymphocytes - a kind of blood cell that is very important to the body's immune system. The retrovirus, later named Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), proved to be the cause of the immunodeficiency disease AIDS. This discovery has been crucial in radically improving treatment methods for AIDS sufferers.
I really don't understand that question surely the answer is obvious? It's like quoting something from Nature journal versus a Facebook post by a neighbor. The former has more weight.

I look forward to your reply to discover how stupid I am to ascribe a level of respect to someone who literally discovered the HIV virus.

King Mob

mcsean2163 wrote: »

I brought up the fact Luc won a Nobel prize because it's the highest honour one can get in science. Luc won it for his work on HIV.


I look forward to your reply to discover how stupid I am to ascribe a level of respect to someone who literally discovered the HIV virus.

So as I said, it was an argument from authority. You thought the fact that he had a Nobel prize sounded impressive.

This is a very poor argument.

King Mob

TheRealPONeil wrote: »

"You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity."

Ok. So all other doctors are too stupid to realise the origins of the virus. At the same time some people, including untrained conspiracy theorists (some of which have shown they don't know how vaccines and viruses work) have been able to figure out the origins without a scientific paper.

What a bizarre thing to believe.

SafeSurfer

I think the truth is nobody yet knows the true origins of Covid 19.



What we do know is that it did not originate in a seafood market in Wuhan.

We know that there was an initial Chinese coverup about the outbreak.

There is a lab close to the epicentre of the pandemic which contained samples of the nearest natural occurring virus to Covid 19. These samples were brought from bat colonies almost 1000 miles away.

Concerns were raised about the biosecurity of the Wuhan lab prior to the outbreak.

The Chinese government have obstructed the investigation into the source of the outbreak.

The WHO praised the Chinese response to the outbreak notwithstanding their initial cover up.

The WHO is politicised.

The lead WHO investigator has close links with the lab in Wuhan and has already stated that the lab is not the source of the outbreak before the investigation begins.

That is the present situation.

I don’t think there is any real appetite, from politicians, many scientists or large global corporations to identify the source of this virus or at least to identify the source of the virus as anything other than a naturally occurring coronavirus.

King Mob

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I think the truth is nobody yet knows the true origins of Covid 19.



What we do know is that it did not originate in a seafood market in Wuhan.

We know that there was an initial Chinese coverup about the outbreak.

There is a lab close to the epicentre of the pandemic which contained samples of the nearest natural occurring virus to Covid 19. These samples were brought from bat colonies almost 1000 miles away.

Concerns were raised about the biosecurity of the Wuhan lab prior to the outbreak.

.

But what other than the proximity of a lab suggests that the virus is manufactured?

Fionn1952

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I

What we do know is that it did not originate in a seafood market in Wuhan.

What we do know is you use the word know very loosely.

SafeSurfer

Fionn1952 wrote: »

What we do know is you use the word know very loosely.

So are you suggesting that you believe that the “wet market” in Wuhan is the source of Covid 19?

SafeSurfer

King Mob wrote: »

But what other than the proximity of a lab suggests that the virus is manufactured?

It isn’t a conspiracy theory to speculate whether or not coronaviruses were being experimented on in the lab in Wuhan. It is a fact.

It isn’t a conspiracy theory to suggest that there have been many documented security breaches and leaks from such facilities in the past. The New York Magazine article quotes a Washington Post reporter, David Brown, after further SARS outbreaks linked to lab accidents, finding so many SARS samples at a Beijing lab that they were being stored in a fridge in a corridor.

mcsean2163

Australian 's were pushing for an enquiry and then China attacked their exports with tarrifs and told them to shut up.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-australia-china/australia-says-world-needs-to-know-origins-of-covid-19-idUSKCN26H00T

King Mob

SafeSurfer wrote: »

It isn’t a conspiracy theory to speculate whether or not coronaviruses were being experimented on in the lab in Wuhan. It is a fact.
.

But it is a conspiracy theory to suggest that the covid 19 was created artificially.
Doubly so when you add in the options that it was created and released deliberately.

What evidence, beyond the proximity of the lab is there that the virus was artificially created?
If there's none, not sure what the issue is in admitting that...

Denny61

Its only a conspiracy theory that its manmade if the general consensus is that it originated from a wet market or a bat...if you ask scientists or virologists is it possible to create a virus in lab conditions..the answer will be yes...so why should most of us .want to think that is not possible...when the opposite is just as possible as originating from.bats or animals...

King Mob

Denny61 wrote: »

Its only a conspiracy theory that its manmade if the general consensus is that it originated from a wet market or a bat..

The current concensus is that it is of natural origin.
So far the only support for the opposite conclusion seems to be one withdrawn paper and the opinion of some scientist who also believes in homoeopathy and the idea that DNA broadcasts radio waves.

What evidence is there that the virus was manufactured or otherwise tampered with?

mcsean2163

King Mob wrote: »

The current concensus is that it is of natural origin.
So far the only support for the opposite conclusion seems to be one withdrawn paper and the opinion of some scientist who also believes in homoeopathy and the idea that DNA broadcasts radio waves.

What evidence is there that the virus was manufactured or otherwise tampered with?

Can you open a new thread. Look at the title of this one. 'May be manmade'

Nobody here is arguing it is manmade, most are simply asking for an investigation. Explain to us how it could not possibly be manmade. Perhaps you could list your virology credentials too so we can have an idea of your experience which is obviously superior to a Nobel prize winning virus investigator.

Here's another....

World renowned expert Professor Petr Chumakov claimed their aim was to study the pathogenicity of the virus and not “with malicious intent” to deliberately create a man-made killer.

I guess chumakov is another crank in your worldview...

King Mob

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Can you open a new thread. Look at the title of this one. 'May be manmade'

Nobody here is arguing it is manmade, most are simply asking for an investigation.

And I'm just asking what evidence there is beyond "the lab was close".

Evidently, there isn't any beyond just that.
Not sure what the issue is with just admitting that if all you're interested in is an objective view of the situation.

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Explain to us how it could not possibly be manmade. Perhaps you could list your virology credentials too so we can have an idea of your experience which is obviously superior to a Nobel prize winning virus investigator.

Never claimed any of these things.

mcsean2163 wrote: »

a Nobel prize winning virus investigator.

A nobel prize winning virus investigator who also believes in homoepathy and the idea that DNA produces radio signals and offers no evidence for his claims about coronavirus.

mcsean2163 wrote: »

I guess chumakov is another crank in your worldview...

What evidence does he provide that covid is man made?

Given that you seem to be once again relying on and argument from authority rather than this evidence...

SafeSurfer

King Mob wrote: »

But it is a conspiracy theory to suggest that the covid 19 was created artificially.
Doubly so when you add in the options that it was created and released deliberately.

What evidence, beyond the proximity of the lab is there that the virus was artificially created?
If there's none, not sure what the issue is in admitting that...

What evidence is there that the virus is zoonotic? Where is the missing link? Pangolins have been pointed at as the animal that passed the virus onto humans and this has been repeated ad nasuem in the media but no evidence exists of this. Is this a theory or a conspiracy theory?

I have never suggested that the virus was released deliberately.
You are dismissing the theory that the this virus was the the result of an accidental leak from a lab despite the fact that many incidents of leaks from labs have occurred in the past and US diplomats expressed their alarm at the poor security protocols at the Wuhan lab prior to the emergence of the virus.

Dohnjoe

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I have never suggested that the virus was released deliberately.
You are dismissing the theory that the this virus was the the result of an accidental leak from a lab despite the fact that many incidents of leaks from labs have occurred in the past and US diplomats expressed their alarm at the poor security protocols at the Wuhan lab prior to the emergence of the virus.

At the moment, there is no credible evidence that the virus escaped or was released from a lab. It can't be fully ruled out, but with nothing to support it, it can't be demonstrated either.

The current consensus is that it made the jump from animal to human, previous viruses (e.g. SARS) are suspected to have made the same jump (from raccoon dogs/civets). It's just extremely difficult to prove as the host animal has to be found (which could be long dead).

There's an investigation team looking at this, but since the issue is now politicised, and China is an extremely controlled country, they may have limited success

King Mob

SafeSurfer wrote: »

What evidence is there that the virus is zoonotic? Where is the missing link?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7121143/

As now reported in the Journal, Zhu et al.2 have identified and characterized 2019-nCoV. The viral genome has been sequenced, and these results in conjunction with other reports show that it is 75 to 80% identical to the SARS-CoV and even more closely related to several bat coronaviruses.3

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7156161/

Similar to the case for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV [2], the bat is still a probable species of origin for 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) because SARS-CoV-2 shares 96% whole-genome identity with a bat CoV, BatCoV RaTG13, from Rhinolophus affinis from Yunnan Province [3]. However, SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV usually pass into intermediate hosts, such as civets or camels, before leaping to humans [4]. This fact indicates that SARS-CoV-2 was probably transmitted to humans by other animals. Considering that the earliest coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patient reported no exposure at the seafood market [5], it is vital to find the intermediate SARS-CoV-2 host to block interspecies transmission.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7095063/

It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus. As noted above, the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 is optimized for binding to human ACE2 with an efficient solution different from those previously predicted7,11. Furthermore, if genetic manipulation had been performed, one of the several reverse-genetic systems available for betacoronaviruses would probably have been used19. However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone20. Instead, we propose two scenarios that can plausibly explain the origin of SARS-CoV-2: (i) natural selection in an animal host before zoonotic transfer; and (ii) natural selection in humans following zoonotic transfer.

That took all of 5 minutes to find.

Please answer my question directly.
What evidence is there that covid 19 was altered and manufactured beyond "it was close to a lab".
If you can't provide any other evidence, please stop dodging and avoiding the question and simply state this.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I have never suggested that the virus was released deliberately.

Never said you did.
Others here have.
You agree that such an idea is ridiculous.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You are dismissing the theory that the this virus was the the result of an accidental leak

Never said that either.

SafeSurfer

Dohnjoe wrote: »

At the moment, there is no credible evidence that the virus escaped or was released from a lab. It can't be fully ruled out, but with nothing to support it, it can't be demonstrated either.

The current consensus is that it made the jump from animal to human, previous viruses (e.g. SARS) are suspected to have made the same jump (from raccoon dogs/civets). It's just extremely difficult to prove as the host animal has to be found (which could be long dead).

There's an investigation team looking at this, but since the issue is now politicised, and China is an extremely controlled country, they may have limited success

And yet past virus origins have been successfully identified but this time the Chinese government vetoed the original investigation and stymied the watered down, state controlled investigation, only allowing them access over a year after the outbreak.

SafeSurfer

King Mob wrote: »

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7121143/


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7156161/


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7095063/


That took all of 5 minutes to find.

Please answer my question directly.
What evidence is there that covid 19 was altered and manufactured beyond "it was close to a lab".
If you can't provide any other evidence, please stop dodging and avoiding the question and simply state this.

Never said you did.
Others here have.
You agree that such an idea is ridiculous.

Never said that either.

Can’t argue with 5 minutes of internet “research”.

King Mob

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Can’t argue with 5 minutes of internet “research”.

I supplied you with direct links and quotes from several scientific papers and then directly quoted the relevant quotes that directly address your point.

It took 5 mins because it was incredibly easy to do.

You are dismissing this scientific papers out of hand because you can't address them properly.
And at the same time, you have not actually addressed my question.

You've not shown any evidence that the virus is altered or manufactured beyond "it was close to a lab."

SafeSurfer

King Mob wrote: »

I supplied you with direct links and quotes from several scientific papers and then directly quoted the relevant quotes that directly address your point.

It took 5 mins because it was incredibly easy to do.

You are dismissing this scientific papers out of hand because you can't address them properly.
And at the same time, you have not actually addressed my question.

You've not shown any evidence that the virus is altered or manufactured beyond "it was close to a lab."

No you have Google searched some articles as “proof” of your position and linked to some Chinese studies that refer to “probable” this and “improbable” that.

If you are going to argue probabilities why rule out a leak from a lab experimenting on the closest virus to Covid 19, with questionable security at the epicentre of the outbreak?

Dohnjoe

SafeSurfer wrote: »

And yet past virus origins have been successfully identified but this time the Chinese government vetoed the original investigation and stymied the watered down, state controlled investigation, only allowing them access over a year after the outbreak.

It's a highly sensitive (and political) issue unfortunately. In the past we have evidence of these viruses being passed from animal to human typically via an intermediary animal. In this situation, out of the first cluster of cases, two thirds had links to the seafood market.

There is however no evidence whatsoever that it was leaked from the lab.

Taking the two scenarios, one is clearly stronger than the other.

King Mob

SafeSurfer wrote: »

No you have Google searched some articles as “proof” of your position and linked to some Chinese studies that refer to “probable” this and “improbable” that.

Yes. This is the language that actual scientists use in actual scientific studies.
And yes, I googled it because the information is that easy to find.

You are now rejecting this scientific studies without reading them because they don't support the conspiracy theory you want to be true.
This is very dishonest.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

If you are going to argue probabilities why rule out a leak from a lab experimenting on the closest virus to Covid 19, with questionable security at the epicentre of the outbreak?

But I haven't ruled that out.
Where have I said that I ruled it out? Please quote me directly.

This is the 3rd time you've misrepresented me in the space of 2 posts.

Also again, notice how you still have not actually addressed my point.

SafeSurfer

King Mob wrote: »

Yes. This is the language that actual scientists use in actual scientific studies.
And yes, I googled it because the information is that easy to find.

You are now rejecting this scientific studies without reading them because they don't support the conspiracy theory you want to be true.
This is very dishonest.


But I haven't ruled that out.
Where have I said that I ruled it out? Please quote me directly.

This is the 3rd time you've misrepresented me in the space of 2 posts.

Also again, notice how you still have not actually addressed my point.

I have read the year old “scientific studies” you linked to. Have you?

This is the introduction to one:



“For the third time in as many decades, a zoonotic coronavirus has crossed species to infect human populations. This virus, provisionally called 2019-nCoV, was first identified in Wuhan, China, in persons exposed to a seafood or wet market. The rapid response of the Chinese public health, clinical, and scientific communities facilitated recognition of the clinical disease and initial understanding of the epidemiology of the infection. First reports indicated that human-to-human transmission was limited or nonexistent, but we now know that such transmission occurs, although to what extent remains unknown.”

I think it’s fair to say things have moved on since then.

King Mob

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I have read the year old “scientific studies” you linked to. Have you?

Yes, I read through the abstracts and conclusions and quoted and pointed to the relevant parts. All of which you've ignored and dismissed out of hand because it doesn't support your conspiracy theory.

The section you quote has no baring on the conclusion and I'm going to assume that you are unwilling and unable to explain why it would.
And on top of that, the section you quote directly and concisely disagrees with your conspiracy theory:

a zoonotic coronavirus

And again, you still have not addressed my point.

SafeSurfer

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, I read through the abstracts and conclusions and quoted and pointed to the relevant parts. All of which you've ignored and dismissed out of hand because it doesn't support your conspiracy theory.

And again, you still have not addressed my point.

So you read them and still decided to link to a study which congratulated the Chinese government on their response to the outbreak and wondered if human to human transmission was going to be “a thing”. And another study financed by the Chinese government.

Show me a peer reviewed scientific paper showing the chain of Covid 19 transmission from bats to humans.

Until then your hypothesis that the virus is zoonotic is speculative as is the lab leak hypothesis.