Covid-19 likely to be man made

King Mob · 31-03-2021 4:34am

lucernarian wrote: »

You literally described it as an apt comparison...

Yes. And then specified what I was comparing it to. Twice.

Me: Do you believe that it was altered on purpose to be released as part of a conspiracy to engineer a global pandemic?
Drfrost: I'm not sure re: this. It's certainly possible. We'll probably never know for sure.
Me:No, I don't think such a thing is possible and relies on a lot of fantasy thinking about how a global conspiracy could work. It's no more possible that a global conspiracy to convince people the world is round.

And:

King Mob wrote: »

For example, to believe (or even entertain) that the covid pandemic is manufactured,

King Mob · 31-03-2021 4:37am

Deleted User wrote: »

You're backtracking now. You said:

You're always banging on about Flat Earth theory and using it as a comparison to every conspiracy theory in an attempt to derail. It's ridiculous and doesn't work, mate, so do yourself a favour and stop doing it :pac:

Yes. That's what I said. You seem to be misunderstanding.
I said pandemic, not virus.

lucernarian · 31-03-2021 4:38am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You're backtracking now. You said:

You're always banging on about Flat Earth theory and using it as a comparison to every conspiracy theory in an attempt to derail. It's ridiculous and doesn't work, mate, so do yourself a favour and stop doing it :pac:

I agree with the final point in particular, repeated alluding to a meme theory when discussing a serious topic that is not yet characterised with evidence and logic, is a complete red herring.

31-03-2021 4:43am

King Mob wrote: »

Yes. That's what I said. You seem to be misunderstanding.
I said pandemic, not virus.

Yeah, we're all misunderstanding you clearly equating every conspiracy theory to Flat Earth

Put down your shovel Mob, and go to bed.

P.S - Don't mention "Flat Earth" ever again. Your lifetime quota has been far exceeded :pac:

lucernarian · 31-03-2021 4:44am

King Mob wrote: »

Yes. And then specified what I was comparing it to. Twice.

And:

That's a lot of whataboutery. I'm not entertaining any notion of an engineered release or coordinated "plan" by multiple perpetrators. If you are making the comparison between a lab-origin theory of SARS-CoV-2 and the discussion around a flat earth meme, you are seriously clutching at straws.

King Mob · 31-03-2021 4:45am

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah, we're all misunderstanding you clearly equating every conspiracy theory to Flat Earth

Yes. You are misrepresenting me rather than actually address any of my points.

King Mob · 31-03-2021 4:47am

lucernarian wrote: »

That's a lot of whataboutery. I'm not entertaining any notion of an engineered release or coordinated "plan" by multiple perpetrators.

And I never said you did.
DrFrost believes such a thing is possible.
Several other conspiracy theorists here have suggested such a thing.

lucernarian wrote: »

If you are making the comparison between a lab-origin theory of SARS-CoV-2 and the discussion around a flat earth meme, you are seriously clutching at straws.

And I have not made any such comparison.

lucernarian · 31-03-2021 4:56am

Just for context: there's no evidence for a coordinated plan or any intentional release of this pathogen.

There is evidence to show that such a virus can be "constructed" and specifically in the WIV where such research had already taken place.

It's a stretch to say that this is somehow an intentional pandemic, it's not a conspiracy to suggest that the introduction of the virus to Wuhan came via the nearby lab as things stand.

lucernarian · 31-03-2021 4:58am

King Mob wrote: »

And I never said you did.
DrFrost believes such a thing is possible.
Several other conspiracy theorists here have suggested such a thing.

And I have not made any such comparison.

King Mob wrote:

Me:No, I don't think such a thing is possible and relies on a lot of fantasy thinking about how a global conspiracy could work. It's no more possible that a global conspiracy to convince people the world is round.

.

King Mob · 31-03-2021 5:03am

lucernarian wrote: »

.

Yes. And I already explained the context to that.

Me: Do you believe that it was altered on purpose to be released as part of a conspiracy to engineer a global pandemic?
Drfrost: I'm not sure re: this. It's certainly possible. We'll probably never know for sure.
Me:No, I don't think such a thing is possible and relies on a lot of fantasy thinking about how a global conspiracy could work. It's no more possible that a global conspiracy to convince people the world is round.

Please stop misrepresenting me.

lucernarian · 31-03-2021 5:09am

King Mob wrote: »

Yes. And I already explained the context to that.

Please stop misrepresenting me.

I don't believe you're discussing the topic in good faith. I've already tried to explain that the comparison with meme theories is totally inadequate, and you claim you haven't made any such comparison, even when I repeat what you say. Providing some shallow context to the claim after the fact is not the same as explaining why you would equate the two things on multiple occasions.

I'd also argue that linking the hypothesis of intentional release with an unfortunate mistake is not based on any evidence whatsoever. You don't seem to discuss that possibility, correct me if I'm wrong.

King Mob · 31-03-2021 5:31am

lucernarian wrote: »

and you claim you haven't made any such comparison, even when I repeat what you say. Providing some shallow context to the claim after the fact is not the same as explaining why you would equate the two things on multiple occasions.

But again, I haven't made any such comparison.

I was comparing flat eartherism to the idea of a global plan to release the virus for the express purpose of creating a pandemic situation.

I asked if this was something Dr Frost believed:

Do you believe that it was altered on purpose to be released as part of a conspiracy to engineer a global pandemic?

He said that he believed this was a possiblity.

I then made the comparison to this specific example.
I was not comparing the idea of lab origin to flat eartherism.

I cannot possibly explain this to you any more clearly or in any more detail.

Your calls about disingenuous posting and "red herrings" are ringing a bit false given the other posts being directed at me.

lucernarian wrote: »

I'd also argue that linking the hypothesis of intentional release with an unfortunate mistake is not based on any evidence whatsoever. You don't seem to discuss that possibility, correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't quite understand what you're asking me here.
Are you asking if I believe it's possible that the virus was altered in the lab and released accidentally? If so, I believe it's possible, but there's not been any evidence for this, so I don't positively believe it's the case. There has been more evidence for it having a natural animal origin.

lucernarian · 31-03-2021 5:44am

King Mob wrote: »

But again, I haven't made any such comparison.

I was comparing flat eartherism to the idea of a global plan to release the virus for the express purpose of creating a pandemic situation.

I asked if this was something Dr Frost believed:

He said that he believed this was a possiblity.

I then made the comparison to this specific example.
I was not comparing the idea of lab origin to flat eartherism.

I cannot possibly explain this to you any more clearly or in any more detail.

Your calls about disingenuous posting and "red herrings" are ringing a bit false given the other posts being directed at me.

I don't quite understand what you're asking me here.
Are you asking if I believe it's possible that the virus was altered in the lab and released accidentally? If so, I believe it's possible, but there's not been any evidence for this, so I don't positively believe it's the case. There has been more evidence for it having a natural animal origin.

Why would you ask if someone believed if this was a plandemic, and then try to rebut that as though they had claimed it and characterised it? You are misrepresenting what Dr frost posted, albeit with the caveat that a planned pandemic is highly unlikely and something I disagree with. Even so, based on available evidence, that is still highly unlikely. It's not the same as a childish fantasy about a flat earth.

It's also untrue to say there's "more evidence" for there being a plausible natural origin, when there's no plausible set of events established to outline that yet.

King Mob · 31-03-2021 6:07am

lucernarian wrote: »

Why would you ask if someone believed if this was a plandemic,

Because several conspiracy theorists on this thread and forum have claimed this many times. I didn't know if this was something Dr Frost believed. So I asked for clarity.

lucernarian wrote: »

and then try to rebut that as though they had claimed it and characterised it?

I did not do this.
You are once again misrepresenting what I posted.

lucernarian wrote: »

Even so, based on available evidence, that is still highly unlikely. It's not the same as a childish fantasy about a flat earth.

But I disagree. Suggesting that all governments and organisations and scientists are involved in a vast global conspiracy, as would be required by the idea of a "plandemic", is on the same scale and the same level of absurdity as the claims about Flat Earth.

What do you believe is the difference that makes the comparison so offensive to you?

lucernarian wrote: »

It's also untrue to say there's "more evidence" for there being a plausible natural origin, when there's no plausible set of events established to outline that yet.

It is true.
The evidence shows that Covid 19 has commonalities with other naturally occuring coronaviruses. Coronaviruses have jumped from animals to humans many times before. There's not been any evidence that covid 19 wasn't able to do this too.
There's been no direct evidence that Covid 19 has been engineered. If it was engineered, then there should be evidence. There's even been at least one study I've seen that specifically states that it's not likely to have been altered.

lucernarian · 31-03-2021 6:30am

King Mob wrote: »

Because several conspiracy theorists on this thread and forum have claimed this many times. I didn't know if this was something Dr Frost believed. So I asked for clarity.

I did not do this.
You are once again misrepresenting what I posted.

But I disagree. Suggesting that all governments and organisations and scientists are involved in a vast global conspiracy, as would be required by the idea of a "plandemic", is on the same scale and the same level of absurdity as the claims about Flat Earth.

What do you believe is the difference that makes the comparison so offensive to you?

It is true.
The evidence shows that Covid 19 has commonalities with other naturally occuring coronaviruses. Coronaviruses have jumped from animals to humans many times before. There's not been any evidence that covid 19 wasn't able to do this too.
There's been no direct evidence that Covid 19 has been engineered. If it was engineered, then there should be evidence. There's even been at least one study I've seen that specifically states that it's not likely to have been altered.

Again with the multi-quote replies. It's highly disingenuous, especially when someone claims their quotes are being misrepresented and reduces others' posts to being trivial assumptions. There is no comparison between this being a "plandemic" and there being question marks about the origin of the pandemic. If you want to engage with those who spout spurious theories about the pandemic, that's your business. "If it was engineered, there should be evidence"? What sort of logic is that? The prima facie evidence of "manipulation" is impossible to prove or disprove from a genetics standpoint, as insertions of various genes can be done without leaving any trace of such manipulation.

King Mob · 31-03-2021 6:49am

lucernarian wrote: »

Again with the multi-quote replies. It's highly disingenuous, especially when someone claims their quotes are being misrepresented and reduces others' posts to being trivial assumptions.

I'm sorry you don't like it, but I find that it helps specify what I'm addressing when several points are being made.

lucernarian wrote: »

There is no comparison between this being a "plandemic" and there being question marks about the origin of the pandemic.

I have not made this comparison either.
You've changed what exactly you're accusing me of several times now and you aren't actually addressing my responses to your accusations.

lucernarian wrote: »

"If it was engineered, there should be evidence"? What sort of logic is that?

If it was engineered then there should be some evidence of this in it's genetic make up. There should be some sign that it is mutated in some way that is impossible for it to do naturally.
Again, one study I saw specifically looked for evidence of the common methods of altering viruses, but found none.

lucernarian wrote: »

The prima facie evidence of "manipulation" is impossible to prove or disprove from a genetics standpoint, as insertions of various genes can be done without leaving any trace of such manipulation.

Well do you have anything to suggest that such a thing is impossible to prove?
Do you have anything to suggest that it is impossible to alter a virus in a specific way and for that alteration to look completely natural?
This smacks of special pleading to be honest.

Dohnjoe · 31-03-2021 9:21am

lucernarian wrote: »

The prima facie evidence of "manipulation" is impossible to prove or disprove from a genetics standpoint, as insertions of various genes can be done without leaving any trace of such manipulation.

Virologists don't seem to agree, they say manipulations (such as insertions) leave a trace, and they haven't spotted any so far.

Trigger · 31-03-2021 11:25am

Mod: Multiple posts deleted, please remember to attack the post not the poster

lucernarian · 31-03-2021 2:25pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Virologists don't seem to agree, they say manipulations (such as insertions) leave a trace, and they haven't spotted any so far.

That's not actually true - conventionally it was the done thing to use particular tags, particular insertion sites etc. when carrying out genetic modification and cloning. Seamless cloning with off-the-shelf restriction enzymes/kits is now eminently possible, and has been used for several years now -https://www.thermofisher.com/order/catalog/product/A14603#/A14603

The codon usage in the viral genome doesn't give many clues either. And papers relating to betacoronavirus research demonstrate the use of such seamless kits when making chimeric viruses in the past. Of course this doesn't prove anything except that it's untrue to say that insertions necessarily leave a trace.

King Mob · 31-03-2021 2:43pm

lucernarian wrote: »

That's not actually true - conventionally it was the done thing to use particular tags, particular insertion sites etc. when carrying out genetic modification and cloning. Seamless cloning with off-the-shelf restriction enzymes/kits is now eminently possible, and has been used for several years now -https://www.thermofisher.com/order/catalog/product/A14603#/A14603

The codon usage in the viral genome doesn't give many clues either. And papers relating to betacoronavirus research demonstrate the use of such seamless kits when making chimeric viruses in the past. Of course this doesn't prove anything except that it's untrue to say that insertions necessarily leave a trace.

So could you point out how you know that using such things results in the insertion or manipulation of the virus being undetectable.

The link you provided does not say any such thing beyond using the word "seamless" in the product name.

Dohnjoe · 31-03-2021 2:45pm

lucernarian wrote: »

That's not actually true - conventionally it was the done thing to use particular tags, particular insertion sites etc. when carrying out genetic modification and cloning. Seamless cloning with off-the-shelf restriction enzymes/kits is now eminently possible, and has been used for several years now -https://www.thermofisher.com/order/catalog/product/A14603#/A14603

The codon usage in the viral genome doesn't give many clues either. And papers relating to betacoronavirus research demonstrate the use of such seamless kits when making chimeric viruses in the past. Of course this doesn't prove anything except that it's untrue to say that insertions necessarily leave a trace.

I'm not an expert I'm just going on some of the many articles I've read about this, e.g.

Narrator: Simply, there is just not enough knowledge about how to make a new virus that would also cause significant devastation, like SARS-CoV-2 has. So creating a new, deadly backbone is pretty much impossible. But there is another way the novel coronavirus could have been created in a lab, and that would be using an existing virus backbone or genetic sequence as a starting point.

With a recycled backbone, two main methods could have been used to create the new virus. They could've either quickly mutated it, or added and deleted parts of the existing virus. But additions and deletions in a virus leave a trace that can be pointed out pretty quickly, a little bit like removing a red brick from a wall and replacing it with a black brick. This is exactly what Maciej Boni, an associate professor at Penn State, looked for.

Maciej Boni: You might see an insertion that looks unusual, and you look out in nature and you see that no other viruses have genetic insertions like that. We did not see any genetic insertions that are not also identified in nature. So there's no evidence suggesting that it was manmade or laboratory created somehow.

Narrator: So what if they went with the other option and mutated an existing virus? This is known as serial passage and acts in a similar way to selective breeding. Scientists are able to mimic evolution, to a degree. By forcing the virus to mutate over and over again into a potentially different form. This can be used to weaken a virus, which is how some vaccines have been made, or to strengthen a virus, say, by making it more transmissible.

But for this to work, the existing virus would have to show significant genetic similarity to the new virus. In fact, they would have to be almost identical. Because this process only speeds up viral evolution and has a limit, it's not possible to direct mutations into a completely different form. Yet Garry and his team found that the backbone for SARS-CoV-2 was strictly unique, differing significantly from other coronaviruses.

For example, SARS-CoV, the first SARS, has only about a 79% genetic sequence match to SARS-CoV-2. So it's ruled out. The best candidate is RaTG13, a bat coronavirus with a 96% gene sequence similarity.

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-lab-manmade-myth-debunked-2020-6?r=US&IR=T

lucernarian · 31-03-2021 3:10pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I'm not an expert I'm just going on some of the many articles I've read about this, e.g.

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-lab-manmade-myth-debunked-2020-6?r=US&IR=T

Hmmm with all due respect to that prof., it would be prudent to look for such peculiar insertions / restriction sites or similar suggestions of genetic manipulation. But the absence of such putative insertions does not support the conclusion that it has a purely natural origin by itself. Like many things in science, the absence of something doesn't really prove something else in its own right.

This is even more relevant when the literature demonstrates the manipulation of viral genomes using the kit I linked above, such as this paper from 2019: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6832359/

Dohnjoe · 31-03-2021 3:29pm

lucernarian wrote: »

Hmmm with all due respect to that prof., it would be prudent to look for such peculiar insertions / restriction sites or similar suggestions of genetic manipulation. But the absence of such putative insertions does not support the conclusion that it has a purely natural origin by itself. Like many things in science, the absence of something doesn't really prove something else in its own right.

This is even more relevant when the literature demonstrates the manipulation of viral genomes using the kit I linked above, such as this paper from 2019: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6832359/

They aren't just looking at insertions though, they are looking at the larger picture, including the context involving hundreds of other Coronaviruses
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/09/conspiracies-covid-19-lab-false-pandemic

Almost every credible article on this paints the same picture: it would be very difficult to artificially create a manmade coronavirus without tells showing up, it would be even more difficult to fool the world's virologists who have had early access to the genome, and there's simply no credible evidence to date that it's man-made

Not saying it's impossible that the virus is manmade, but there's so little evidence for, and so much evidence against, it doesn't make any sense to support that notion

King Mob · 31-03-2021 3:32pm

lucernarian wrote: »

Hmmm with all due respect to that prof., it would be prudent to look for such peculiar insertions / restriction sites or similar suggestions of genetic manipulation. But the absence of such putative insertions does not support the conclusion that it has a purely natural origin by itself. Like many things in science, the absence of something doesn't really prove something else in its own right.

Sure. But when you keep not seeing evidence where there should be some, the idea of a lab origin becomes less and less likely.

And at the same time, there's evidence against the idea of a lab origin.
And there's evidence supporting the idea of a natural origin.
And no one has been able to show why a natural origin is unlikely.
The conclusion gets even stronger still.

lucernarian wrote: »

This is even more relevant when the literature demonstrates the manipulation of viral genomes using the kit I linked above, such as this paper from 2019: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6832359/

Could you point out where in this paper it says these viral manipulations aren't detectable?

King Mob · 31-03-2021 3:34pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

it would be even more difficult to fool the world's virologists who have had early access to the genome, and there's simply no credible evidence to date that it's man-made

This is why most conspiracy theorists suggest that all the world's virologists and medical organisations are in on it.

It closes up that little loophole nice and neatly.

lucernarian · 31-03-2021 3:49pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They aren't just looking at insertions though, they are looking at the larger picture, including the context involving hundreds of other Coronaviruses
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/09/conspiracies-covid-19-lab-false-pandemic

Almost every credible article on this paints the same picture: it would be very difficult to artificially create a manmade coronavirus without tells showing up, it would be even more difficult to fool the world's virologists who have had early access to the genome, and there's simply no credible evidence to date that it's man-made

Not saying it's impossible that the virus is manmade, but there's so little evidence for, and so much evidence against, it doesn't make any sense to support that notion

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-world-needs-a-real-investigation-into-the-origins-of-covid-19-11610728316

A number of leading scientists like Alina Chan of the Broad Institute and David Relman of Stanford University have gone on the record to state that chimeric virus genomes were being created in this field, like in the paper I linked above, using methods that evade leaving signs of manipulation. I made my own independent conclusion as someone qualified in the field and this is what piqued my interest in this research.

Here's a quote from the above article: "The ability to build coronavirus genomes without leaving traces of manipulation has existed for years."

I'd also point out that the Guardian's coverage of this issue is pretty compromised by uncritically publishing Peter Daszak's views on this subject - when he has a direct conflict of interest in the issue and has made claims about how there would be tell-tale genetic signs when the available literature gives evidence to the contrary.

In saying all that, the use of such techniques also do not count as evidence of lab leaks etc, just that the evidence for a natural origin is not established and a far more comprehensive investigation is needed.

Dohnjoe · 31-03-2021 4:22pm

lucernarian wrote: »

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-world-needs-a-real-investigation-into-the-origins-of-covid-19-11610728316

A number of leading scientists like Alina Chan of the Broad Institute and David Relman of Stanford University have gone on the record to state that chimeric virus genomes were being created in this field, like in the paper I linked above, using methods that evade leaving signs of manipulation. I made my own independent conclusion as someone qualified in the field and this is what piqued my interest in this research.

Here's a quote from the above article: "The ability to build coronavirus genomes without leaving traces of manipulation has existed for years."

I'd also point out that the Guardian's coverage of this issue is pretty compromised by uncritically publishing Peter Daszak's views on this subject - when he has a direct conflict of interest in the issue and has made claims about how there would be tell-tale genetic signs when the available literature gives evidence to the contrary.

In saying all that, the use of such techniques also do not count as evidence of lab leaks etc, just that the evidence for a natural origin is not established and a far more comprehensive investigation is needed.

Yes but there is no evidence whatsoever it's man-made. All the evidence we have at present points towards it being natural, and the overwhelming consensus among experts is that it was transmitted by animals.

So while it may be fun to entertain a hypothetical, it still remains just that, a hypothetical. I do agree that a proper investigation is needed, but the chances of it locating the true source are still slim.

31-03-2021 8:49pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yes but there is no evidence whatsoever it's man-made. All the evidence we have at present points towards it being natural, and the overwhelming consensus among experts is that it was transmitted by animals.

So while it may be fun to entertain a hypothetical, it still remains just that, a hypothetical. I do agree that a proper investigation is needed, but the chances of it locating the true source are still slim.

Professor Bret Weinstein reckons the chances of it having come from a lab are 90%. So he must believe there is a lot of evidence to suggest that. He and his wife, Professor Heather Heying, discussed the lab hypothesis on Real Time with Bill Maher:

Professor Weinstein: "There are lots of viruses that can escape from nature and infect people, but in general they don't have a second trick, that is to say they can infect you, they can make you sick, maybe they can kill you, but they can't jump to the next person. And so what's really conspicuous about this virus is that it had both tricks from the get go. It infects people and it jumps from one person to the next with no explanation."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMGWLLDSA3c

It would be interesting for Professor Weinstein's hypothesis to be examined.

lucernarian · 31-03-2021 10:36pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yes but there is no evidence whatsoever it's man-made. All the evidence we have at present points towards it being natural, and the overwhelming consensus among experts is that it was transmitted by animals.

So while it may be fun to entertain a hypothetical, it still remains just that, a hypothetical. I do agree that a proper investigation is needed, but the chances of it locating the true source are still slim.

There is no real evidence for *any* theory associated with the origin of this I've come across. unless you could link to the relevant papers or news outlets?

It's also not true to say that there is an "overwhelming consensus" among experts, indeed the head of the WHO this week has said that the origin has not been established, nor can a lab-origin hypothesis be ruled out yet.

I say that as someone qualified in the subject btw, and this is why I was discussing papers when making those points.

King Mob · 31-03-2021 11:34pm

lucernarian wrote: »

It's also not true to say that there is an "overwhelming consensus" among experts, indeed the head of the WHO this week has said that the origin has not been established, nor can a lab-origin hypothesis be ruled out yet.

They also said:

A report by WHO and Chinese experts released on Tuesday, said the lab leak explanation was highly unlikely and the virus had probably jumped from bats to humans via another intermediary animal.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-56581246

So what evidence is there in support of a lab leak explanation?
Which do you believe is more likely?

King Mob · 31-03-2021 11:35pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Professor Bret Weinstein reckons the chances of it having come from a lab are 90%. So he must believe there is a lot of evidence to suggest that.

What evidence did he present?
Where was it published?

01-04-2021 8:41am

King Mob wrote: »

What evidence did he present?
Where was it published?

The evidence is what he said to Bill Maher, that it infects people and jumps from one person to the next with no explanation:

Professor Weinstein: "There are lots of viruses that can escape from nature and infect people, but in general they don't have a second trick, that is to say they can infect you, they can make you sick, maybe they can kill you, but they can't jump to the next person. And so what's really conspicuous about this virus is that it had both tricks from the get go. It infects people and it jumps from one person to the next with no explanation."

lucernarian, is what Professor Weinstein said correct?

King Mob · 01-04-2021 8:49am

Deleted User wrote: »

The evidence is what he said to Bill Maher, that it infects people and jumps from one person to the next with no explanation:

So then he doesn't present any evidence.

01-04-2021 9:16am

King Mob wrote: »

So then he doesn't present any evidence.

You mean evidence that what is unusual about the virus is that 'it infects people and it jumps from one person to the next with no explanation'? I take it it's just an established scientific fact that viruses 'can't jump to the next person'. That's why Professor Weinstein said what he said.

King Mob · 01-04-2021 10:00am

Deleted User wrote: »

You mean evidence that what is unusual about the virus is that 'it infects people and it jumps from one person to the next with no explanation'?

Yes. You just said that he provided no evidence of this. he just claimed it on a talk show.
It's not published in a scientific paper. There's nothing actually backing this statement up.
It's just an argument from authority.

This is a bad argument. Just because the person saying it is a doctor, it doesn't mean he's automatically right.

Deleted User wrote: »

I take it it's just an established scientific fact that viruses 'can't jump to the next person'. That's why Professor Weinstein said what he said.

I don't think you understand what he said or how viruses work.

NaFirinne · 07-05-2021 10:46am

The belief that covid was man made is more then a conspiracy theory and I'm not the only one that suspects it.

Here Leading Science journalist: Yeah, Covid was developed in a lab

https://gript.ie/leading-us-expert-yeah-covid-was-developed-in-a-lab/

King Mob · 07-05-2021 10:55am

NaFirinne wrote: »

The belief that covid was man made is more then a conspiracy theory and I'm not the only one that suspects it.

Here Leading Science journalist: Yeah, Covid was developed in a lab

https://gript.ie/leading-us-expert-yeah-covid-was-developed-in-a-lab/

Another link dump from a sketchy, right wing crank website and no attempt to deal with any of the dozens of points you're cowering away from.

What evidence does this "Leading Science Journalist" provide beyond his own authority?
Based on your previous abandoned claims, he doesn't provide any.

Why are you dodging questions?
Why do you expect people to just forget by the time you lay out you next link dump.
Do you genuinely think you're convincing anyone?

NaFirinne · 07-05-2021 1:15pm

King Mob wrote: »

Another link dump from a sketchy, right wing crank website and no attempt to deal with any of the dozens of points you're cowering away from.

What evidence does this "Leading Science Journalist" provide beyond his own authority?
Based on your previous abandoned claims, he doesn't provide any.

Why are you dodging questions?
Why do you expect people to just forget by the time you lay out you next link dump.
Do you genuinely think you're convincing anyone?

How can anyone provide direct evidence when no one is allowed too investigate the lab outside of the same people who have motive to hide the truth.

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence....They very fact that the virus started in wuhan which has a lab directly experimenting on gain of function viruses.

The fact that they were gathering bats all the way from south china to specifically carry out experimentation on coronaviruses and developing actively developing these coronaviruses to have the highest possible infectivity for human cells.

The research being done in wuhan on coronaviruses has been sealed up by the Chinese government.

If there not hiding anything why are they sealing these up?

It doesn't matter what questions are answered you have you default replies well rehearsed to point out no one answers any questions.

Well no offical organisation is asking the hard questions and looking for answers from the Chinese government.

King Mob · 07-05-2021 2:52pm

NaFirinne wrote: »

How can anyone provide direct evidence when no one is allowed too investigate the lab outside of the same people who have motive to hide the truth.

So then the expert offers no evidence and you're just looking for excuses.

NaFirinne wrote: »

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence...

So you keep saying, but when you're pressed about this evidence, you ignore and evade and just copy paste from crank websites.

NaFirinne wrote: »

It doesn't matter what questions are answered you have you default replies well rehearsed to point out no one answers any questions.

But I only point out that people aren't answering my questions and they are running away from points when they do that.

If you don't want me to do that, then perhaps you should stop running away from points and questions and answer them instead.

But you won't do this. You'll deflect and ignore like you guys always do.

So I'm asking why you have to do this.

NaFirinne wrote: »

Well no offical organisation is asking the hard questions and looking for answers from the Chinese government.

Ok. That's what you believe.

Why do you believe this is the case?

political analyst · 08-05-2021 5:07pm

Broadsheet newspaper 'The Australian' is the source for the following article:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9556415/China-preparing-WW3-biological-weapons-six-years-investigators-say.html

King Mob · 08-05-2021 5:51pm

political analyst wrote: »

Broadsheet newspaper 'The Australian' is the source for the following article:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9556415/China-preparing-WW3-biological-weapons-six-years-investigators-say.html

No, you linked to the Daily Mail, well known sensationalist rag.

Could you point out where in the documents it discusses how covid 19 was man made?
A direct quote would be nice.

robinph · 08-05-2021 6:04pm

It would be a failure if the US, UK, Russia, France, Israel, etc didn't have similar reports and equivalent investigations going on at their bio research labs.

Dohnjoe · 08-05-2021 6:20pm

robinph wrote: »

It would be a failure if the US, UK, Russia, France, Israel, etc didn't have similar reports and equivalent investigations going on at their bio research labs.

Indeed, militaries make contingencies and plans and theory-craft for literally everything. Biological warfare and it's uses on and off the battlefield have been around since forever.

Igotadose · 08-05-2021 7:32pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Indeed, militaries make contingencies and plans and theory-craft for literally everything. Biological warfare and it's uses on and off the battlefield have been around since forever.

I read a paper recently that said Israel had gone through a 'bioterrorism drill' around 2019 that practiced mobilizing to deliver vaccines, and it's something they definitely 'war game'' about. Not surprisingly, they've done the best on getting their population vaccinated.

So, yeah, countries do worry about these things and some practice dealing with them. Not Ireland, though. Le cúnamh Dé shur and we'll all be grand:P

NaFirinne · 08-05-2021 11:03pm

I hope they keep pushing this so we get a real investigation into the Wuhan Lab

GOP lawmaker wants answers from Fauci on Wuhan lab's research and possible COVID-19 origin

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/gop-answers-fauci-wuhan-lab-research-covid-origin

King Mob · 09-05-2021 3:31am

NaFirinne wrote: »

I hope they keep pushing this so we get a real investigation into the Wuhan Lab

GOP lawmaker wants answers from Fauci on Wuhan lab's research and possible COVID-19 origin

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/gop-answers-fauci-wuhan-lab-research-covid-origin

More dodging then...

How come the GOP aren't involved in the global conspiracy to cover up the lab leak?

political analyst · 09-05-2021 2:02pm

King Mob wrote: »

No, you linked to the Daily Mail, well known sensationalist rag.

Could you point out where in the documents it discusses how covid 19 was man made?
A direct quote would be nice.

It's the source that the Daily Mail cited for the article.

King Mob · 09-05-2021 2:16pm

political analyst wrote: »

It's the source that the Daily Mail cited for the article.

Cool.
The Daily Mail is a sensationalist rag.

Could you point out where in the documents it discusses how covid 19 was man made?
A direct quote would be nice.

Sorry to ask again, but you seem to have missed this question last time.

political analyst · 09-05-2021 3:25pm

King Mob wrote: »

Cool.
The Daily Mail is a sensationalist rag.

Could you point out where in the documents it discusses how covid 19 was man made?
A direct quote would be nice.

Sorry to ask again, but you seem to have missed this question last time.

The citing of an Australian broadsheet as the original source of the story is enough.

King Mob · 09-05-2021 3:34pm

political analyst wrote: »

The citing of an Australian broadsheet as the original source of the story is enough.

Yes, but some outlets, like the Daily Mail like to sensationalise things to draw clicks and eyes.

The best thing to do is to actually look at the source document.

Given that you've ignored my question completely twice now, I assume that you haven't actually looked at the source document.
Right?

Covid-19 likely to be man made

Comments