Covid-19 likely to be man made

Hmm_Messiah wrote: »

Most people? As in the majority of people? Are you for real??

Btw bat cross species transfer was just one of many speculations in the first weeks.. it is as likely to be from pangolins.... But may never be known.

But just as a matter of fact (general , not SARS specific) cross species infections do occur from ingestion...and people in certain areas in China do ingest bats

If you only saw the variety of animals available to buy/eat in some so called wet markets

Honestly most people are getting on with their life and are trying to see a way forward, in my personal experience of this. Or they don't feel qualified to comment. Of those I know who do have some qualified background, there's a lot of quiet contemplating and wariness both of the lack of evidence for a natural source and the conspiracies swirling around it. Some accept there will be no true way to know, though I believe the longer a clearly natural history is established, the more skeptical the world will be about what happened in China.

The pangolin hypothesis has become increasingly shaky btw as more genomic analyses have come to light in the literature.

Trump right so this is a Chinese made virus

thebaz wrote: »

You seam happy with how WHO have handled the pandemic / situation - I'm not - A few months ago they (Dr Ryan) were saying we should go down the Sweden road , the one country that did not adhere to ther advice

This keeps getting repeated a lot.

If my memory serves, in April dr. Ryan said the Swedish model might be the one to go with in future pandemics.

And in May he said it's dangerous to think countries who haven't done anything will suddenly reach a herd immunity, because humans aren't herds.

Has he said something different since?
I'm open to correction as to what/when he said those things.

---

Meanwhile, I guess we'll wait for Dr. Yan's proof. I wouldn't have published too many medical studies myself (in fact, the number is very, very low) but if I had something to say, I probably wouldn't go on Loose Women or talk to Steve Bannon.

Hmm_Messiah wrote: »

Independent qualified scientific authorities have clearly stated there is no reason to believe it's a man made virus (let alone released or escaped from a lab) it can be googled easily..... You can even find it on Baiidu

Any one with a brain knows there will be no concrete resolution regarding the source and initial spread for years if every.. so all the conjecture...and at times the blatant reiteration of conspiracy theories serves no purpose..

I cut out the rest, what I reply to here or what your battery life is, or when you condescend to reply, isn't even slightly relevant. Why in blazes would anyone in their right mind use a censored Chinese search engine to investigate anything of note in an impartial way regarding what goes on in the PRC?

With SARS, we had some good leads established during the same year of the outbreak (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12958366/), which have been confirmed and expanded upon ever since. The real way to actually show a natural origin would be to, well, find close common ancestors circulating in the wild and not offer up some 96% similar bat virus that would mean its closest common ancestor was many decades ago. As has been demonstrated consistently throughout 2020, this is a remarkably stable RNA virus at the genomic level and to accept this as a normal run of the mill event in nature without even a decent phylogenetic tree to back it up is blindingly myopic and presumptuous.

lucernarian wrote: »

I cut out the rest, what I reply to here or what your battery life is, or when you condescend to reply, isn't even slightly relevant. […] Why in blazes would anyone in their right mind use a censored . As has been demonstrated consistently throughout 2020, this is a remarkably stable RNA virus at the genomic level and to accept this as a normal run of the mill event in nature without even a decent phylogenetic tree to back it up is blindingly myopic and presumptuous.

Again with the attributing of characteristics to someone you don't know, and without foundation. None of my replies have been condescending in regard to the important task of trying to identify the origin of this virus

And your contribution regarding the knowledge currently held on the virus origin would be interesting but for the fact you are totally missing the point

I responded in this thread because I queried the idea that this level of discourse could seriously be considered a rational, objective , fact-based contribution to current affairs. In addition I then responded to some of the clearly ridiculous statements as if fact such as "most people2 believe it is man made ( which even if true is irrelevant - beliefs do not make facts. )

So you continue to argue with me as if I am denying that the origin of the virus could be manmade; I never said any such thing. I said at this time no one can determine it is or isn't. The CDC said there was nothing to suggest it was man-made.

So I was commenting initially on this thread itself, and then on some of the blatantly sensationalist conspiracy theories. You are talking about the possible origin of the virus - these are different things .

I am not sure why you would take your time to do so in this thread , where there is so much irresponsible commentary with no level of backup to statement of facts . But for the sake of clarity ; you need no longer direct any argument towards me regarding the origin of this virus; I do not, and have not here, disputed anything in that regard.

I posted because I stumbled across the thread, and was curious how many would refute the sensationalism etc. I am surprised that some one with your competence decided my contribution - which was directed at the thread - was more necessary to comment on - rather than the recurring themes that every body knows that the virus was manmade by China, down the road, and they left international flights open so as to destroy the world economies

Frances Green Antenna wrote: »

The paper itself is questionable in its intentions (funded by what is essentially an anti-china political group) and doesn't actually prove anything regarding it being definitely manmade.

The subject matter is definitely up for discussion though as we can't be fully sure of where it originated

The science should stand on its own merits. When National Economic and Social Council (a social justice quango) or TASC (a social justice lobby) publishes their studies I don't dismiss it as conspiracy theories.

Overheal wrote: »

These claims have already been debunked[/URL] and were sadly given new oxygen by Fox News Channel's highest rated program.

That debunking article acknowledges another possibility, which in my opinion is most likely. The virus may be natural and was being studied in the lab. It may have been released by accident.

Several off topic posts deleted. As always if you have a problem with a moderator decision contact the corresponding moderator first; if you can't reach an understanding take it to the Help Desk. Final notice. Thank you for your attention.

Here she is talking on Fox news

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFlqXPl_hZQ&ab_channel=FoxNews

bobbyy gee wrote: »

false information
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/16/business/media/facebook-instagram-tucker-carlson-virus-posts.html

So we are dealing with either independent liars or a massive cover up.




This indeed is interesting times.

A good article and sanity check on why Yan's paper is very likely nonsense from Nat Geo.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/09/coronavirus-origins-misinformation-yan-report-fact-check-cvd/

Yan has published a paper with no evidence, a poor hypothesis and one that quite frankly given its timing and sources of support is very more likely a propaganda piece, than a work of credulous research.

The report also argues that SARS-CoV-2 has “restriction-enzyme sites,” or genetic sequences that can be cut and manipulated by enzymes. These genomic features are sometimes used in cloning, and the report claims their presence is indicative of an engineered virus. But scientists point out these sites naturally occur in all types of genomes, from bacteria to humans.

“It looks legitimate because they use a lot of technical jargon. But in reality, a lot of what they're saying doesn't really make any sense,” says Rasmussen. She adds that the type of cloning that uses restriction enzymes is very outdated, and so it is unlikely to be used to make a viral bioweapon. And on a basic level, making an engineered virus is not a trivial matter. Scientists are still just trying to understand the molecular and genetic reasons why some viruses are more infectious than others. Adding features to a virus to make it more transmissible, for example, is called gain-of-function research. It is highly controversial for its potential to make bioweapons and was even banned in the U.S. for a time, limiting the data available on how it works.

Batman.... Half bath half man...new Batman film coming out...virus from bats....virus got into man...BatMan..... omg