Covid-19 likely to be man made

King Mob

SafeSurfer wrote: »

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.

No, I linked to studies that showed the origin was zoonotic.
You are not inventing extra layers to the conspiracy theory to dismiss this fact.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

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

I have done so. Those papers are sufficient.
I see no reason to provide more when you are still refusing to address my initial point and are now engaging in very dishonest tactics.

Please supply the papers that support the idea that it was manufactured, altered or otherwise.
If you don't in your next post, I will conclude that you are unable to do so.

SafeSurfer

King Mob wrote: »

No, I linked to studies that showed the origin was zoonotic.
You are not inventing extra layers to the conspiracy theory to dismiss this fact.


I have done so. Those papers are sufficient.
I see no reason to provide more when you are still refusing to address my initial point and are now engaging in very dishonest tactics.

Please supply the papers that support the idea that it was manufactured, altered or otherwise.
If you don't in your next post, I will conclude that you are unable to do so.

You have provided speculation. That is all. Year old, outdated speculation at that.

King Mob

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You have provided speculation. That is all. Year old, outdated speculation at that.

No, I haven't. I supplied you peer reviewed scientific studies who's age has no baring on their conclusions.
You have dismissed them out of hand based on nothing and even tried to insinuate that one of them fraudulent.

And at the same time you've produced no scientific evidence that the virus was altered or manufactured.
But it wasn't just that, you dodged and avoided this point because you knew you don't have any evidence.
This is dishonest.

Why are you engaging in such dishonesty to defend your belief?
I just don't understand why you feel the need to do that.

SafeSurfer

King Mob wrote: »

No, I haven't. I supplied you peer reviewed scientific studies who's age has no baring on their conclusions.
You have dismissed them out of hand based on nothing and even tried to insinuate that one of them fraudulent.

And at the same time you've produced no scientific evidence that the virus was altered or manufactured.
But it wasn't just that, you dodged and avoided this point because you knew you don't have any evidence.
This is dishonest.

Why are you engaging in such dishonesty to defend your belief?
I just don't understand why you feel the need to do that.

Here is an actual peer reviewed paper examining the origins of Covid 19. It states:


“In addition to the zoonotic origins of SARS-CoV-2 by natural evolution, there are still some disputes about the origin of the virus because its spike protein seems to perfectly interact with the human receptor in contributing to human-to-human transmission after evolution in a short period. Nevertheless, more direct evidence is required to clarify the arguments.”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2319417020300445

The zoonotic origin of Covid 19 is one of a number of hypothesis.

There is no “smoking gun” evidence for zoonotic origin just as there is no “smoking gun” evidence for lab origin. That is why the search for the true origin of the virus continues to be debated both here and in the scientific community.

mcsean2163

Many thanks safesurfer.

Have you had a chance to read Dr Li Meng's work and if so do you think there is any merit to it?

King Mob

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Here is an actual peer reviewed paper examining the origins of Covid 19. It states:

Are you now saying the papers I have provided are not peer reviewed?

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The zoonotic origin of Covid 19 is one of a number of hypothesis.

Yes. You however are ignoring the rest of the paper and even that passage that explains how the origins are most likely zoonatic.

Ecology - the potential origin of the virus
All human coronaviruses have animal origins, namely, natural hosts. Bats may be the natural hosts of HCoV-229E, SARS-CoV, HCoV-NL63, and MERS-CoV. Furthermore, HCoV-OC43 and HKU1 probably originated from rodents 26], [27], [28. Bats are undoubtedly important and the major natural reservoirs of alpha-coronaviruses and beta-coronaviruses [29]. Domestic animals can suffer from disease as intermediate hosts that cause virus transmission from natural hosts to humans; for example, SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV crossed the species barriers into masked palm civets and camels, respectively [30,31] . SARS-CoV-2 sequenced at the early stage of the COVID-19 outbreak only shares 79.6% sequence identity with SARS-CoV through early full-length genomic comparisons. However, it is highly identical (96.2%) at the whole-genome level to Bat-CoV RaTG13, which was previously detected in Rhinolophus affinis from Yunnan Province, over 1500 km from Wuhan [21]. Bats are likely reservoir hosts for SARS-CoV-2; however, whether Bat-CoV RaTG13 directly jumped to humans or transmits to intermediate hosts to facilitate animal-to-human transmission remains inconclusive. No intermediate host sample was obtained by scientists in an initial cluster of infections of the Huanan Seafood and Wildlife Market in Wuhan, where the sale of wild animals may be the source of zoonotic infection. Furthermore, the earliest three patients with symptom onset had no known history of exposure to the Huanan market [1]. Therefore, there may be multiple sources of COVID-19 in the beginning. According to previous studies by metagenomic sequencing for the samples from Malayan pangolins (Manis javanica) in Guangxi and Guangdong, China, it has been suggested that pangolins might be the intermediate hosts between bats and humans because of the similarity of the pangolin coronavirus to SARS-CoV-2 [32,33]. However, the additional phylogenetic analyses effectively trace COVID-19 infection sources. In addition to the zoonotic origins of SARS-CoV-2 by natural evolution, there are still some disputes about the origin of the virus because its spike protein seems to perfectly interact with the human receptor in contributing to human-to-human transmission after evolution in a short period. Nevertheless, more direct evidence is required to clarify the arguments.

So not only does the paper you cite only have one line about the origin being artificial, it doesn't actually state that it supports that idea.

On top of that, the paper itself is from August. It is very hypocritical for you to dismiss the studies I posted for being "too old" yet have no issue doing the same when it suits.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

There is no “smoking gun” evidence for zoonotic origin just as there is no “smoking gun” evidence for lab origin. That is why the search for the true origin of the virus continues to be debated both here and in the scientific community.

So then my point stands. There's no evidence that the virus has been created or altered beyond the idea "a lab was close."
Could have saved a lot of time if you just admitted that rather than dodging continually.

However, you claim that there's no evidence for a zoonotic origin is false. I've provided you several papers that conclude otherwise. Your dishonest dismissal of time does not mean they do not exist.

SafeSurfer

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Many thanks safesurfer.

Have you had a chance to read Dr Li Meng's work and if so do you think there is any merit to it?

I haven’t had a chance to read it yet.

I hope that it can be proven beyond doubt that the virus has zoonotic origins. However we cannot ignore the fact that there were two Chinese cover ups at local and national level at the start of the outbreak.

The Chinese government now officially promote the “conspiracy theory” that the virus originated from outside China. I don’t happen to believe this but this doesn’t mean I believe evidence such as Spanish sewerage samples from October which purportedly show traces of Covid 19 should not be investigated.

SafeSurfer

King Mob wrote: »

Are you now saying the papers I have provided are not peer reviewed?


Yes. You however are ignoring the rest of the paper and even that passage that explains how the origins are most likely zoonatic.



So not only does the paper you cite only have one line about the origin being artificial, it doesn't actually state that it supports that idea.

On top of that, the paper itself is from August. It is very hypocritical for you to dismiss the studies I posted for being "too old" yet have no issue doing the same when it suits.


So then my point stands. There's no evidence that the virus has been created or altered beyond the idea "a lab was close."
Could have saved a lot of time if you just admitted that rather than dodging continually.

However, you claim that there's no evidence for a zoonotic origin is false. I've provided you several papers that conclude otherwise. Your dishonest dismissal of time does not mean they do not exist.

Again you have provided papers that speculate that Covid 19 has a zoonotic origin.

If you are so certain that this is the case perhaps you such forward on your Google research to the WHO team trying to gain access to Wuhan to investigate the origins of COVID-19.

It would certainly save everyone a lot of trouble.

King Mob

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Again you have provided papers that speculate that Covid 19 has a zoonotic origin.

No, I've provided you peer reviewed scientific papers that conclude that it most likely of zoonotic origin and provide the evidence and reasoning for this conclusion.

You meanwhile have provided no such studies and no evidence.
You have engaged in several dishonest tactics, including claiming one of those papers were fraudulent and that they were not peer reviewed.
And this is on top of your constant dodging and misrepresentation.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

If you are so certain that this is the case perhaps you such forward on your Google research to the WHO team trying to gain access to Wuhan to investigate the origins of COVID-19.

It would certainly save everyone a lot of trouble.

I'm sure they are well aware of the studies I posted as they took very little effort to find.
What a bizarre argument to make...

SafeSurfer

King Mob wrote: »

No, I've provided you peer reviewed scientific papers that conclude that it most likely of zoonotic origin and provide the evidence and reasoning for this conclusion.

You meanwhile have provided no such studies and no evidence.
You have engaged in several dishonest tactics, including claiming one of those papers were fraudulent and that they were not peer reviewed.
And this is on top of your constant dodging and misrepresentation.


I'm sure they are well aware of the studies I posted as they took very little effort to find.
What a bizarre argument to make...

Speculation isn’t evidence.

Look at the Chinese scientific speculation and where that points to.

King Mob

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Speculation isn’t evidence.

Yes.
But the papers I posted aren't "speculation".
They detail why they reached their conclusions and provide the evidence for it.
It's a lot more than "there was a lab nearby."

SafeSurfer

King Mob wrote: »

Yes.
But the papers I posted aren't "speculation".
They detail why they reached their conclusions and provide the evidence for it.
It's a lot more than "there was a lab nearby."

No. They listed the reasons for their speculation. As others have done.

King Mob

SafeSurfer wrote: »

No. They listed the reasons for their speculation. As others have done.

I suspect you don't understand what the word "speculation" means.

Scientists use actual data and evidence to reach their conclusions.
They do not use things like "there was a lab close by".

What you are doing is speculation.
What actual scientists are doing in peer reviewed scientific papers is called "research".

And even still, lets pretend your definition is accurate and those scientific papers are just "speculation."
It's speculation backed up with hard evidence and reasoned, detailed arguments.
What parts of these papers do you disagree with? Where are they in error? Can you substantiate your previous claims that they weren't peer reviewed and that one was fraudulently altered at the behest of the Chinese government?

What evidence do you have to support the idea of an artificial origin?
So far, you've not posted any and you've done a lot of dodging of this point.
I suspect this is because there is none.

SafeSurfer

King Mob wrote: »

I suspect you don't understand what the word "speculation" means.

Scientists use actual data and evidence to reach their conclusions.
They do not use things like "there was a lab close by".

What you are doing is speculation.
What actual scientists are doing in peer reviewed scientific papers is called "research".

And even still, lets pretend your definition is accurate and those scientific papers are just "speculation."
It's speculation backed up with hard evidence and reasoned, detailed arguments.
What parts of these papers do you disagree with? Where are they in error? Can you substantiate your previous claims that they weren't peer reviewed and that one was fraudulently altered at the behest of the Chinese government?

What evidence do you have to support the idea of an artificial origin?
So far, you've not posted any and you've done a lot of dodging of this point.
I suspect this is because there is none.

The the peer reviewed paper I linked to earlier which stated that the zoonotic origin of Covid 19 is still a matter of scientific debate?

King Mob

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The the peer reviewed paper I linked to earlier which stated that the zoonotic origin of Covid 19 is still a matter of scientific debate?

No. You are misrepresenting it. Which is bizarre as you are the one who quoted it only a few posts ago.

“In addition to the zoonotic origins of SARS-CoV-2 by natural evolution, there are still some disputes about the origin of the virus because its spike protein seems to perfectly interact with the human receptor in contributing to human-to-human transmission after evolution in a short period. Nevertheless, more direct evidence is required to clarify the arguments.”

And this is before we consider the fact you ignore the vast majority of that paper is providing evidence for the zoonotic origins. (This one line is the only thing you can claim that supports your theory.)

So what other papers do you have?
I've been asking for several pages and you've done nothing but dodge and deflect.
If there is scientific debate, then there should be plenty of papers that state the opposite to the ones I've posted.
Where are they?

SafeSurfer

King Mob wrote: »

No. You are misrepresenting it. Which is bizarre as you are the one who quoted it only a few posts ago.


And this is before we consider the fact you ignore the vast majority of that paper is providing evidence for the zoonotic origins. (This one line is the only thing you can claim that supports your theory.)

So what other papers do you have?
I've been asking for several pages and you've done nothing but dodge and deflect.
If there is scientific debate, then there should be plenty of papers that state the opposite to the ones I've posted.
Where are they?

What you are ignoring is that the entire narrative is being controlled by China. Scientific papers are basing assumptions on data released by the Chinese communist party. They suppressed information about the origins of the virus, even the existence of the virus from the start of the outbreak.

Even the WHO has not been allowed unfettered access to ascertain the origins of the virus.

The initial suspected source of the outbreak, the seafood and animal market showed no animals with traces of Covid 19.

So before you start citing irrefutable evidence of zoonotic origin, qualify the statement with “ based on the information we have been given”.

King Mob

SafeSurfer wrote: »

What you are ignoring is that the entire narrative is being controlled by China.

Ahh. So the theory is now that China is somehow controling all scientists and they are preventing them from publishing the scientific studies to support your claims.

I'm sorry, but this is dishonest nonsense. You are simply inventing a new level to the conspiracy to explain away an issue in the previous layer.

This also does not make sense as you claimed there was debate in the scientific literature.
If this is the case, then you should be able to show this.
Instead here you are inventing conspiracies.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Scientific papers are basing assumptions on data released by the Chinese communist party.

Cool. Show this is the case with the papers I have published. Please provide evidence for this as I do not trust your word for it, as you've provide to be a bit dishonest.

Especially show that this is the case for this study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7095063/

SafeSurfer

King Mob wrote: »

Ahh. So the theory is now that China is somehow controling all scientists and they are preventing them from publishing the scientific studies to support your claims.

I'm sorry, but this is dishonest nonsense. You are simply inventing a new level to the conspiracy to explain away an issue in the previous layer.

This also does not make sense as you claimed there was debate in the scientific literature.
If this is the case, then you should be able to show this.
Instead here you are inventing conspiracies.


Cool. Show this is the case with the papers I have published. Please provide evidence for this as I do not trust your word for it, as you've provide to be a bit dishonest.

Especially show that this is the case for this study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7095063/

No. China is not “controlling all scientists”. What is in doing is strictly controlling the information available to scientists who are trying to determine the origin of the virus.

Or do you believe that the Chinese government have not restricted this information and are not tightly controlling it?

Is that your belief?

King Mob

SafeSurfer wrote: »

No. China is not “controlling all scientists”. What is in doing is strictly controlling the information available to scientists who are trying to determine the origin of the virus.

Or do you believe that the Chinese government have not restricted this information and are not tightly controlling it?

Is that your belief?

I asked you to show this is the case with the studies I posted.

Please show where the information they use was manipulated, altered or withheld by the Chinese government, and then show how that invalidates their conclusion. Please provide sources for this information.

I believe we should focus on this one in particular:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7095063/

It is my belief that China neither supplied or controlled the information they used to reach their conclusion.

I also asked you to supply the other studies in the scientific debate you believe exists.
If you are now claiming that China does not control all scientists, then I'm not sure why you brought the idea up as an excuse for why you could not provide these studies.
Please provide these studies now.

if you dodge these questions again, I will conclude that yet again you are unable to provide what you claim.

SafeSurfer

King Mob wrote: »

I asked you to show this is the case with the studies I posted.

Please show where the information they use was manipulated, altered or withheld by the Chinese government, and then show how that invalidates their conclusion. Please provide sources for this information.

I believe we should focus on this one in particular:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7095063/

It is my belief that China neither supplied or controlled the information they used to reach their conclusion.

I also asked you to supply the other studies in the scientific debate you believe exists.
If you are now claiming that China does not control all scientists, then I'm not sure why you brought the idea up as an excuse for why you could not provide these studies.
Please provide these studies now.

if you dodge these questions again, I will conclude that yet again you are unable to provide what you claim.

Think about that for a moment.

You ask for information and if I don’t give it to you it will influence your conclusion.

Isn’t that precisely the point I was making about China and their control of the narrative?

King Mob

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Think about that for a moment.

You ask for information and if I don’t give it to you it will influence your conclusion.

Isn’t that precisely the point I was making about China and their control of the narrative?

Yes. The fact you aren't providing the evidence for your claims influences me to believe that you're making things up.
The fact you keep dodging simple direct questions tells me that you aren't able to discuss things honestly and maturely.

You can't provide any scientific studies supporting the idea of an artificial origin because there are none.
You can't provide any evidence than any of the studies I published were influenced by anyone or that their conclusions are wrong because they aren't wrong.

End of story really.

SafeSurfer

King Mob wrote: »

Yes. The fact you aren't providing the evidence for your claims influences me to believe that you're making things up.
The fact you keep dodging simple direct questions tells me that you aren't able to discuss things honestly and maturely.

You can't provide any scientific studies supporting the idea of an artificial origin because there are none.
You can't provide any evidence than any of the studies I published were influenced by anyone or that their conclusions are wrong because they aren't wrong.

End of story really.

It’s a bit of a stretch demanding evidence from a member of an online discussion thread for evidence that Covid 19 was manufactured in and accidentally released from a lab in Wuhan which specialises in these viruses when even the WHO investigative team, after more than a year is being hampered in their investigation of the origins of the virus.

I don’t have any direct sources of a leak from the Wuhan lab, just as you don’t have direct sources of zoonotic origin.

Who is providing the data on the origin of the virus to all the scientists examining it? I’ll give you a hint. It ain’t the Swiss.

lawrencesummers

The only interesting Piece of information in this thread is that you can defect from China to the US.

I’ve only ever heard of Cubans and Russians doing that.

Dohnjoe

SafeSurfer wrote: »

It’s a bit of a stretch demanding evidence from a member of an online discussion thread for evidence that Covid 19 was manufactured in and accidentally released from a lab in Wuhan which specialises in these viruses when even the WHO investigative team, after more than a year is being hampered in their investigation of the origins of the virus.

"What can be assumed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

As appealing as the notion may be to some, there is no evidence it was released from the lab.

Corona made the jump from mink to human in Denmark this year, and other Coronaviruses have made the jump from animal to human previously. The investigation team have arrived in Wuhan and are starting their 14 days quarantine, we'll see what progress they make.

SafeSurfer

Dohnjoe wrote: »

"What can be assumed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

As appealing as the notion may be to some, there is no evidence it was released from the lab.

Corona made the jump from mink to human in Denmark this year, and other Coronaviruses have made the jump from animal to human previously. The investigation team have arrived in Wuhan and are starting their 14 days quarantine, we'll see what progress they make.

One man’s denial is another mans affirmation.

mcsean2163

King Mob wrote: »

Yes. The fact you aren't providing the evidence for your claims influences me to believe that you're making things up.
The fact you keep dodging simple direct questions tells me that you aren't able to discuss things honestly and maturely.

You can't provide any scientific studies supporting the idea of an artificial origin because there are none.
You can't provide any evidence than any of the studies I published were influenced by anyone or that their conclusions are wrong because they aren't wrong.

End of story really.

King mob, please stop dodging the direct question with your speculation.

And since you are convinced, please back up your convictions with with authoritative evidence and less of your dishonesty.

I find it interesting how professor petrovsky still cannot get his covid19 origin work peer reviewed....

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341369358_In_silico_comparison_of_spike_protein-ACE2_binding_affinities_across_species_significance_for_the_possible_origin_of_the_SARS-CoV-2_virus

The conclusion of his team is interesting.

Overall, the data indicates that SARSCoV2 is uniquely adapted to infect humans, raising questions as to whether it arose in nature by a rare chance event or whether its origins lie elsewhere.

King Mob

mcsean2163 wrote: »

King mob, please stop dodging the direct question with your speculation..

What direct question you are referring to?

mcsean2163 wrote: »

And since you are convinced, please back up your convictions with with authoritative evidence and less of your dishonesty.

I have done so. I've provided several peer reviewed studies.

mcsean2163 wrote: »

I find it interesting how professor petrovsky still cannot get his covid19 origin work peer reviewed....
.

Why do you believe this is the case?

King Mob

SafeSurfer wrote: »

It’s a bit of a stretch demanding evidence from a member of an online discussion thread for evidence that Covid 19 was manufactured in and accidentally released from a lab in Wuhan which specialises in these viruses when even the WHO investigative team, after more than a year is being hampered in their investigation of the origins of the virus.
.

Not really. And you have now changed your story again.
You claimed that there was scientific debate on the matter, now you're saying you can't produce any scientific studies for the side you believe.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I don’t have any direct sources of a leak from the Wuhan lab,.

So you have no evidence other than "a lab was nearby."

SafeSurfer wrote: »

just as you don’t have direct sources of zoonotic origin.

But this is untrue. I've provided you several peer reviewed studies.
Rather than address then r=or acknowledge them, you've lied about them, claimed they were fraudulent and that they weren't peer reviewed.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Who is providing the data on the origin of the virus to all the scientists examining it? I’ll give you a hint. It ain’t the Swiss.

Ok. Show that is the case and show how this invalidates the conclusions in the papers I provided.

You keep claiming this, but you can't seem to substantiate it at all.

SafeSurfer

King Mob wrote: »

Not really. And you have now changed your story again.
You claimed that there was scientific debate on the matter, now you're saying you can't produce any scientific studies for the side you believe.


So you have no evidence other than "a lab was nearby."


But this is untrue. I've provided you several peer reviewed studies.
Rather than address then r=or acknowledge them, you've lied about them, claimed they were fraudulent and that they weren't peer reviewed.


Ok. Show that is the case and show how this invalidates the conclusions in the papers I provided.

You keep claiming this, but you can't seem to substantiate it at all.

You have used sources to bolster your position without showing the source of the data. The burden of proof is yours. Please tell us what independent scientists are on the ground in Wuhan gathering data for objective analysis?

You can’t provide any examples can you?


Who supplied the data for the papers YOU have relied on?

Another poster quoted Hitchens Razor. What would Occams Razor suggest about the source of the virus?

King Mob

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You have used sources to bolster your position without showing the source of the data.

Yes, I have used peer reviewed papers that use evidence and data to bolster my position. How underhanded of me.
The sources of the data are outlined in the studies.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The burden of proof is yours.

No, it's not. You're claiming that these studies are fraudulent, you must provide the evidence for this outlandish claim. You are attempting to shift the burden of proof because you cannot provide this evidence as it's entirely made up.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You can’t provide any examples can you?

A reminder, you still haven't supplied any of the "scientific debate" you claimed to exist.
You are making yet more demands while ignoring this.
This is hypocritical and dishonest.

You asked for the papers that support the consensus view. I provided them.

You have down nothing but dodge and deflect from doing the same.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Who supplied the data for the papers YOU have relied on?

This is all in the papers.

In particular, this one:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7095063/
Studied the actual genetic make up of the virus.
So please explain and detail how China's government interfered with this study specifically. Please also provide sources and back up for your claims in this regard as I will not take your word for any of it.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Another poster quoted Hitchens Razor. What would Occams Razor suggest about the source of the virus?

Occams razor would suggest that it is a virus that came from animals like all other coronaviruses.