Covid-19 likely to be man made

Unicorn Milk Latte

To cut back on the drama and conspiracy, context mentioned on TheDailyBeast:

"Bloom now believes those were intentionally removed, writing in his paper that it “seems likely that the sequences were deleted to obscure their existence.” Other scientists remain skeptical, however, especially as Bloom’s study has not been peer-reviewed. “I don’t really understand how this points to a cover-up,” Stephen Goldstein, a virologist at the University of Utah, told the Times. Goldstein pointed out that the same Wuhan scientists who had originally uploaded genetic sequences had published all their findings elsewhere, meaning all the most critical information is still available, even if the full sequences are not."

geospatial

Unicorn Milk Latte wrote: »

To cut back on the drama and conspiracy, context mentioned on TheDailyBeast:

"Bloom now believes those were intentionally removed, writing in his paper that it “seems likely that the sequences were deleted to obscure their existence.” Other scientists remain skeptical, however, especially as Bloom’s study has not been peer-reviewed. “I don’t really understand how this points to a cover-up,” Stephen Goldstein, a virologist at the University of Utah, told the Times. Goldstein pointed out that the same Wuhan scientists who had originally uploaded genetic sequences had published all their findings elsewhere, meaning all the most critical information is still available, even if the full sequences are not."

They were intentionally removed. The cover up is the earlier cases not disclosed to the WHO, not the hiding of the sequences, although they are related. Regardless of their paper, other researchers need access to their full sequences, that is the critical information. It's also common practice, even if added later. That quote is also bereft of information on what Bloom is saying (is it elsewhere in the article?) in the paper or has said publicly, as they don't even discuss what he claims. His claim is that many sequences exist that point to an earlier outbreak, and compared all relevant sequences in detail to make his argument. Why weren't these sequences disclosed to the WHO? They weren't, look at the WHO/CCP report. Maybe this is what the CCP are hiding, how slow they were to react. They have a carefully put together narrative, it's well thought out.

Have you read the paper? What do you disagree with other than whether the sequences were removed? It's a very good scientific paper, from an excellent scientist and part of a top notch group. He could be wrong, maybe there's another explanation, but his work is high quality. I haven't seen anyone else with as good a comparison to RaTG13 and the three other bat coronaviruses that most closely match SAC-CoV-2.

Unicorn Milk Latte

geospatial wrote: »

They were intentionally removed.


The cover up
...
the hiding of the sequences
...
other researchers need access to their full sequences,

..
that is the critical information.

..
It's also common practice
...
It's a very good scientific paper

You keep stating assumptions and innuendo as if they were fact.




You also tried to discredit a WHO report about how to avoid pandemics in general in the future as 'whitewash', because it did not propagate racist conspiracy theories about the origin of Covid.

geospatial

Unicorn Milk Latte wrote: »

You keep stating assumptions and innuendo as if they were fact.

You also tried to discredit a WHO report about how to avoid pandemics in general in the future as 'whitewash', because it did not propagate racist conspiracy theories about the origin of Covid.

They are not assumptions. The data was removed from the NIH database deliberately, it can only be removed by requesting by email that it be removed. It was also removed from the Chinese database. The result is researchers worldwide cannot access this important data, luckily the NIH had a backup.

Did you read the paper? What's your opinion of it's content? Does it help us get closer to understanding the origin of a pandemic that has killed close to 4 million people?

That's quite the statement accusing me of racism, the last refuge of a defeated poster. The WHO investigation earlier this year was a whitewash, that's why every major western government and the director general of the WHO are asking for another investigation. Is the director general of the WHO a racist? Are the leaders of the G7 racists? Are the scientists asking for an investigation racists?

If we want to avoid future pandemics we need quick response, honesty and transparency from the government of the country where the outbreak started. Do you think we got this from the CCP in Dec 2019 - March 2020?

Unicorn Milk Latte

geospatial wrote: »

...

That's quite the statement accusing me of racism

I did not accuse you of racism.

geospatial wrote: »

The WHO investigation earlier this year was a whitewash, that's why every major western government and the director general of the WHO are asking for another investigation.

??

I was talking about the report you claimed you read, about how to avoid future pandemics.

This is not the same as the WHO 'investigation' into Covid origins.

geospatial wrote: »

If we want to avoid future pandemics we need quick response, honesty and transparency from the government of the country where the outbreak started. Do you think we got this from the CCP in Dec 2019 - March 2020?

We did not get an appropriate response from the CCP. We did also not get an appropriate response from the US, UK, European countries. That's why a regional outbreak turned into a pandemic.
The details of the failings of different countries are in the WHO report. If you can quote any factual inaccuracies that point toward a 'whitewash', feel free to disclose them.



To single out one country, and make accusations before the fact, is not helpful.


I will also argue that in general - not you personally - racism and belief in conspiracies is the main motivator for accusing China - much more so than actual fact based findings, or actual scientific understanding of what happened.


The general lack of detail - saying 'China' rather than differentiating between scientists and politicians - is also not helpful.

Most - not all - politicians, regardless of nationality, are incapable of comprehending all the details of underlying science, and act out of motivations that have nothing in common with scientific motivations.

geospatial

Unicorn Milk Latte wrote: »

I was talking about the report you claimed you read, about how to avoid future pandemics.
This is not the same as the WHO 'investigation' into Covid origins.

The report I am referencing is the joint WHO/CCP report from the investigation conducted earlier this year.

https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/who-convened-global-study-of-origins-of-sars-cov-2-china-part

Unicorn Milk Latte

geospatial wrote: »

The report I am referencing is the joint WHO/CCP report from the investigation conducted earlier this year.

https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/who-convened-global-study-of-origins-of-sars-cov-2-china-part

Ah, ok, so we were talking about two entirely different things, and you were accidentally calling the WHO report on how to avoid future pandemics a whitewash.

This one (full link, if the embedded links were not clear enough..):
https://theindependentpanel.org/mainreport/



The report I was referring to details mistakes of all countries, including China, and has recommendations and strategies about how to be better prepared in the future.


Finding out if the origin of Covid was 'natural' or whether a virus that was either natural or indistinguishable from a natural virus was accidentally released from a lab is only of academic interest.


Considering virus origin research in the past - it takes several years of research to come to any conclusions even under the best conditions. This cannot be done in a short visit like the one initiated by the WHO.

geospatial

Unicorn Milk Latte wrote: »

Finding out if the origin of Covid was 'natural' or whether a virus that was either natural or indistinguishable from a natural virus was accidentally released from a lab is only of academic interest.

It's not of academic interest to those who lost loved ones, or have ongoing health issues, or had severe economic impact due to Covid. If the virus originated in a lab via GOF research, and/or if there was a cover up by the CCP which was a significant factor in the pandemic, then those people have a right to know and should be compensated.

I've read portions of the report you posted and the summary. My thoughts on it are as follows:

There is growing evidence that the outbreak started in Wuhan in October 2020 or earlier. This, along with measures taken by the CCP to suppress information through late January, suggests at best inaction by the CCP or at worst a cover up.

It's a bit disingenuous for the WHO to blame governments for not enacting an aggressive containment strategy. They should have demanded access to Wuhan in early January, and we would know whether the claim of no new cases from Jan 1 to 20th was true, or a load of bs as any reasonable person would conclude. They could also have warned that this was a highly infectious pathogen rather than waiting until January 20th to confirm human to human transmission.

Most importantly, the only aggressive containment strategy that has worked was early and strict travel restrictions, border controls, and mandatory quarantine of essential travelers. Specifically the measures the WHO advised against. What countries pursued this? Countries that had learned from SARS-1 that the CCP couldn't be trusted to be transparent and needed to act quickly, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand. The rest of the world ranged from poor to dreadful in it's response.

A CCP cover up doesn't necessarily mean a lab leak, they could just as easily be protecting their fur trade, as natural origin from a mink, racoon dog or fox farms has been proposed. Christian Dorsten who discovered the SARS-1 virus in 2003 has suggested that not alone could mink or racoon dogs be the intermediary for SARS-2, that racoon dogs rather than civet cats could be the intermediary for SARS-1 and the identification of the civet was to divert attention from fur farms and a $20 billion industry.

https://reporterre.net/Mounting-evidence-suggests-mink-farms-in-China-could-be-the-cradle-of-Covid-19-22020

Unicorn Milk Latte

Wow, what a weird combination of reasonable arguments and bizarre, far fetched assumptions, and flat out false statements.


Distrust in China is the reason for a good SARS-COV-2 response - rather than actual experience and learning from mistakes from SARS-1 outbreaks? Seriously?


International travel restrictions as an effective measure is based on the completely nonsensical assumptions that a virus respects country borders. Restricting an outbreak means local, not national, containment of outbreaks. Logistically, containment has the best chance to be effective when only small numbers of people are infected. Early, fast action, without the hesitation that happened internationally during early Covid.

One of the key points of the WHO paper is that, in hindsight, the pandemic was avoidable. A local outbreak of a new virus, like in Wuhan, does not necessarily mean that there is an unstoppable pandemic. Co-ordinated international response is common sense, given the realities of global travel.



The lab origin is indeed only of academic interest, because a working pandemic response does not differentiate between lab and natural origins, and does not need to differentiate between origins to be effective. It is also only of academic interest because the original Wuhan variant was effectively irrelevant outside of China.


I do understand that finding a simplistic explanation, like a lab leak, combined with having specific people that can be blamed, can be emotionally satisfying. Actions of an evil suppressive government make a more interesting narrative than details of international co-operation between scientists, who would rather avoid any politics.



Good points about raccoon dogs and mink farms - Drosten, who also invented the first PCR test for SARS-COV-2, has suggested looking into them for a long time. The only study looking into racoon dogs, which are also used in the fur industry, found animal to animal transmission is indeed possible, but does not go further than that.

Not sure how much sense a 'cover up' for mink farms would make, given there were outbreaks in mink farms here in Europe, that resulted in killing all the animals as a precaution. The idea that the Chinese government would deliberately let Chinese citizens to get sick and die, just to protect flipping minks, seems far fetched.

geospatial

Unicorn Milk Latte wrote: »

Wow, what a weird combination of reasonable arguments and bizarre, far fetched assumptions, and flat out false statements.

In your opinion. Speaking of bizarre, could you please outline your argument for the statement "the original Wuhan variant was effectively irrelevant outside of China".

The SARS-CoV-2 virus that originated in Wuhan was highly infectious and very well adapted to human transmission due to it's efficient binding to ACE2. Of course it's going to mutate like any virus, but the mechanism for entering a human cell and causing disease has not changed since then. The calculated R0 based on numerous studies in China had an average of 2.8 with a range of 1 to 5. Also, it's a coronavirus so has error correction which limits mutations, unlike other RNA viruses. Yes there have been thousands of mutations, but until the UK variant none that added significantly to transmission and even today there is scant evidence that any variant causes more serious disease than others. So the original variant was highly infectious and as numerous studies have shown had a case mortality rate of about 2% (this was reported as much higher initially in China due to lack of testing). It was already well adapted to cause a pandemic before any mutations, the delta variant probably has an R0 of about 5 or 6 compared to the initial 3.

If you disagree with any of that please provide a scientific source.

As for respecting borders, countries that acted quickly to restrict travel and implement mandatory quarantine have had incredibly good outcomes compared to those who were lax on travel. New Zealand and Singapore with populations similar to Ireland have had 23 and 35 deaths respectively. In terms of deaths per million population Taiwan is at 25, Australia 35, S Korea 39. Ireland is at 1k, the US and Europe ~2k or higher. Yes there are many other factors, but travel restrictions and quarantine are the primary reason for the former countries low numbers, and in some cases efficient testing and tracing. This is also the reason they can never open up until a high percentage of their populations are vaccinated. And yes they had learned from 2003, when the CCP had lied for months about the SARS-1 outbreak, the outbreak started in Nov 2002 and they told the WHO about it in Feb 2003. Sounds familiar.

This is an airborne virus, far more infectious than SARS-1, with the added complexity of pre sympathetic transmission. It is therefore impossible to stop without draconian measures, as western countries have proven over and over since March 2020. Either you have a draconian lockdown with full participation as in China, or you have a draconian approach to travel and border controls/quarantine. The approach in China while highly effective could not be done in any democracy, so in the absence of strict travel restrictions we went with half assed lockdowns. The result was actions like MHQ in Ireland, 15 months too late and covering hundreds of countries except for the country next door with the highest travel numbers by far and the highest prevalence of the most transmissible variants. The countries I listed with dramatically low death rates have had mandatory quarantine since March 2020 for all travelers. Why do you think after all the various measures taken by most western countries, the outcome in terms of deaths has been so similar, a range of 1-3k/million? If border controls are not effective, why did China implement strict border controls after their lockdowns ended in 2020?

I agree the pandemic was avoidable, if it had been contained in Wuhan. The fact it wasn't is due to the lack of transparency by the CCP and the WHO not doing the job they are funded to do. However, if the example of Taiwan were followed, which closed it's borders on January 20th 2020, it could have been contained. Why do you think Taiwan closed it's borders almost 6 weeks before the WHO declared a pandemic? Because they had learned from 2003, including not believing anything the CCP were saying. They were right.

https://theconversation.com/how-taiwan-beat-covid-19-new-study-reveals-clues-to-its-success-158900

Unicorn Milk Latte

geospatial wrote: »

could you please outline your argument for the statement "the original Wuhan variant was effectively irrelevant outside of China".

Sure.

https://nextstrain.org/ncov/global


As for 'effectiveness' of travel restrictions: you list countries with successful containment strategies, and then claim, without evidence, that travel restrictions were the reason for the success. The US implemented travel restrictions, and not much else, early, their response was disastrous, because of that.

And - common sense - there is a difference between looking at an island like New Zealand, and a country like France or Italy or India.


Here's a study that describes that "travel restrictions to and from mainland China only modestly affect the epidemic trajectory".

geospatial wrote: »

I agree the pandemic was avoidable, if it had been contained in Wuhan.

This is extremely disingenuous. The WHO study never claims - nor did I - that the pandemic was avoidable "if it had been contained in Wuhan".

You are deliberately misrepresenting what the study says, claiming it states the opposite of what is actually in the study. Just to feed the "blame China at all costs" narrative.

geospatial

Unicorn Milk Latte wrote: »

Sure.

https://nextstrain.org/ncov/global

As for 'effectiveness' of travel restrictions: you list countries with successful containment strategies, and then claim, without evidence, that travel restrictions were the reason for the success. The US implemented travel restrictions, and not much else, early, their response was disastrous, because of that.

This is extremely disingenuous. The WHO study never claims - nor did I - that the pandemic was avoidable "if it had been contained in Wuhan".

You are deliberately misrepresenting what the study says, claiming it states the opposite of what is actually in the study. Just to feed the "blame China at all costs" narrative.

I am quite familiar with the genomics and phylogenetic tree of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. As I explained in my previous post the genomic structure of SARS-2 that make it so effective at entering and reproducing within human cells has not changed, variants that have emerged make it somewhat better at connecting to our ACE2 cells, due to mutations on the spike protein. But it was already well adapted, in fact one of the unsolved mysteries is how well adapted it was in it's earliest known variant. Being so well adapted to humans suggests there is a history of evolution of this virus within humans, but we have found no evidence for this so far.

The US and European approach to travel restrictions were shambolic, and that's being kind. You simply cannot compare to places like Taiwan, Singapore, Australia, etc. that got it right. As the attached study demonstrates, early travel restrictions and mandatory quarantine were what determined the outcome far more than local or national lockdowns. It was a fatal mistake for the WHO to advise against travel restrictions. How useful was it for the US to impose travel restrictions on Europe in mid March, when the east coast was already riddled with the variant from Italy?

I am claiming the pandemic could have been avoided if it had been contained in Wuhan, I am not suggesting the WHO or yourself are making this claim. Sorry for that confusion. And it could have been contained in Wuhan, if the CCP had been transparent and if the WHO and western governments had been proactive. Once it was known this was a SARS outbreak, which at the latest was January 2nd, all travel should have stopped out of Wuhan. Instead 5 million people left Wuhan up to January 20th, and the WHO were finally allowed in with a team of experts mid February.

And just for clarity I am not blaming China, or blaming Chinese people, or blaming Chinese scientists, I am blaming the CCP.

https://healthmanagement.org/c/hospital/news/do-travel-restrictions-work-against-covid-19

Unicorn Milk Latte

geospatial wrote: »

https://healthmanagement.org/c/hospital/news/do-travel-restrictions-work-against-covid-19

So, you dug up a sociologist with zero expertise in epidemiology, virology, pandemics, who disagrees with the research of people who actually understand their subject. A guy who warns of the dangers of multiculturalism, and is islamophobic. OK.

Mic 1972

Unicorn Milk Latte wrote: »

So, you dug up a sociologist with zero expertise in epidemiology, virology, pandemics, who disagrees with the research of people who actually understand their subject. A guy who warns of the dangers of multiculturalism, and is islamophobic. OK.

you are biased towards him, as you clearly stated above

geospatial

Unicorn Milk Latte wrote: »

So, you dug up a sociologist with zero expertise in epidemiology, virology, pandemics, who disagrees with the research of people who actually understand their subject. A guy who warns of the dangers of multiculturalism, and is islamophobic. OK.

Ad hominem. I have no idea whether the author is an Islamophobe or not, as I haven't read anything else by him, but his is one of the few studies looking at the actual data by country versus measures taken.

Any chance you could engage with the points being made? Are you arguing that early travel restrictions and mandatory quarantine are unrelated to the outcome in locations like Taiwan, Singapore, Australia, etc. The evidence disagrees with you. The attached paper by health scientists disagrees with you, and argues that a blanket "travel restrictions don't work" is not helpful, and measures take should be pathogen specific. The biggest mistake made was not recognizing early that this was an airborne virus, which is what has made it so difficult to contain, arguably impossible to contain in countries that did not impose strict travel restrictions and mandatory quarantine.

It also highlights why early aggressive action could have stopped the pandemic in it's tracks. Multiple studies have estimated that the travel restrictions imposed on January 23rd in Wuhan reduced international spread outside China by 70-80% in the following weeks. Imagine if those restrictions had been put in place in early January.

https://gh.bmj.com/content/6/3/e004537

geospatial

Mic 1972 wrote: »

you are biased towards him, as you clearly stated above

It's from the school of "anyone who disagrees with me must be a racist, xenophobe, homophobe, Islamophobe, etc".

geospatial

geospatial wrote: »

Ad hominem. I have no idea whether the author is an Islamophobe or not, as I haven't read anything else by him, but his is one of the few studies looking at the actual data by country versus measures taken.

Any chance you could engage with the points being made? Are you arguing that early travel restrictions and mandatory quarantine are unrelated to the outcome in locations like Taiwan, Singapore, Australia, etc. The evidence disagrees with you. The attached paper by health scientists disagrees with you, and argues that a blanket "travel restrictions don't work" is not helpful, and measures take should be pathogen specific. The biggest mistake made was not recognizing early that this was an airborne virus, which is what has made it so difficult to contain, arguably impossible to contain in countries that did not impose strict travel restrictions and mandatory quarantine.

It also highlights why early aggressive action could have stopped the pandemic in it's tracks. Multiple studies have estimated that the travel restrictions imposed on January 23rd in Wuhan reduced international spread outside China by 70-80% in the following weeks. Imagine if those restrictions had been put in place in early January.

https://gh.bmj.com/content/6/3/e004537

I agree with you. I would add though that once the virus is established your country it is utterly futile and extremely destructive to have mandatory hotel quarantine and draconian lockdowns - as we have seen here and will see here in years to come to our detriment.

It's also ironic how this topic is under conspiracy theories - it most definitely is not a conspiracy theory anymore but probably the leading hypothesis as to the origins of SARS CoV2. It's possible Ivermectin will join it but let's see what happens.

geospatial

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree with you. I would add though that once the virus is established your country it is utterly futile and extremely destructive to have mandatory hotel quarantine and draconian lockdowns - as we have seen here and will see here in years to come to our detriment.

It's also ironic how this topic is under conspiracy theories - it most definitely is not a conspiracy theory anymore but probably the leading hypothesis as to the origins of SARS CoV2. It's possible Ivermectin will join it but let's see what happens.

Agreed, the evidence is there in the outcome for almost every western country. Countries that acted early and aggressively either had no lockdowns or short lockdowns. They are also stuck with strict border controls until they reach a high level of vaccination, but most countries are stuck with restrictions until the same goal is accomplished.

Unicorn Milk Latte

geospatial wrote: »

Ad hominem.

You don't understand the difference between an ad hominem attack, and pointing out that someone with no expertise in epidemiology makes epidemiological claims? Ouch.




Let's cut to the chase.

Here's the key statement:

geospatial wrote: »

I am blaming the CCP.

So, you have a perfectly valid political viewpoint.

Instead of using undisputed political and sociological facts to validate your point, you instrumentalise science, by selective, out of context quoting and misrepresentation.

You don't give a flying flip if there's any base in fact, as long as it serves your narrative.


The objective is 'blaming the CCP'.
The objective is not scientific research, to advance knowledge.


This finger pointing is exactly the opposite of making reasonable efforts during a global pandemic to advance international co-operation, which is at everyone's interest.

It is counterproductive.

geospatial wrote: »

It's from the school of "anyone who disagrees with me must be a racist, xenophobe, homophobe, Islamophobe, etc".

You are, again, deliberately misrepresenting.

The motivation of the people blaming China using terms like 'Gina flu' is racist.

You differentiated yourself from that, by clearly stating that your objective - putting blame on the Chinese Communist Party - is political.



The thing both have in common: assigning blame without proof, for motives unrelated to science.

geospatial

Unicorn Milk Latte wrote: »

So, you have a perfectly valid political viewpoint.

Are the scientists calling for an open and transparent investigation politically motivated?

I have a perfectly valid scientific viewpoint. I believe it is vital to understand the origins of a pandemic that has killed close to 4 million people worldwide. I believe all relevant data on the emergence of Covid-19 should be shared. I believe an international group of experts, obviously including Chinese experts, should have access to all relevant data, including medical records in Wuhan and data / lab notebooks at the WIV.

It is very difficult to do that when the CCP will not alone not allow access to the data, but threaten Chinese scientists who share any data. Do you believe scientists should be threatened with imprisonment or disappeared for "spreading rumors". How can you have international scientific co-operation in an environment where scientists are threatened?

It is now undisputed that the CCP are hiding something. Either the outbreak started much earlier and they failed to disclose it until they had to (just like 2003), or they are covering up a lab leak. It is utterly naïve to believe they are being transparent.

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/02/asia/china-wuhan-covid-truthtellers-intl-hnk-dst/

Timberrrrrrrr

WhomadeGod wrote: »

Anyone see bret weinstein on the lex Fridman podcast say likelihood of covid leaking form lab is 95%?

Why should I believe him over 99% of scientists who say it isn't?

patnor1011

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Why should I believe him over 99% of scientists who say it isn't?

99% of scientists

Timberrrrrrrr

WhomadeGod wrote: »

I never said you or anyone had to believe anything?

I'm not here to prove anyone right or wrong.

Oh right, so why post?

Anyone see bret weinstein on the lex Fridman podcast say likelihood of covid leaking form lab is 95%?[Quote/]

Do you believe what he says?

Timberrrrrrrr

patnor1011 wrote: »

99% of scientists

Prove me wrong....please prove me wrong

patnor1011

It is your magical number pulled out of thin air since to this date there is precisely zero evidence of it's natural origin.
Yet you somehow concluded that 99% scientists believe so. :rolleyes:

Timberrrrrrrr

patnor1011 wrote: »

It is your magical number pulled out of thin air since to this date there is precisely zero evidence of it's natural origin.
Yet you somehow concluded that 99% scientists believe so. :rolleyes:

And there is zero evidence it is man made but here you are still banging that drum

pearcider

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And there is zero evidence it is man made but here you are still banging that drum

You are a shill at this stage. There is loads of evidence it’s man made.

pearcider

WhomadeGod wrote: »

Anyone see bret weinstein on the lex Fridman podcast say likelihood of covid leaking form lab is 95%?

Very convincing. But you’ll have the usual shills in here claiming it’s all a mad conspiracy theory and communist China is an open and transparent regime with no motive to hinder international investigations from the very beginning. The WHO tweeted no human to human transmission on Jan 14 2020 remember that!

Timberrrrrrrr

pearcider wrote: »

You are a shill at this stage. There is loads of evidence it’s man made.

No, there really isn't. There's lots of speculation and innuendo but no proof.

As for calling me a shill? Do you even understand the meaning of the word? :rolleyes:

pearcider

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

No, there really isn't. There's lots of speculation and innuendo but no proof.

As for calling me a shill? Do you even understand the meaning of the word? :rolleyes:

You’re a shill. Albeit a poor one.