Covid-19 likely to be man made

The issue is that you are ignoring the massive baggage attached over the course of the pandemic to the phrase "man made".

So I wouldn't choose to use any of those terms, as I think it probable many people will misinterpret it. If they see "man made" they will not interpret it as you define it. They will see man made and assume the virus is man made, or that it was deliberately released.

For example, one of the meanings of "man made" is "artificial or synthetic rather than natural."

I do not think an 'artificial' or 'synthetic' pandemic is how you would want to people to interpret your definition.

Therefore, in my opinion, "man made pandemic" is not a helpful term. It is not exact enough.

To avoid confusion, unless a less ambiguous \ loaded with baggage term presents itself, I suggest that longer but less open to misinterpretation phrase:

Accidental lab leak of a naturally originating virus.

Perhaps you could enlighten us.

man-made

/ˌmanˈmeɪd/

adjective

1. made or caused by human beings (as opposed to occurring or being made naturally)

Is this an inaccurate definition of man made?

If the virus leaked from a lab due to human error was the resulting pandemic caused by human beings?

What makes you think I ever said it was a bio weapon. Can you show me anywhere I have said I think it is a bio weapon?

Anyone, anyone, Bueller, Bueller

There seems to be no confusion in the description of a disaster as a man made disaster or a natural disaster.

There must have been a time in history when the first man made disaster occurred and man made disaster entered the lexicon to describe a disaster that was not natural.

We have never had a potentially man made pandemic before. They have all been natural.

We may have to get used to differentiating between natural pandemics and man made pandemics in a similar way to disasters.

To recap, it is my understanding that there is general agreement that deliberate release of an engineered virus would be classified as a man made pandemic.

Deliberate release of a natural virus would also be considered a man made pandemic.

What people seem to have a difficulty with is classifying the accidental release, through human error, of a natural virus as a man made pandemic.

Is this a fair summary?

Redfield is a controversial figure.

He's also pushing to support Wade as a witness, who supported a hypothesis that the virus was "bioengineered".

I can guess why it was. When someone jumps to early conclusions from very limited information, it's not a good look for such a position.

Lab taken over by Chinese military.

Moves to replace ventilation system.

Removal of database of viruses being worked on.

It could be just a series of coincidences that make it look like something happened in the lab in Wuhan which was working on coronaviruses prior to the emergence of a Coronavirus in Wuhan.

Would be interesting to learn had the Chinese military ever taken over the facility before

When the ventilation system was last replaced.

Had the virus database ever been taken down before.

If all three simultaneous events were unique or unusual it would certainly suggest there was some type of incident.

https://bitterwinter.org/covid-19-media-censoring-laboratory-hypothesis/

[quote]Leading scientific journals censored dissenting voices; many science writers at major news outlets promoted narratives or asserted conclusions unsubstantiated by evidence; reporters failed to make even cursory attempts at surfacing potential conflicts of interest of their sources.” 

The security experts believe that “by prematurely dismissing or stigmatizing certain questions—from the very outset of the pandemic— many prominent scientists and journalists failed in their duty. [/quote]

By continuing to insist this topic belongs in the conspiracy theory section, this site is just as guilty at stigmatizing the debate and discouraging the pursuit the truth as any media giant.

It was a proposal for joint work between UNC and the WIV, similar to other joint work published since 2014. The chimeric viruses are made in Ralph Barics's lab (UNC) and tested on humanized mice in Shi's lab (WIV). From the first paragraph of the proposal "we will sequence their spike proteins...insert them into bat SARSr-COV backbones, to infect humanized mice and access ability to cause SARS type disease". Arguing in the same paragraph that this is not gain of function as the backbone used is not SARS-COV (the virus that caused the outbreak in 2002), which is complete bullshit given the stated goal of the experiment is to infect humanized mice and see if they develop SARS type disease. It's basically semantics and Fauci used the same reasoning in denying the NIH funded gain of function research in Wuhan.

As for risk of lab leak, obviously could happen either at UNC or WIV, but the humanized mice studies were to be done at the WIV so that's the location with the risk of a lab worker being bitten by an infected mouse. Daszak is being disengenious saying the work would be done at UNC.

I would encourage you to read this interview with Peter Daszak and then evaluate his statement. In the interview he states "we were doing one line of work with them (WIV), you would have to ask them what they were doing". In his statement he claims "the grant wasn't funded and the work was not done". How does he know the work wasn't done? There are other sources of funding, both to UNC and the WIV, the CCP would be the largest source of funds by far to the WIV.

Hopefully someone from the US government will clear up why the grant was rejected. If I had to guess I would imagine US Intelligence agencies (DARPA are a research arm of the DOD tasked with developing technologies for the military) decided it was a bit risky collaborating with a totalitarian regime on pathogen research. Just a guess.

There is a high probability of a laboratory leak.

Wuhan lab facility is one of the most prestigious labs in the world conducting this research, what are the odds that it came from the street market food chain of the same city in China? Geography isn't something you ignore?

In this case therefore you can imagine scientists and virologists were storing bat-like coronaviruses in frozen containment units, and something could have gone horribly wrong with the electronics storing the samples. It is possible that someone spilled something on a working countertop, did not clean it well, and someone in the lab touched it. Because of the incubation period, may not even realize he had the virus until days later.

There is no dispute in the scientific world that this COVID-19 virus was already adapted to humans from the outset. It took almost a year for the Sars virus to spread from one person to another. Many scientists support the lab hypothesis because other SARS bat-like viruses that we know about don't have this unique "furin cleavage site ( smoking gun) If you're finding a unique RNA sequence in the make up of Covid 19 thats doesnt exist in any other bat virus that something can just pass off is uninteresting.

In light of this unique furin cleavage site, which is anomalous, many scientists are confident the virus originated from a laboratory. If one side says the furin cleavage site shouldn't be there, then the other side should be ready to offer an explanation as to why it isn't an odd discovery.

We'll probably never know. But I don't think it's a conspiracy theory that many people believe it's a lab leak. It came from somewhere. Anyone would half a brain could see that there was a narrative telling us, to follow the science, and not to question it. The whole idea of science is that it is to be questioned and probed.

"Follow the science" is a new religious mantra, it's code for shut up and don't question me you pleb. They could have been just honest, and said we don't know where it came from, until it's definitive all options are on the table. No one would blame them, it was a novel scenario, and everyone was scrambling.

Why is this a conspiracy theory anyway? It should be in current affairs.

There absolutely was a narrative to dismiss the lab leak hypothesis.