It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fauci Emails Published

page: 14
81
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2021 @ 03:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: SouthernForkway26
a reply to: chr0naut
Covid19 won't be found in an animal because it isn't there. The ancestor of Covid19 will be and it is already known it is likely from a bat. We know of a bat coronavirus that is at least 98% similar. Researchers have added the gain of function to that virus to speed up its evolution. It evolved (artificially) several times in the lab to become what is now known as Covid19. It apparently infected some researchers, and was unstoppable because of the lab-engineered features designed for high rate of human transmission.

This is dangerous, unessesary work. These lab viruses have the potential to be much worse than a natural one. Even the most secure labs in the world can and will leak more viruses in the future. Computer AI modeling will be the safest and most accurate method of forecasting viral mutations in the near future.


So, you are suggesting that a virus that doesn't infect bats, came from bats?

If there was recent zoonotic transfer at all (I am saying that there wasn't), it must have come through cats, or ferrets, or civets. Consider that we have multiple Coronaviruses that infect us, and are usually benign. We call them 'colds'. Perhaps SARS-nCoV-2 came from one of those unidentified cold viruses that had been infecting humans periodically for centuries?

But you are so zoned-in on the Wuhan lab being the source, that you are ignoring the science.

It is more likely that the ancestor virus came from a cat, ferret or civet and that it arose the specific features that infect humans so specifically, rose in humans. A coronavirus that doesn't infect bats so well, doesn't survive in those species. So they simply don't carry it in any sorts of numbers. So there's that.

For a zoonotic transfer, a virus would need to infect both the source and target species. Even if the virus was not deadly in either species yet, the virus must infect the species for them to carry it and it must infect both species.

It is far more likely that the virus was benign in humans and mutated to become dangerous. Humans are the source of the virus and the zoonotic transfer of the ancestor virus would most likely be in a domestic cat, because that is the most populous pairing of similar infective characteristics. Definitely millions of times more likely than a couple of researchers could organize in a lifetime of experiments lab by juxtaposing two organisms.

edit on 9/6/2021 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2021 @ 04:02 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

No. Your distracting from the fact that the lab leak is becoming more and more probable.

And there was unethical measures taken to distract from investigations into a lab leak.

What’s “unscientific” about the below assessment?




The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan?
By Nicholas Wade, May 5, 2021

thebulletin.org...


From early on, public and media perceptions were shaped in favor of the natural emergence scenario by strong statements from two scientific groups. These statements were not at first examined as critically as they should have been.

“We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin,” a group of virologists and others wrote in the Lancet on February 19, 2020, when it was really far too soon for anyone to be sure what had happened. Scientists “overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife,” they said, with a stirring rallying call for readers to stand with Chinese colleagues on the frontline of fighting the disease.

Contrary to the letter writers’ assertion, the idea that the virus might have escaped from a lab invoked accident, not conspiracy. It surely needed to be explored, not rejected out of hand. A defining mark of good scientists is that they go to great pains to distinguish between what they know and what they don’t know. By this criterion, the signatories of the Lancet letter were behaving as poor scientists: They were assuring the public of facts they could not know for sure were true.

It later turned out that the Lancet letter had been organized and drafted by Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York. Daszak’s organization funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. If the SARS2 virus had indeed escaped from research he funded, Daszak would be potentially culpable. This acute conflict of interest was not declared to the Lancet’s readers. To the contrary, the letter concluded, “We declare no competing interests.”


edit on 9-6-2021 by neutronflux because: Fixed



posted on Jun, 9 2021 @ 04:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: chr0naut

No. Your distracting from the fact that the lab leak is becoming more and more probable.

And there was unethical measures taken to distract from investigations into a lab leak.

What’s “unscientific” about the below assessment?




The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan?
By Nicholas Wade, May 5, 2021

thebulletin.org...


From early on, public and media perceptions were shaped in favor of the natural emergence scenario by strong statements from two scientific groups. These statements were not at first examined as critically as they should have been.

“We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin,” a group of virologists and others wrote in the Lancet on February 19, 2020, when it was really far too soon for anyone to be sure what had happened. Scientists “overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife,” they said, with a stirring rallying call for readers to stand with Chinese colleagues on the frontline of fighting the disease.

Contrary to the letter writers’ assertion, the idea that the virus might have escaped from a lab invoked accident, not conspiracy. It surely needed to be explored, not rejected out of hand. A defining mark of good scientists is that they go to great pains to distinguish between what they know and what they don’t know. By this criterion, the signatories of the Lancet letter were behaving as poor scientists: They were assuring the public of facts they could not know for sure were true.

It later turned out that the Lancet letter had been organized and drafted by Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York. Daszak’s organization funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. If the SARS2 virus had indeed escaped from research he funded, Daszak would be potentially culpable. This acute conflict of interest was not declared to the Lancet’s readers. To the contrary, the letter concluded, “We declare no competing interests.”




The article assumes only two possibilities for the source of the virus - either a recent zoonotic transfer, or manipulation in a lab. Neither are likely at all, and they aren't the only ways a virus might mutate and arise.

I am fairly sure that the millions, if not billions, of viral strains that have previously arisen on this planet, were not made in a lab, or were from a sudden zoonotic transfer. Just consider that when you evaluate the likelihoods of such things.

edit on 9/6/2021 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2021 @ 05:20 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I would assume China has a great interest into investigating the origins if they “know” it didn’t come from a lab. What’s the extent of the Chinese investigation?? What’s the evidence it don’t come from the lab that has been found, and can be verified.


Is it false that unethical means by at least one individual with ties to the lab took steps to prevent an investigation into a lab leak?



posted on Jun, 9 2021 @ 05:30 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

You


It is more likely that the ancestor virus came from a cat, ferret or civet and that it arose the specific features that infect humans so specifically, rose in humans. A coronavirus that doesn't infect bats so well, doesn't survive in those species. So they simply don't carry it in any sorts of numbers. So there's that.



Ok?

Cited source.




Proponents of natural emergence have a rather harder story to tell. The plausibility of their case rests on a single surmise, the expected parallel between the emergence of SARS2 and that of SARS1 and MERS. But none of the evidence expected in support of such a parallel history has yet emerged. No one has found the bat population that was the source of SARS2, if indeed it ever infected bats. No intermediate host has presented itself, despite an intensive search by Chinese authorities that included the testing of 80,000 animals. There is no evidence of the virus making multiple independent jumps from its intermediate host to people, as both the SARS1 and MERS viruses did. There is no evidence from hospital surveillance records of the epidemic gathering strength in the population as the virus evolved. There is no explanation of why a natural epidemic should break out in Wuhan and nowhere else. There is no good explanation of how the virus acquired its furin cleavage site, which no other SARS-related beta-coronavirus possesses, nor why the site is composed of human-preferred codons. The natural emergence theory battles a bristling array of implausibilities.

thebulletin.org...



If you missed it, “ There is no evidence from hospital surveillance records of the epidemic gathering strength in the population as the virus evolved.”



posted on Jun, 9 2021 @ 05:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: chr0naut

I would assume China has a great interest into investigating the origins if they “know” it didn’t come from a lab. What’s the extent of the Chinese investigation?? What’s the evidence it don’t come from the lab that has been found, and can be verified.

Is it false that unethical means by at least one individual with ties to the lab took steps to prevent an investigation into a lab leak?


The people who are genuinely looking for the genomic source of the virus are not concerned with any politically motivated allegation.

In fact, the virus may have originated nearly anywhere on Earth. The assumption that the first outbreak was in China was merely because they recognized that this was something different and could genotype it.

There is some indication that the virus or something very similar, had outbreaks in Northern Italy, and France, before the first case in Wuhan was identified. The thing is, none of the genomic sequence was captured in those other outbreaks, nor was anything even diagnosed until afterwards and they noted that people had died in clusters, with similar symptoms.

That is the classic "flu-like symptoms" and "pneumonia of unknown cause", which have been with us for decades.

The presumption was that at those earlier stages, the virus had not evolved as fully in its host, and was less infectious because of that. We have seen several subsequent strains that have become more infectious as the spike protein is 'selected for' on the basis of its efficiency, even in the last year.



posted on Jun, 9 2021 @ 05:58 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

What do you get there is no evidence it spread “through nature”? Do you have evidence other than your biased opinion?

Stop dodging the questions.

Is it false that unethical means by at least one individual with ties to the lab took steps to prevent an investigation into a lab leak?

I would assume China has a great interest into investigating the origins if they “know” it didn’t come from a lab. What’s the extent of the Chinese investigation?? What’s the evidence it don’t come from the lab that has been found, and can be verified.



posted on Jun, 9 2021 @ 06:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: chr0naut

You


It is more likely that the ancestor virus came from a cat, ferret or civet and that it arose the specific features that infect humans so specifically, rose in humans. A coronavirus that doesn't infect bats so well, doesn't survive in those species. So they simply don't carry it in any sorts of numbers. So there's that.



Ok?

Cited source.




Proponents of natural emergence have a rather harder story to tell. The plausibility of their case rests on a single surmise, the expected parallel between the emergence of SARS2 and that of SARS1 and MERS. But none of the evidence expected in support of such a parallel history has yet emerged. No one has found the bat population that was the source of SARS2, if indeed it ever infected bats. No intermediate host has presented itself, despite an intensive search by Chinese authorities that included the testing of 80,000 animals. There is no evidence of the virus making multiple independent jumps from its intermediate host to people, as both the SARS1 and MERS viruses did. There is no evidence from hospital surveillance records of the epidemic gathering strength in the population as the virus evolved. There is no explanation of why a natural epidemic should break out in Wuhan and nowhere else. There is no good explanation of how the virus acquired its furin cleavage site, which no other SARS-related beta-coronavirus possesses, nor why the site is composed of human-preferred codons. The natural emergence theory battles a bristling array of implausibilities.

thebulletin.org...



If you missed it, “ There is no evidence from hospital surveillance records of the epidemic gathering strength in the population as the virus evolved.”


There is evidence of similar symptoms appearing in clusters and even causing the deaths of people, essentially undiagnosed, for decades. It is so familiar, and frequent, that people have died in clusters of "flu-like symptoms" that the correlation is ignored.

A lot of the specific genotyping technologies have become cheap and easy in the last few years, and suddenly we are able to be specific about illnesses that we previously only described by their symptoms.

And all the time, those strains were mutating and evolving to greater effectiveness of their infectiousness. The progenitor viruses could have been in the human population for decades (or longer) before they hit the particular deadly mutation that made it appear to suddenly stand out.



posted on Jun, 9 2021 @ 06:47 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

This is where you stop gaslighting and produce actual evidence.

I have cited a source that is a rough history into the origins of covid-19.

Despite the numerous and desperate investigations into the origins of covid-19, there is no conclusive evidence it came from any aspect of nature.

While. Despite the purposeful hindrance into investigation it came from a lab, the evidence is mounting.





Study claims Covid-19 not natural, but result of Wuhan lab-leak
IANS | Updated: May 31, 2021, 16:15 IST

m.timesofindia.com...

In the 22-page paper, the researchers describe their months-long "forensic analysis" into experiments done at the Wuhan lab between 2002 and 2019.
It concludes that "SARS-Coronavirus-2 has no credible natural ancestor" and that it is "beyond reasonable doubt" that the virus was created through "laboratory



Despite the numerous investigations where is the “ natural ancestor"?



posted on Jun, 9 2021 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: chr0naut

This is where you stop gaslighting and produce actual evidence.

I have cited a source that is a rough history into the origins of covid-19.

Despite the numerous and desperate investigations into the origins of covid-19, there is no conclusive evidence it came from any aspect of nature.

While. Despite the purposeful hindrance into investigation it came from a lab, the evidence is mounting.





Study claims Covid-19 not natural, but result of Wuhan lab-leak
IANS | Updated: May 31, 2021, 16:15 IST

m.timesofindia.com...

In the 22-page paper, the researchers describe their months-long "forensic analysis" into experiments done at the Wuhan lab between 2002 and 2019.
It concludes that "SARS-Coronavirus-2 has no credible natural ancestor" and that it is "beyond reasonable doubt" that the virus was created through "laboratory



Despite the numerous investigations where is the “ natural ancestor"?


The natural ancestor was in humans. It most likely happened happened decades ago.

A Genomic Perspective on the Origin and Emergence of SARS-CoV-2

Origins of SARS-CoV-2: Focusing on Science

The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2

ANALYSIS OF THE GENOMIC DISTANCE BETWEEN BAT CORONAVIRUS RATG13 AND SARS-COV-2 REVEALS MULTIPLE ORIGINS OF COVID-19∗ (.PDF)

Researchers identify evolutionary origins of SARS-CoV-2

WHO-convened Global Study of the Origins of SARS-CoV-2

Please read and consider these papers and what they mean.

edit on 9/6/2021 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2021 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

First piece Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

2nd piece. No date. By Zheng-Li Shi

3rd piece Published: 17 March 2020

4 the piece. By Shaojun PEI Stephen S.-T. YAU

5th piece. Jul 28, 2020


6th piece. 5 November 2020. By the WHO that ran cover for China.

You just cited dated and cover pieces for China.



Lab Leak Theory Gathers More Attention; New Study Claims 'No Credible Natural Ancestor' To Covid

news.abplive.com... ofessor-angus-dalgleish-and-norwegian-scientist-dr-birger-srensen-1461020

By: ABP News Bureau31 May 2021 09:20 AM (IST)

New Delhi: A new research by British Professor Angus Dalgleish and Norwegian scientist Dr. Birger Sørensen made shocking claims that the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 virus which led to the deadly pandemic was created in a lab in Wuhan.

According to the scientists, once the pandemic began, they tried to cover their tracks by reverse-engineering different versions of the virus to back their bat origins claims.





Prominent scientists call for more investigation into origins of coronavirus
By Rachael Rettner

First Published 3 weeks ago


www.livescience.com...

More than a dozen researchers have published a letter in a top scientific journal calling for further investigations into the origins of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.

In the letter, published Thursday (May 13) in the journal Science, the authors say that two theories — that the virus was accidentally released from a lab or that it spilled over naturally from animals — "both remain viable."

"Knowing how COVID-19 emerged is critical for informing global strategies to mitigate the risk of future outbreaks," they wrote.






Investigate the origins of COVID-19

Jesse D. Bloom1,2, Yujia Alina Chan3, Ralph S. Baric4, Pamela J. Bjorkman5, Sarah Cobey6, Benjamin E. Deverman3, David N. Fisman7, Ravindra Gupta8, Akiko Iwasaki9,2, Marc Lipsitch10, Ruslan Medzhitov9,2, Richard A. Neher11, Rasmus Nielsen12, Nick Patterson13, Tim Stearns14, Erik van Nimwegen11, Michael Worobey15, David A. Relman16,17,*
See all authors and affiliations
Science 14 May 2021:
Vol. 372, Issue 6543, pp. 694
DOI: 10.1126/science.abj0016

science.sciencemag.org...


Although there were no findings in clear support of either a natural spillover or a lab accident, the team assessed a zoonotic spillover from an intermediate host as “likely to very likely,” and a laboratory incident as “extremely unlikely” [(4), p. 9]. Furthermore, the two theories were not given balanced consideration. Only 4 of the 313 pages of the report and its annexes addressed the possibility of a laboratory accident (4). Notably, WHO Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus commented that the report's consideration of evidence supporting a laboratory accident was insufficient and offered to provide additional resources to fully evaluate the possibility (5).

As scientists with relevant expertise, we agree with the WHO director-general (5), the United States and 13 other countries (6), and the European Union (7) that greater clarity about the origins of this pandemic is necessary and feasible to achieve. We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data. A proper investigation should be transparent, objective, data-driven, inclusive of broad expertise, subject to independent oversight, and responsibly managed to minimize the impact of conflicts of interest.



If you missed it, “ Only 4 of the 313 pages of the report and its annexes addressed the possibility of a laboratory accident (4). ”


++++++ So, you agree more study of the origins of covid-19 is needed with an open mind for all possibilities? +++++
edit on 9-6-2021 by neutronflux because: Fixed

edit on 9-6-2021 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Jun, 9 2021 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: chr0naut

First piece Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

2nd piece. No date. By Zheng-Li Shi

3rd piece Published: 17 March 2020

4 the piece. By Shaojun PEI Stephen S.-T. YAU

5th piece. Jul 28, 2020


6th piece. 5 November 2020. By the WHO that ran cover for China.

You just cited dated and cover pieces for China.



Lab Leak Theory Gathers More Attention; New Study Claims 'No Credible Natural Ancestor' To Covid

news.abplive.com... ofessor-angus-dalgleish-and-norwegian-scientist-dr-birger-srensen-1461020

By: ABP News Bureau31 May 2021 09:20 AM (IST)

New Delhi: A new research by British Professor Angus Dalgleish and Norwegian scientist Dr. Birger Sørensen made shocking claims that the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 virus which led to the deadly pandemic was created in a lab in Wuhan.

According to the scientists, once the pandemic began, they tried to cover their tracks by reverse-engineering different versions of the virus to back their bat origins claims.





Prominent scientists call for more investigation into origins of coronavirus
By Rachael Rettner

First Published 3 weeks ago


www.livescience.com...

More than a dozen researchers have published a letter in a top scientific journal calling for further investigations into the origins of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.

In the letter, published Thursday (May 13) in the journal Science, the authors say that two theories — that the virus was accidentally released from a lab or that it spilled over naturally from animals — "both remain viable."

"Knowing how COVID-19 emerged is critical for informing global strategies to mitigate the risk of future outbreaks," they wrote.






Investigate the origins of COVID-19

Jesse D. Bloom1,2, Yujia Alina Chan3, Ralph S. Baric4, Pamela J. Bjorkman5, Sarah Cobey6, Benjamin E. Deverman3, David N. Fisman7, Ravindra Gupta8, Akiko Iwasaki9,2, Marc Lipsitch10, Ruslan Medzhitov9,2, Richard A. Neher11, Rasmus Nielsen12, Nick Patterson13, Tim Stearns14, Erik van Nimwegen11, Michael Worobey15, David A. Relman16,17,*
See all authors and affiliations
Science 14 May 2021:
Vol. 372, Issue 6543, pp. 694
DOI: 10.1126/science.abj0016

science.sciencemag.org...


Although there were no findings in clear support of either a natural spillover or a lab accident, the team assessed a zoonotic spillover from an intermediate host as “likely to very likely,” and a laboratory incident as “extremely unlikely” [(4), p. 9]. Furthermore, the two theories were not given balanced consideration. Only 4 of the 313 pages of the report and its annexes addressed the possibility of a laboratory accident (4). Notably, WHO Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus commented that the report's consideration of evidence supporting a laboratory accident was insufficient and offered to provide additional resources to fully evaluate the possibility (5).

As scientists with relevant expertise, we agree with the WHO director-general (5), the United States and 13 other countries (6), and the European Union (7) that greater clarity about the origins of this pandemic is necessary and feasible to achieve. We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data. A proper investigation should be transparent, objective, data-driven, inclusive of broad expertise, subject to independent oversight, and responsibly managed to minimize the impact of conflicts of interest.


If you missed it, “ Only 4 of the 313 pages of the report and its annexes addressed the possibility of a laboratory accident (4). ”

++++++ So, you agree more study of the origins of covid-19 is needed with an open mind for all possibilities? +++++


I never really denied the slim possibility that it came from a lab, but you are denying the way every other pathogen has ever happened, before.

The way it has always happened before, is really quite likely.

Ockhams razor, et al...

edit on 9/6/2021 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2021 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

You


but you are denying the way every other pathogen has ever happened, before.


Quote where I posted such a thing. False argument by you by putting words to me that I never posted.

So…

Despite all the “investigations” state the “ natural ancestor"?

You are still ignoring the immorality of the Peter Daszak inspired letter.


It later turned out that the Lancet letter had been organized and drafted by Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York. Daszak’s organization funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. If the SARS2 virus had indeed escaped from research he funded, Daszak would be potentially culpable. This acute conflict of interest was not declared to the Lancet’s readers. To the contrary, the letter concluded, “We declare no competing interests.”

thebulletin.org...




You didn’t answer. So, you agree more study of the origins of covid-19 is needed with an open mind for all possibilities?
edit on 9-6-2021 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Jun, 13 2021 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: chr0naut

You


but you are denying the way every other pathogen has ever happened, before.


Quote where I posted such a thing. False argument by you by putting words to me that I never posted.


Post you write just a few back. Third paragraph.

That is a denial of the fact that there is the unequivocal and evidence of the way every pathogen, ever, in all of history, has come about.

And because we didn't happen to see it happen doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means we haven't seen it. Because we don't, and can't, see and know everything.


So…

Despite all the “investigations” state the “ natural ancestor"?

You are still ignoring the immorality of the Peter Daszak inspired letter.


It later turned out that the Lancet letter had been organized and drafted by Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York. Daszak’s organization funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. If the SARS2 virus had indeed escaped from research he funded, Daszak would be potentially culpable. This acute conflict of interest was not declared to the Lancet’s readers. To the contrary, the letter concluded, “We declare no competing interests.”

thebulletin.org...




You didn’t answer. So, you agree more study of the origins of covid-19 is needed with an open mind for all possibilities?


You are assuming that the research was 'gain of function' despite the absence of any evidence to the fact and the denials of all involved.

Research into what is happening in nature, isn't 'gain of function' research, in that the function change is not human initiated in a lab.

To have a BSL 4 lab and to not test to find out if there was a pathogen dangerous to humans in existence in nature, is an enourmous waste of research effort and money.

So far, everything in the research seems to be looking at emergent existing viruses, and seeing if they posed a threat to humans.

Have you read any of the research papers that you claim were the 'gain of function' research? Surely you realize that there were papers and research results? That is what happens when researchers do research - they write up their results.

So, if the virus already existed outside of the lab, having arisen by natural methods, like every other pathogen, then Peter Daszak could not be held responsible for the bug, but would have been one of the few trying to protect people from it.

It's interesting the number of those who have done nothing, could do nothing, would do nothing to stop COVID-19, but who are first to point the finger of blame. Those people are to blame for inhibiting the reasonable and sensible protective responses.

Other than unauthenticated doom porn, and a lot of misinformed assumptions, all you have is slander.



posted on Jun, 13 2021 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: SouthernForkway26
a reply to: chr0naut
Covid19 won't be found in an animal because it isn't there. The ancestor of Covid19 will be and it is already known it is likely from a bat. We know of a bat coronavirus that is at least 98% similar. Researchers have added the gain of function to that virus to speed up its evolution. It evolved (artificially) several times in the lab to become what is now known as Covid19. It apparently infected some researchers, and was unstoppable because of the lab-engineered features designed for high rate of human transmission.

This is dangerous, unessesary work. These lab viruses have the potential to be much worse than a natural one. Even the most secure labs in the world can and will leak more viruses in the future. Computer AI modeling will be the safest and most accurate method of forecasting viral mutations in the near future.


So, you are suggesting that a virus that doesn't infect bats, came from bats?

If there was recent zoonotic transfer at all (I am saying that there wasn't), it must have come through cats, or ferrets, or civets. Consider that we have multiple Coronaviruses that infect us, and are usually benign. We call them 'colds'. Perhaps SARS-nCoV-2 came from one of those unidentified cold viruses that had been infecting humans periodically for centuries?

But you are so zoned-in on the Wuhan lab being the source, that you are ignoring the science.

It is more likely that the ancestor virus came from a cat, ferret or civet and that it arose the specific features that infect humans so specifically, rose in humans. A coronavirus that doesn't infect bats so well, doesn't survive in those species. So they simply don't carry it in any sorts of numbers. So there's that.

For a zoonotic transfer, a virus would need to infect both the source and target species. Even if the virus was not deadly in either species yet, the virus must infect the species for them to carry it and it must infect both species.

It is far more likely that the virus was benign in humans and mutated to become dangerous. Humans are the source of the virus and the zoonotic transfer of the ancestor virus would most likely be in a domestic cat, because that is the most populous pairing of similar infective characteristics. Definitely millions of times more likely than a couple of researchers could organize in a lifetime of experiments lab by juxtaposing two organisms.


People are still dumb. After everything we know.



posted on Jun, 13 2021 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: iwanttobelieve70
Chinese mouthpieces gonna chinese mouthpiece.
On display for a loooong time now.



posted on Jun, 13 2021 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: iwanttobelieve70
Chinese mouthpieces gonna chinese mouthpiece.
On display for a loooong time now.


Stoopidz gotta stoop, too.

I'm not a mouthpiece for China, I'm trying to talk some sense.

I think that China, like many other countries, has a horrific human rights record, and I would not like them to have any say over how things are in the countries where I, or my family, live or work.

I'm a new Zealand resident, citizen of Australia, with fairly centrist political views, a history of supporting center-right parties at the ballot box, and a born-again Christian.

But that has nothing to do with the topic, or it's discussion, and this post is a response to a poster who has had no valid comment on the topic, and who tries, instead, to impugn others.

Perhaps you could enter a thread with something on-topic, rather than empty insults?

edit on 13/6/2021 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
81
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join