Covid-19 likely to be man made

patnor1011 · 02-06-2021 02:37PM

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Jezz, do you have to make every thread about yourself?

I guess you failed his little questionnaire.

Like Saint Thomas with his questions...

02-06-2021 02:46PM

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. So the claim now is that the virus was created whole cloth in a lab.

Since this is your claim, and you've admitted that you cannot provide any actual studies to this effect, how do you explain all of the studies that have been posted that support the viruses animal origin?
Are those studies all wrong? That can't be possible as you can't then be just disregarding all the experts behind those studies.

Are they all faked as part of the conspiracy you guys have been telling us you aren't suggesting?

https://www.minervanett.no/angus-dalgleish-birger-sorensen-coronavirus/the-evidence-which-suggests-that-this-is-no-naturally-evolved-virus/362529

Dohnjoe · 02-06-2021 02:57PM

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.minervanett.no/angus-dalgleish-birger-sorensen-coronavirus/the-evidence-which-suggests-that-this-is-no-naturally-evolved-virus/362529

This is from July last year and has been refuted by other virologists and scientists

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2020/06/07/controversial-coronavirus-lab-origin-claims-dismissed-by-experts/?sh=4bf061c768f6

02-06-2021 02:59PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This is from July last year and has been refuted by other virologists and scientists

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2020/06/07/controversial-coronavirus-lab-origin-claims-dismissed-by-experts/?sh=4bf061c768f6

Ah..OK.. the head of MI6 says no..
Fair enough..

Trigger · 02-06-2021 03:01PM

Mod: ye are all around long enough to know that this sort of chat is not allowed! Back on topic now please.

If you are going to be presenting a theory you can be sure that you will be challenged on it and asked to provide links or evidence to your claims. Please use these to back your claims up especially if you are referring to something specific that was said/written

02-06-2021 03:08PM

patnor1011 wrote: »

Only one on my list so far. Caught him in a lie where he tried to twist what I said and turn it to something entirely different. Cant debate with person like that.

Like in this instance - they are so sure no lab can create anything even remotely similar and there is zero chance it can escape -

Again, you are falsely complaining about people misrepresenting you immediately followed by misrepresentation on your part.

No one has claimed that it was impossible for the virus to be created or modified.

No one has claimed that it was impossible for a virus to escape.

I'd ask you to provide quotes for these claims, but of course, you're ignoring when people call you out on these things.

02-06-2021 03:12PM

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.minervanett.no/angus-dalgleish-birger-sorensen-coronavirus/the-evidence-which-suggests-that-this-is-no-naturally-evolved-virus/362529

Ok. An article from last year about a study that isn't published yet and doesn't actually claim what people are claiming it says.

This has been posted before and it's been addressed and it's already been abbandoned.

Anything else?
Could you address the rest of my post also? If not, could you explain why you are not addressing it?

Dohnjoe · 02-06-2021 03:14PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah..OK.. the head of MI6 says no..
Fair enough..

More relevant info:

These claims were, reportedly, in an earlier draft of the paper, and Dr Sørensen has since repeated them to Norwegian press.

However, the final version of the research paper, which has undergone peer review and been accepted for publication in the Quarterly Review of Biophysics Discovery, doesn’t actually make any claims about whether the virus was natural or man-made in its current form.

The paper has three authors: Andres Susrud and Dr Sørensen who work at Immunor AS, a Norwegian company that created a potential Covid-19 vaccine the paper is assessing, and Professor Dalgleish, a Professor of Oncology at St George’s University of London. According to the paper, all three authors own shares or have stock options in the company.

https://fullfact.org/health/richard-dearlove-coronavirus-claims/

Mic 1972 · 02-06-2021 03:18PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah..OK.. the head of MI6 says no..
Fair enough..

Lots of claims but no evidence that man intervention can be excluded

02-06-2021 03:19PM

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. An article from last year about a study that isn't published yet and doesn't actually claim what people are claiming it says.

This has been posted before and it's been addressed and it's already been abbandoned.

Anything else?
Could you address the rest of my post also? If not, could you explain why you are not addressing it?

I was giving you a study..that in retrospect seems to be not too unlikely..
Tbh the rest of your post just looks like the usual bullying of the other poster..

Has it not been accepted though by now that there is no actual evidence of the natural origin?..
It's just a hypothesis too is it not?..
What does that say about all your other studies?..
Have you been spreading misinformation here?..

02-06-2021 03:21PM

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Lots of claims but no evidence that man intervention can be excluded

No evidence that a natural origin can be excluded.
No evidence to support a man made origin, or your claim that the virus was created from whole cloth.

Lots of evidence to support the virus' relation to other coronaviruses.
You have also conceded that those studies are all valid and that you can't address them.

02-06-2021 03:25PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I was giving you a study..that in retrospect seems to be not too unlikely..

Yes, a study that hasn't been published, widely criticised, has suspect motivations and doesn't actually support what you claim.

Why exactly did you post it?

Deleted User wrote: »

Tbh the rest of your post just looks like the usual bullying of the other poster..

Lol. How is it "bullying"?
Tbh, this sounds like a flimsy excuse to ignore points you can't address.

Deleted User wrote: »

Has it not been accepted though by now that there is no actual evidence of the natural origin?..

No, this is a lie.
There have been plenty of studies posted that support a natural origin. They are repeatedly ignored and you guys keep lying and saying they don't exist.

Dohnjoe · 02-06-2021 03:29PM

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Lots of claims but no evidence that man intervention can be excluded

There's no evidence that the existence of Satan can be excluded

Which is why we don't look at things like that, we ask, what is the evidence that Covid-19 is "man-made", that evidence is sparse

When we look at the alternative, that Covid-19 is natural, the evidence is stronger and backed by scientific consensus

Therefore, out of the two theories, the latter is stronger.

astrofool · 02-06-2021 03:36PM

Mic 1972 wrote: »

The lab accident theory doesn't address the origin of the actual virus, it only talks about a potential accidental leak.
how the virus was in the lab in the first place is not being addressed

So, to get down to brass tacks.

Show a single shred of evidence (not opinions) that the virus was man made, let's ignore the lab leak being accidental or not, if you can prove it was man-made then the origin of it being from a lab is likely, this does not exclude that a zoonotic origin virus could also escape from a lab as it was being studied and was previously confined to it's natural habitat (like most newly discovered virus).

Mic 1972 · 02-06-2021 03:37PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I was giving you a study..that in retrospect seems to be not too unlikely..
Tbh the rest of your post just looks like the usual bullying of the other poster..
.

That's why you shouldn't provide links to these people

banie01 · 02-06-2021 03:37PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ah..OK.. the head of MI6 says no..
Fair enough..

The former head who is out of position 16years.
The study was rejected by other journals and it's methodology and conclusions have been widely criticised.
It is interesting to note that the position lain out in the discredited Yan paper and the Sorenson, Dalgleish paper mirror each other in their theory as to the manufactured nature claimed.
There are a number of articles and some studies that seek to refute both articles original theses and actually finding any support for the theory other than in front and poorly received papers is hard to find.
Also worth noting is that so far as I can see the paper has yet to progress beyond pre-print review stage and has gathered very little support or consensus other than it's reinforcing Yan's paper?

Also of note given Sorenson's claim is that he is part of a vaccine candidate team (Biovacc)
Along with Dalgleish who have published research on their vaccine candidate that makes no apparent mention of the alleged De Novo creation of Covid 19?
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/qrb-discovery/article/biovacc19-a-candidate-vaccine-for-covid19-sarscov2-developed-from-analysis-of-its-general-method-of-action-for-infectivity/DBBC0FA6E3763B0067CAAD8F3363E527

This is very much at odds with the claim in the Minerva pre-print and although I have yet to read the Biovacc paper in detail, at 1st glance is almost even contradictory given some of the research relied upon for the vaccine candidate.
Happy to be contradicted on this point and I'm sure Lucernian could give a far better insight.

Mic 1972 · 02-06-2021 03:39PM

astrofool wrote: »

So, to get down to brass tacks.

Show a single shred of evidence (not opinions) that the virus was man made, let's ignore the lab leak being accidental or not, if you can prove it was man-made then the origin of it being from a lab is likely, this does not exclude that a zoonotic origin virus could also escape from a lab as it was being studied and was previously confined to it's natural habitat (like most newly discovered virus).

The lab leak theory does not exclude anything, it just does not address the origin of the virus in the first place

Mic 1972 · 02-06-2021 03:44PM

patnor1011 wrote: »

I guess you failed his little questionnaire.
Like Saint Thomas with his questions...

:D

now provide the specific quotes and links to where Saint Thomas was ever asking his questions!

02-06-2021 03:44PM

Mic 1972 wrote: »

:D

now provide the specific quotes and links to where Saint Thomas was ever asking his questions!

Don't misrepresent St. Thomas!!..

02-06-2021 03:45PM

Mic 1972 wrote: »

That's why you shouldn't provide links to these people

You shouldn't give people evidence cause they might show that the evidence is flawed?

What a bizarre stance...

Mic 1972 · 02-06-2021 03:53PM

patnor1011 wrote: »

Only one on my list so far. Caught him in a lie where he tried to twist what I said and turn it to something entirely different. Cant debate with person like that.
The rest of them are just copy/paste cheering and praising each other but otherwise harmless self-taught experts.
I mean they will call you names occasionally and will be insulting you but what else can you expect from people who think they know it all.
Like in this instance - they are so sure no lab can create anything even remotely similar and there is zero chance it can escape - it make no sense to even try.
And funniest of it is that it is simply not possible out of a orange-man-bad principle, because he who shall not be named mentioned it before. And it was a ramble and lies then so it shall be that way forever.

I put all 4 of them on ignore to avoid seeing their posts as a result of someone else replying to them. Since they normally agree with one another and no one else engage with them I'm ignoring all 4.

Problem solved!

Enough with the constant begging for links to stuff you haven't said in the first place, and when you do provide a link it gets automatically dismissed because it's alt-right, Trump-related, and all the rest.
I'm glad there seems to be an opening with mainstream media regarding the possibility to even discuss the origin of the virus

Dohnjoe · 02-06-2021 03:54PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Has it not been accepted though by now that there is no actual evidence of the natural origin?..

Do you read the posts in these threads?

There are numerous studies that it's natural. Links to studies and references have been repeatedly posted in these threads (at least 3 threads going on this forum)

02-06-2021 03:59PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Do you read the posts in these threads?

There are numerous studies that it's natural. Links to studies and references have been repeatedly posted in these threads (at least 3 threads going on this forum)

But did fauci not say last week there's been no actual link found/evidence?..

02-06-2021 04:20PM

Deleted User wrote: »

But did fauci not say last week there's been no actual link found/evidence?..

No, that's not what he said.

Regardless, there have been several studies that have been posted on these threads that support the zoonotic origin.

Are you saying that these studies are false?
They don't exist?

02-06-2021 04:25PM

Mic 1972 wrote: »

I'm glad there seems to be an opening with mainstream media regarding the possibility to even discuss the origin of the virus

Again, no one said it wasn't a possibility that the virus had a lab based origin.

banie01 · 02-06-2021 04:27PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But did fauci not say last week there's been no actual link found/evidence?..

This is Fauci's quote verbatim,

"Certainly, the people who investigated it say it likely was the emergence from an animal reservoir that then infected individuals, but it could have been something else, and we need to find that out. So, you know, that's the reason why I said I'm perfectly in favor of any investigation that looks into the origin of the virus,"

Anyone relying on that as Fauci outright supporting a man-made origin is being disingenuous and misrepresenting what was said IMO.

It's evident he is outlining the current consensus of a zoonotic origin but is pointedly not ruling out a lab leak or other source.
He is remaining open to the evidence and will follow where that leads.

02-06-2021 04:31PM

banie01 wrote: »

This is Fauci's quote verbatim,

"Certainly, the people who investigated it say it likely was the emergence from an animal reservoir that then infected individuals, but it could have been something else, and we need to find that out. So, you know, that's the reason why I said I'm perfectly in favor of any investigation that looks into the origin of the virus,"

Anyone relying on that as Fauci outright supporting a man-made origin is being disingenuous and misrepresenting what was said IMO.

It's evident he is outlining the current consensus of a zoonotic origin but is pointedly not ruling out a lab leak or other source.
He is remaining open to the evidence and will follow where that leads.

He's lucky he didn't have king mob questioning him..

Trigger · 02-06-2021 04:38PM

Mod: 3 threads merged, all discussing same thing

patnor1011 · 02-06-2021 04:47PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

When we look at the alternative, that Covid-19 is natural, the evidence is stronger and backed by scientific consensus

Therefore, out of the two theories, the latter is stronger.

There is precisely zero evidence that covid-19 is natural, all of the studies you mentioned are riddled with plausible, possible, believable, highly likely and the most ridiculous statement is "scientific consensus" which is nothing but "we think so".
Therefore no facts or evidence.
Nada.

02-06-2021 04:51PM

patnor1011 wrote: »

There is precisely zero evidence that covid-19 is natural, all of the studies you mentioned are riddled with plausible, possible, believable, highly likely and the most ridiculous statement is "scientific consensus" which is nothing but "we think so".
Therefore no facts or evidence.
Nada.

All of this is misrepresentation.

The studies provide evidence for the conclusions the studies reach.
You ignore all of those things because you don't seem to understand the language used in those studies.

But at least now you aren't pretending they don't exist.

Covid-19 likely to be man made

Comments