Origins of Covid

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

The important thing is that if the virus escaped from a Chinese lab then they are to blame for the 3.5 million deaths and global economic damage, which justifies demonizing the Chinese government while excusing our own incompetent response.

There's just one problem with that - until March 2020 the US government was funding coronavirus research in Wuhan. Trump ended funding after learning that $3.7 million had gone to the Wuhan lab, which is an admission of our own government's part in it and an attempt to distance himself from it (if the virus really did escape from the Wuhan lab - or even if it didn't!).


The conclusion is obvious - we must immediately stop all coronavirus research, particularly in countries which are likely to harbor strains that could jump to humans. This is the only way to prevent future outbreaks!

We can just stick to the science and let it lead us where the evidence goes, but when the source of this outbreak is exposed it will be used for political ends. We can only hope that those ends are more constructive than destructive.

It's not the escape....it's the delay and coverup that puts the world at risk. A bit like trying to hide Chernobyl while you try and fix it yourself all while watching a radiation cloud on the move.
When the BS-4 was announced there, (for other viruses, not even corona ones...more like Ebola level though Ebola wasnt an outbreak at the time) there were concerns about the Chinese system which had intermittent funding and inconsistent staffing, was more lax on inspections, and has a culture that is less collaborative and open and so prone to more safety concerns as any alarm moves slower up the hierarchy. That may be why there were often western universities and teams that would partner (and pay). France was first to pay for Wuhan. Later the US also paid, and not just the NIH...so did Singapore (with Duke I believe). Probably others too. If they are building it and it's a risk, what else can you do but try to be involved?

That's not something I have looked too much into so details could be wrong. Maybe our China posters can weigh in if they know a bit more. I do know the Gain of Function was stopped under Obama so some of it moved to other foreign labs. Perhaps a risk aversion with unintended consequences (though no evidence yet in this case)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng

How does the detection of early (September) sars-cov2 antibodies in Italy fit into all of this?

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ful...00891620974755

We looked at that and the problem is it was serum antibody testing, not an actual culture of the virus from a person. The antibody tests commonly have false positives.

Quote:

SARS-CoV-2 RBD-specific antibodies were detected in 111 of 959 (11.6%) individuals, starting from September 2019 (14%), with a cluster of positive cases (>30%) in the second week of February 2020 ...

What needs to happen is to test another batch of stored serum to see if the same antibodies were detectible.

Keep in mind they are talking about potentially asymptomatic infections. That is inconsistent with the COVID 19 that began in Wuhan and has spread around the world. While there are clearly asymptomatic cases, where are the severe cases in Italy in late 2019? Cases do appear after the cases in Wuhan and an individual or individuals did connect to Italy early on in the pandemic. So severe cases of COVID 19 did show up, but not as early as Sept 2019.

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

We looked at that and the problem is it was serum antibody testing, not an actual culture of the virus from a person. The antibody tests commonly have false positives.



What needs to happen is to test another batch of stored serum to see if the same antibodies were detectible.

Keep in mind they are talking about potentially asymptomatic infections. That is inconsistent with the COVID 19 that began in Wuhan and has spread around the world. While there are clearly asymptomatic cases, where are the severe cases in Italy in late 2019? Cases do appear after the cases in Wuhan and an individual or individuals did connect to Italy early on in the pandemic. So severe cases of COVID 19 did show up, but not as early as Sept 2019.

I had posted a while back about all of the flu samples China had on hand to test from their flu season- 300k samples across provinces? Maybe more.
Earlier reports said they did not retest any before December. There is no access to those samples to anyone. This should be one of the first areas looked at for the WHO team to gert good data related to origin. Did they say anything in the report about it? I have not read the whole thing (and didnt expect much from it but I could be surprised!).

[steenkh]

I don't know if it is on-topic here, but it seems related to the issues here: What is the purpose of Gain of Function research? The ViW seems to have been doing this research (among many others all over the world), and the object seems to try to enable virus to be more efficient in infecting humans, which makes the lab leak theory so scary. But what exactly is the researchers trying to gain from being better able to infect humans - when we are not talking about miliary research?

[Pixel42]

AIUI the aim was to discover the kind of mutations that might occur so we could prepare (design vaccines etc) in case they did.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

Oh yeah! I think SG gave you a pretty good overview.

Circumstantial stuff. That doesn't make much of a case.

Quote:

It starts with simply noticing some incredible coincidences of location. "Bat coronavirus pandemic starts next to the world premiere lab studying bat coronaviruses."

In an area known for bat viruses and wet markets.

Quote:

Then the wet market story turns out not to be true.

Woah, back up. Might not be true or turned out to not be true?

Quote:

Just look to the areas you think would be most convincing to you and see if you can make sense of it.

So basically you're asking me to think my way to a conclusion rather than follow hard evidence. Skepticism!

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Circumstantial stuff. That doesn't make much of a case.

In an area known for bat viruses and wet markets.

Woah, back up. Might not be true or turned out to not be true?



So basically you're asking me to think my way to a conclusion rather than follow hard evidence. Skepticism!

The area is not known for bat viruses...unless you are speaking of the lab. It isnt known for eating bats either.

Wet market as hub of first of infections was NOT true, even by China's own admission- and by earlier reports, and by the WHO report. The first (confirmed) case was a month before with no relation to a wet market. He was an office worker in his 40's.

Follow the evidence, of course. My point was that there is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that if you are interested in the science, the misdirections, the motives, lies, etc.... you can start where you like. Like the OJ trial...a lot of naysayers at the time, but a lot of different evidence to poke at. Can't eat the whole bat in one bite!

I thought you were going to read Belz instead of these sophomoric gotcha statements. Very disappointed. I await some improvement in your thread participation.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

Wet market as hub of first of infections was NOT true, even by China's own admission- and by earlier reports, and by the WHO report. The first (confirmed) case was a month before with no relation to a wet market. He was an office worker in his 40's.

I don't understand what you mean by "a month before" in relation to the market.

Quote:

My point was that there is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that if you are interested in the science, the misdirections, the motives, lies, etc.... you can start where you like.

It's your claim, not mine.

Quote:

Can't eat the whole bat in one bite!

I'd rather not, you're right.

Quote:

I thought you were going to read Belz instead of these sophomoric gotcha statements.

I'm trying to pin down exactly what the claim is and what the evidence is to begin with. Instead I get a bunch of allusions to circumstantial stuff and calls to think for myself, the latter of which I always treat with extreme suspicion.

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by Belz...

I'm trying to pin down exactly what the claim is and what the evidence is to begin with.

Well there are not many definitive claims in here. Likelihoods and possibilities- maybe a pet theory- but those can change. If you need math-like proof, it does not exist, and never will. And not just for this question.

Quote:

Instead I get a bunch of allusions to circumstantial stuff and calls to think for myself, the latter of which I always treat with extreme suspicion.

I too share this suspicion.

You need to lower expectations. I am listening to a documentary on the late bronze age right now. Can I prove it? No. Even your own eyes and ears could deceive you.

You want me to prove something about a pandemic virus in China? If I could I certainly would not be in here. I'd be negotiating deals for my superior skills.

Viruses dont walk around on microscope projections at the local disco. (but that's not a bad idea)
It's mostly inference. So yeah.... Think for yourself! Be bold!

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng

How does the detection of early (September) sars-cov2 antibodies in Italy fit into all of this?

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ful...00891620974755

False positives.

Whatever test they are using is junk.

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

False positives.

Whatever test they are using is junk.

Likely. It was also said upthread by SG (I think....she points out most of my mistakes and I made this one about super early infections)

But China doesnt miss a good propaganda opportunity!

Reuters (11/20)

Quote:

Chinese state media have cited the presence of the coronavirus on imported frozen food packaging, as well as scientific papers claiming that the coronavirus was circulating in Europe earlier than previously believed, as evidence that China may not have been its origin.

“#COVID19 did not start in central China’s Wuhan but may come through imported frozen food and packaging: experts,” said a Wednesday Facebook post by the ruling Communist Party’s official People’s Daily.

The WHO team actually went along with this- for a while.
I think it was more internal messaging - to blame foreigners for the original AND new outbreaks in China though. The world just happens to also overhear it.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

The conclusion is obvious - we must immediately stop all coronavirus research, particularly in countries which are likely to harbor strains that could jump to humans. This is the only way to prevent future outbreaks!

IF it turns out conclusively that Covid-19 occurred because of unsafe coronavirus research, then yes, that is exactly what we must do. Obviously. At least, until measures are put into place that reduce the future risk by at least several orders of magnitude compared to previous practices.

When three and a half million people die and the world's economy is thrown into turmoil for more than a year, "how dare you stand in the way of SCIENCE!" isn't a very convincing case for continuing with business as usual.

If 3,500,000 people were killed (and millions more had permanent or lasting injuries) in elevator accidents in a year, would you tag a suggestion that "maybe we should use the stairs for a while" with the same eye-rolling smilie?

[Capsid]

Originally Posted by Myriad

IF it turns out conclusively that Covid-19 occurred because of unsafe coronavirus research, then yes, that is exactly what we must do. Obviously. At least, until measures are put into place that reduce the future risk by at least several orders of magnitude compared to previous practices.

When three and a half million people die and the world's economy is thrown into turmoil for more than a year, "how dare you stand in the way of SCIENCE!" isn't a very convincing case for continuing with business as usual.

If 3,500,000 people were killed (and millions more had permanent or lasting injuries) in elevator accidents in a year, would you tag a suggestion that "maybe we should use the stairs for a while" with the same eye-rolling smilie?

But you would need to do some investigations on those very same lifts that are killing people to work out why.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

Well there are not many definitive claims in here. Likelihoods and possibilities- maybe a pet theory- but those can change. If you need math-like proof, it does not exist, and never will. And not just for this question.

Not quite that much, but something more than conjecture and circumstance would be nice.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Epidemiology of the first cases:I should point out here that there is no evidence of an outbreak preceding the Wuhan outbreak that can explain the evolution of the 2 lineages.


As I noted earlier and in contradiction to the paper claiming all/most of the case could be connected to an animal market... yeah...no.


Summary:


And the recommendations are for further study.

“The earliest know case” is a sample size of one. As such it doesn’t tell us as much as you seem to think it does. For crossover in early Nov that case is the last in a line of infected hosts some 5 people long and there are several dozen other cases that were never identified. If half the infections were occurring elsewhere by this time there is a 50% chance that a one person sample is not going to have any particular connection to the epicenter of the pandemic.

Since cases are going to more common within networks of co-workers and families we’d still expect to see a large fraction of the cases within the network the first infection occurred in. IOW workers at the market\markets are still going to be the most commonly infected people this early, even if several dozen carriers have already been walking around spreading the virus to people with no direct connection to either market.


For an early Sept crossover that chain is up to 20 people and there are potentially tens of thousands of infected people walking around. I don’t find this credible since there would be hundreds of deaths by mid Dec.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

What I found interesting was the evidence there was probably some spread of the virus before the identified cases in Wuhan. The same thing happened here in the Seattle area. Three cases were identified and researchers at Fred Hutch determined they were closely related meaning there was already a simmering epidemic here before it came to anyone's attention.

I'm not sure why that's interesting or surprising. 50% of all cases are asymptomatic, and only about 10% of cases are really serious. This means most early cases are going to be effectively untraceable even while they are spreading the virus. This is one of the major reasons why Covid-19 spread worldwide while SARS was easy to contain in comparison.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Huh? I'm trying to ascertain how certain we are about a September 2019 start time.

Did you ever get an answer to that?

I cited the studied that came up with that number yesterday. A summary of various estimates including the Septemeber estimate and otehrs can be found in a WHO report I'll name below. The September estimate is the earliest estimate in the report, so it's accepted but an outlier IMO.

I don't have a good link to share since the link I got this from was dynamic but this is the report that summarizes various estimates of the tMRCA. Table is on page 80. This is the WHO report mentioned several times over the past couple days.

WHO-convened Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2: China PartJoint WHO-China Study14January-10 February 2021Joint Report

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by steenkh

I don't know if it is on-topic here, but it seems related to the issues here: What is the purpose of Gain of Function research? The ViW seems to have been doing this research (among many others all over the world), and the object seems to try to enable virus to be more efficient in infecting humans, which makes the lab leak theory so scary. But what exactly is the researchers trying to gain from being better able to infect humans - when we are not talking about miliary research?

Unless I'm mistaking the research you are referring to, the object is to identify viruses which have the potential to jump to humans before they actually do so in order to be ready for it when it occurs.

[Skeptic Ginger]

OK, allow me to address these issues.

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

I had posted a while back about all of the flu samples China had on hand to test from their flu season- 300k samples across provinces? Maybe more.
Earlier reports said they did not retest any before December. There is no access to those samples to anyone. This should be one of the first areas looked at for the WHO team to gert good data related to origin. Did they say anything in the report about it? I have not read the whole thing (and didnt expect much from it but I could be surprised!).

The WHO Report does an extensive review of all the sentinel data collected in China in the months before the outbreak. There wasn't so much as a hint of any unusual respiratory infection activity anywhere in China until the Wuhan outbreak. There was the usual influenza and pneumonia activity as one would expect. And much of that was detected by sentinel culture sampling.

Originally Posted by lomiller

“The earliest know case” is a sample size of one. As such it doesn’t tell us as much as you seem to think it does. For crossover in early Nov that case is the last in a line of infected hosts some 5 people long and there are several dozen other cases that were never identified. If half the infections were occurring elsewhere by this time there is a 50% chance that a one person sample is not going to have any particular connection to the epicenter of the pandemic.

That's not how it works. Researchers took the data of a hundred or so genomes from patients diagnosed with COVID 19 in the months around Dec, 2019. (The details are posted in the cites upthread, the exact number of genomes investigated isn't critical to the argument.)

From those genomes multiple researchers followed the trail backward in time to the earliest cases.

The conclusion of when the first cases occurred wasn't determined from finding the earliest patient though it turns out those first cases correlate with the timeline calculated from the genetic trail.

Originally Posted by lomiller

Since cases are going to more common within networks of co-workers and families we’d still expect to see a large fraction of the cases within the network the first infection occurred in. IOW workers at the market\markets are still going to be the most commonly infected people this early, even if several dozen carriers have already been walking around spreading the virus to people with no direct connection to either market.

This kind of contact tracing wasn't done. You need to look at the evidence we have. However there was a paper by Dr Quay that noted the earliest cases clustered around the #2 mass transit line that leads from the WIV into the city. It's posted upthread.

Originally Posted by lomiller

For an early Sept crossover that chain is up to 20 people and there are potentially tens of thousands of infected people walking around. I don’t find this credible since there would be hundreds of deaths by mid Dec.

No, the genome evidence does not support this number of cases in Sept 2019.

Originally Posted by lomiller

I'm not sure why that's interesting or surprising. 50% of all cases are asymptomatic, and only about 10% of cases are really serious. This means most early cases are going to be effectively untraceable even while they are spreading the virus. This is one of the major reasons why Covid-19 spread worldwide while SARS was easy to contain in

The genetic trail is very clear and this did not happen.

Yes, mild cases are missed. But that doesn't mean we have no idea how many of these cases there were.

We know there is a consensus that two lineages turned up in Wuhan at the very beginning of the pandemic. There were clearly cases that led to these 2 lineages but there is no evidence said cases were extensive, and there is no evidence the initial cases occurred outside of Wuhan.

We do have an unanswered question: how did those 2 lineages diverge and where did they originate? It remains an unanswered question but that doesn't mean there were large numbers of cases outside of Wuhan that were all mild or asymptomatic. The genome map and all the usual surveillance of respiratory infection indicators in China show no hint of evolution outside of Wuhan.

Just like in the US, China monitors multiple indicators of the level of respiratory infection in the population. There were no spikes in mild URIs in China until the cases in Wuhan in late 2019.

Originally Posted by Belz

Circumstantial stuff. That doesn't make much of a case.

Are you talking about the Hanta virus lab accident or something else?

Originally Posted by Belz

In an area known for bat viruses and wet markets.

No, the area around Wuhan is not known for the species of bats within which coronaviruses circulate. Those occur hundreds of kilometers away in Southern China where the climate is different.

As for the wet markets, those occur all over China so cases of COVID turning up in Wuhan is still an improbable coincidence.

Originally Posted by Belz

Woah, back up. Might not be true or turned out to not be true?

What turned out to be the case and it was backed up by the WHO Report is that the initial market cluster was consistent with a super-spreader event, not the initial crossover from an animal to people. 40+% of the earliest cases (earlier than the market cluster) had no connection to any animal market.

Originally Posted by Belz

So basically you're asking me to think my way to a conclusion rather than follow hard evidence. Skepticism!

We are following the hard evidence. You don't seem to be reading any of the citations.

Originally Posted by Belz

Not quite that much, but something more than conjecture and circumstance would be nice.

It's absurd to discount the pages and pages of evidence cited in this thread as "conjecture and circumstance". It's pretty clear you aren't interested in the evidence, preferring instead to dismiss the lab accident hypothesis out of hand.

Originally Posted by RY

I cited the studied that came up with that number yesterday. A summary of various estimates including the Septemeber estimate and otehrs can be found in a WHO report I'll name below. The September estimate is the earliest estimate in the report, so it's accepted but an outlier IMO.

The range is from Sept to early Dec. That Sept is the earliest date in the range still leaves us with enough time for an accident to occur before the government took the WIV data offline. That is the important piece in the timeline.

Even if the earliest known cases were in Nov, there are still the two lineages to resolve. That adds enough time to the estimate of the first case to have occurred around the same time as the government took the data offline.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Unless I'm mistaking the research you are referring to, the object is to identify viruses which have the potential to jump to humans before they actually do so in order to be ready for it when it occurs.

How did that work out then? Did they accomplish their goal?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Are you talking about the Hanta virus lab accident or something else?

I've not specified, have I? I'm talking about the responses to my challenge.

Quote:

No, the area around Wuhan is not known for the species of bats within which coronaviruses circulate. Those occur hundreds of kilometers away in Southern China where the climate is different.

Noted.

Quote:

As for the wet markets, those occur all over China so cases of COVID turning up in Wuhan is still an improbable coincidence.

How so? How do you calculate it to be improbable (and no, I'm not asking for math here)?

Quote:

We are following the hard evidence.

That's odd; I was told there was no hard evidence. Can you confer and come back with a consistent answer?

Quote:

It's absurd to discount the pages and pages of evidence cited in this thread as "conjecture and circumstance". It's pretty clear you aren't interested in the evidence, preferring instead to dismiss the lab accident hypothesis out of hand.

There's nothing absurd about it, and you can't dismiss me that easily. You've not shown that it came from a lab, full stop.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Belz...

How so? How do you calculate it to be improbable (and no, I'm not asking for math here)?

Of all the gin joints in China, the virus walked into this one.

How many cities with wet markets do you think are in China?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_China
There are a gazillion cities. And Wuhan has more than 9 million people.

What kind of odds would you give the pandemic starting not only in a city of 9+ million, but turning up in 2 lineages both near the WIV where they were studying pathogenic coronaviruses?

Originally Posted by Belz...

That's odd; I was told there was no hard evidence. Can you confer and come back with a consistent answer?

You were told????

Originally Posted by Belz...

There's nothing absurd about it, and you can't dismiss me that easily. You've not shown that it came from a lab, full stop.

No one has claimed we have definitively shown that. No one has shown it came from an animal spillover event either. After more than a year of searching, no animal reservoir has been found.

I'm not sure how to address your seemingly different expectation from this thread than is actually in the thread.


We are trying to look at all the evidence for all the viable hypotheses. Despite efforts by many to dismiss it, moving higher and higher on the differential is the lab accident hypothesis.

Has it been ruled in? No, of course not. Who gave you the impression this thread was completed and conclusively shown it was a lab spillover?

IMO: Next down the list is a direct bat to human spillover event outside of the lab. That one is hard to reconcile with the location of the outbreak. However, it is very possible researchers from the WIV went to the bat caves and returned to Wuhan with the infection. That might explain the 2 lineages if 2 researchers returned infected from 2 different bats from the same colony. And a team of university students traveling to Yunann might not have been officially recognized.

The argument against this is there has been no outbreak in Yunnan since the three cave workers were infected, and, the collected coronaviruses from the cave don't match perfectly with COVID 19. The virus was changed somewhere and gain of function research with live cultures in the WIV would explain how and where that happened.


Third up is some sort of intermediary animal spillover from the markets. It would involve a location outside of Wuhan where the animals were shipped from. I really don't find this very plausible given no intermediary animal has been identified in well over a year of looking. And given 40+% of the first detected cases had no exposure to any wet market.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

What kind of odds would you give the pandemic starting not only in a city of 9+ million, but turning up in 2 lineages both near the WIV where they were studying pathogenic coronaviruses?

I don't know, you tell me.

Quote:

You were told????

Yes. I must admit that I shouldn't trust your claims as far as I could throw you, but there you have it.

Quote:

No one has claimed we have definitively shown that.

You're the one who said we had hard evidence, but then your main argument above is entirely circumstantial. So it seems like your objection to me calling it circumstantial was, at best, misguided.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Belz...

I don't know, you tell me.

I did already, it's incredibly low odds.

Quote:

Yes. I must admit that I shouldn't trust your claims as far as I could throw you, but there you have it.

So you can quote me where I said we definitely know the lab is the source? I don't think so.

Quote:

You're the one who said we had hard evidence, but then your main argument above is entirely circumstantial. So it seems like your objection to me calling it circumstantial was, at best, misguided.

We do have hard evidence, lots of it.

You seem to be conflating hard evidence with proof.

The patient genome work is hard evidence.

The genomes of coronaviruses compared to the genome and lineages of the COVID 19 are hard evidence.

Much of the work going on at the WIV has been documented with hard evidence such as papers written by the researchers before the pandemic. That includes hard evidence of which cultures they were working with, we have lots of that evidence.


And so on.

[Monica 56]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

None of this belongs in this thread. First it is unsupportable and second it belongs in the CT forum.

Interesting opinion but not right if we prefer to seek full facts .

Let's look at the Maryland to Chapel Hill to Wuhan life chain and relate that to the topic title and the likelihood that enhanced values translates to deliberate and engineered weaponisation .
This habit of relegating matters that you cannot or will not address to CT is cowardly.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I did already, it's incredibly low odds.

Sorry, you claiming that the odds are low means nothing.

Quote:

So you can quote me where I said we definitely know the lab is the source? I don't think so.

Sorry, I blame the English language. You, plural.

Quote:

We do have hard evidence, lots of it.

Then why did you start with circumstantial evidence and kept on that until this post?

Quote:

You seem to be conflating hard evidence with proof.

In all your years on this forum you still haven't learned what "proof" means?

Quote:

The genomes of coronaviruses compared to the genome and lineages of the COVID 19 are hard evidence.

That is still circumstantial. You need to link one with the other.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Sorry, you claiming that the odds are low means nothing.

Because you can't do the math yourself?

Originally Posted by Belz...

Then why did you start with circumstantial evidence and kept on that until this post?

Originally Posted by Belz...

In all your years on this forum you still haven't learned what "proof" means?

Originally Posted by Belz...

That is still circumstantial. You need to link one with the other.

This reply is too far out there. When you get back to reality maybe try again.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Because you can't do the math yourself?

What math? Do you expect me to believe that you did any math on this? It's your opinion that it's unlikely. And I may agree, but that doesn't mean much. Thousands of unlikely things happen every day. All this means is that your suggestion is possible, even perhaps probable.

Quote:

What? It's a perfectly cromulent question. If you have hard evidence, why did you start with the weaker circumstancial evidence in response to my request? Have you no answer to that? Is it because you have no clue what constitutes hard evidence and what constitutes circumstantial evidence?

Quote:

"Proof" is either used in mathematics, or colloquially in everyday conversation as a synonym for "evidence". So if you're making a distinction between "evidence" and "proof", then you should be using the mathematical definition, which means nothing in this context. Since you probably are also not using this definition, it means that you're using a personal definition i.e. you don't understand what the word means. Which is surprising, given how often we've discussed this here with various woo-woos.

Quote:

This reply is too far out there. When you get back to reality maybe try again.

You really don't understand what any of those terms mean, do you? In fact, you are not aggressively ignorant, using smileys and "talk to the hand" antics to avoid admitting it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Belz...

What math? Do you expect me to believe that you did any math on this? It's your opinion that it's unlikely. And I may agree, but that doesn't mean much. Thousands of unlikely things happen every day. All this means is that your suggestion is possible, even perhaps probable.

I can't help you if you don't see how extremely unlikely it is that the pandemic started near where the WIV was studying coronaviruses. Maybe someone else can explain it.

Originally Posted by Belz...

What? It's a perfectly cromulent question. If you have hard evidence, why did you start with the weaker circumstancial evidence in response to my request? Have you no answer to that? Is it because you have no clue what constitutes hard evidence and what constitutes circumstantial evidence?

Start when? I started at the beginning of this thread when it was moved out of the general COVID science discussion. I don't even know what circumstantial evidence you are talking about. I truly cannot understand your train of thought but it is waaay out there from the discussion in the thread.

You are ignoring a wealth of evidence. Again, maybe someone else can explain it to you.

Originally Posted by Belz...

"Proof" is either used in mathematics, or colloquially in everyday conversation as a synonym for "evidence". So if you're making a distinction between "evidence" and "proof", then you should be using the mathematical definition, which means nothing in this context. Since you probably are also not using this definition, it means that you're using a personal definition i.e. you don't understand what the word means. Which is surprising, given how often we've discussed this here with various woo-woos.

You don't seem to think 'hard' scientific evidence exists in this discussion unless it is conclusive that the lab is the source.

Originally Posted by Belz...

You really don't understand what any of those terms mean, do you? In fact, you are not aggressively ignorant, using smileys and "talk to the hand" antics to avoid admitting it.

When you stop and rethink your posts here, let me know. In the meantime I honestly don't know what your problem is except to attack me.

I've summarized the evidence, I spelled the evidence out, I cited multiple sources of the evidence as have other people having a normal conversation here. I noted the limitation of the evidence for any hypothesis.


You are not making any sense. Seriously!

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Monica 56

See previous .
Look at emerging hard evidence and don't simply adopt a Compliant Gullible stance , probably being hypnotised by MSM led fake news .

On a priori grounds a virus mutates every time its programming hits a difficulty . In that context a vaccine is the equivalent of a nuclear explosion .

That's still ********. (And you should probably learn what 'a priori' means.)

Mutations don't occur because a genome "hits a difficulty". That's not how evolution works. Vaccines don't even kill the virus - they mimic the virus so that the immune system can make antibodies against things with those protein structures, without all the respiratory issues, organ failure and whatnot that can come from an infection when the immune system has no previous exposure to a virus. Then the immune system has a record of the antibodies that will kill the virus should it later be exposed to it, so it can kill it before it overwhelms the host.

You're either making stuff up, or more likely parroting it from somewhere else. But trying to pad your sentences out with Latin phrases used in the wrong context isn't going to fool many people here.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Moving on: Covid: Biden orders intelligence report on virus origin

Quote:

Authorities linked early Covid cases to a seafood market in Wuhan, and scientists believed the virus first passed to humans from animals.

But recent US media reports suggest growing evidence the virus could instead have emerged from a laboratory in China.

Beijing has condemned the reports and suggested it could have come from a US laboratory instead.

Nothing new there.

Quote:

the Biden administration has conceded the American intelligence community is split on Covid-19's origins - it could be the lab or animal-to-human contact - and no-one is near certain about it.

That marks a big shift from the derision heaped on the lab theory by many in the media and politics last year, when Donald Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Senator Tom Cotton and others floated the idea.

IOW Dump made it impossible to trust any version of events.

Quote:

"Here is their current position: 'While two elements in the IC leans toward the former scenario and one leans more toward the latter - each with low or moderate confidence - the majority of elements do not believe there is sufficient information to assess one to be more likely than the other.'"

The tide has shifted:

Quote:

Anthony Fauci, President Biden's chief medical adviser, has maintained he believes the virus was passed from animals to humans, though he conceded this month he was no longer confident Covid-19 had developed naturally. ...

The laboratory leak allegations were widely dismissed last year as a fringe conspiracy theory, after then-President Donald Trump said Covid-19 had originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Many US media outlets described such claims as debunked or false.

And of course Dump wants credit regardless:

Quote:

On Tuesday, Mr Trump sought to take credit in an emailed statement to the New York Post. "To me it was obvious from the beginning but I was badly criticised, as usual," he said. "Now they are all saying: 'He was right.'"

I wish we could shut Dump up. If he keeps it up half the planet's population won't believe whatever the actual evidence shows.


This is not helpful: Politico: Facebook lifts ban on posts claiming Covid-19 was man-made as Wuhan theories surge

Quote:

hifting definitions on social media: Facebook announced in February it had expanded the list of misleading health claims that it would remove from its platforms to include those asserting that "COVID-19 is man-made or manufactured." The tech giant has updated its policies against false and misleading coronavirus information, including its running list of debunked claims, over the course of the pandemic in consultation with global health officials.

But a Facebook spokesperson said Wednesday that the origin language had been stricken from that list due to the renewed debate about the virus’ roots.

They must not have any knowledgeable scientists in their decision making group because this says they don't understand how most of us are defining "manmade".

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Did you ever get an answer to that?

I cited the studied that came up with that number yesterday. A summary of various estimates including the Septemeber estimate and otehrs can be found in a WHO report I'll name below. The September estimate is the earliest estimate in the report, so it's accepted but an outlier IMO.

I don't have a good link to share since the link I got this from was dynamic but this is the report that summarizes various estimates of the tMRCA. Table is on page 80. This is the WHO report mentioned several times over the past couple days.

WHO-convened Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2: China PartJoint WHO-China Study14January-10 February 2021Joint Report

Thanks, yes, I am now aware of the study that looked at this. It was by Bai et. al. I take it this is quite an early paper in the pandemic.

Skeptic Ginger claimed that Andersen had said two lineages had been found in Wuhan in Sept 2019. When I asked for this to be supported, she assumed bad motives on my part.

Yes, there are several papers on the topic and SG is choosing the one that best fits her narrative.

That's fine, because I can understand why someone might say, "Look, the Chinese took down a database in September - suspiciously close to the outbreak. Could it be that that was the time a pathogen was known to have escaped so they took it down in anticipation of the pandemic?"

But.... it also seems to make the Chinese actions incoherent. Why would they simultaneously take down a database and then apparently make NO EFFORT whatsoever to contain a leaked virus INSTEAD of going into emergency measures?

We now know what happened with the pathogen, but they couldn't have known that at the time.

Also, something like a public database seems like the type of thing that virologists or infectious disease experts around the world would have copies of. Are these copies not availablle?

It has been claimed that GeneBank (?) has also got almost all of this information as well.

The claim, though, is that there were some viruses which were not yet on the Genebank records, but were on the database. But again, I would come back to the question of why the Chinese government thought:

1) A pathogen has escaped.
2) It will be a pandemic
3) Scrub the public records! (Hope no one has a copy...fingers crossed)
4) Just deny all knowledge
5) Hope it all blows over

Maybe this database will show that they had the virus and they knew full well they did.

OR

Maybe the database is like the Area 51 (bound to contain the secret) OR like Wilikleaks (when these cables come out we'll see the whole 9/11 plot!) OR like the Zapruder film (when we see the video it will defo show the shot came from the front...oops! It doesn't so it must have been altered...etc...)

Anyway, I have no idea. I tend to think some of the lab leak "evidence" is a bit forced. The database stuff, for example. But I am definitely open to the possibility that it could have come from the lab somehow.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I can't help you if you don't see how extremely unlikely it is that the pandemic started near where the WIV was studying coronaviruses. Maybe someone else can explain it.

Did you even read what you responded to? I agreed that it's unlikely. The problem is that you are incapable of going beyond that.

Quote:

You are ignoring a wealth of evidence.

I don't think you and I agree on what "wealth" means.

Quote:

You don't seem to think 'hard' scientific evidence exists in this discussion unless it is conclusive that the lab is the source.

Excluded middle fallacy.

Quote:

When you stop and rethink your posts here, let me know.

Likewise.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Thanks, yes, I am now aware of the study that looked at this. It was by Bai et. al. I take it this is quite an early paper in the pandemic.

Skeptic Ginger claimed that Andersen had said two lineages had been found in Wuhan in Sept 2019. When I asked for this to be supported, she assumed bad motives on my part.

Yes, there are several papers on the topic and SG is choosing the one that best fits her narrative.

I didn't "choose" anything. The information on the Sept actions of the Chinese government came up after I had read the Andersen work. It was challenged that the Sept actions couldn't have been in response to a lab accident because the pandemic started later.

I remembered reading the estimate about the Sept date for the earliest cases. And it was Andersen.

Note to thread readers, myself and others have been asked repeatedly to go back and spoon feed something we already cited/posted to someone who didn't read it at the time. Maybe some of us don't feel we are obligated to do this every time it is asked. It doesn't mean we have not backed up our claims with citations!

I read it. There were 2 lineages initially (confirmed) and the range of the initial cases does include Sept. (confirmed). So unless you think I made it up to "fit my narrative" and just magically knew ahead of time that my "narrative" would be corroborated, you really need to stop making false claims about what I've read and what I've posted.


Time to move on. If you don't think it is possible the actions of the government taking WIV data offline is related then you need to make that case.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

That's fine, because I can understand why someone might say, "Look, the Chinese took down a database in September - suspiciously close to the outbreak. Could it be that that was the time a pathogen was known to have escaped so they took it down in anticipation of the pandemic?"

Yes, it is absolutely within the range of possibilities.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

But.... it also seems to make the Chinese actions incoherent. Why would they simultaneously take down a database and then apparently make NO EFFORT whatsoever to contain a leaked virus INSTEAD of going into emergency measures?

How do you know they made no effort to contain the outbreak? Maybe they thought they had. They did not have tests available at the time to find mild cases. They might have had no idea there were mild cases or to what extent they existed.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

We now know what happened with the pathogen, but they couldn't have known that at the time.

Which is not relevant because all that is needed was an alert the accident had happened and that there might be a problem.

Why would that not be enough to act on?

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Also, something like a public database seems like the type of thing that virologists or infectious disease experts around the world would have copies of. Are these copies not availablle?

It has been claimed that GeneBank (?) has also got almost all of this information as well.

We have that information thanks to the DRASTIC team. I've posted it twice now. I'll post it again.

If you guys are really interested in this topic, how about taking an interest in the posted evidence?

Originally Posted by angrysoba

The claim, though, is that there were some viruses which were not yet on the Genebank records, but were on the database.

That is not the claim. Again, look at the facts because we do have them. They took down data related to research being done at the WIV.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

But again, I would come back to the question of why the Chinese government thought:

1) A pathogen has escaped.
2) It will be a pandemic
3) Scrub the public records! (Hope no one has a copy...fingers crossed)
4) Just deny all knowledge
5) Hope it all blows over

Maybe this database will show that they had the virus and they knew full well they did.

OR

Maybe the database is like the Area 51 (bound to contain the secret) OR like Wilikleaks (when these cables come out we'll see the whole 9/11 plot!) OR like the Zapruder film (when we see the video it will defo show the shot came from the front...oops! It doesn't so it must have been altered...etc...)

Anyway, I have no idea. I tend to think some of the lab leak "evidence" is a bit forced. The database stuff, for example. But I am definitely open to the possibility that it could have come from the lab somehow.

There's no reason for this Area 51 crap except to point out that you have not read the posted citations so you are drawing conclusions with a large missing data set.


On to the DRASTIC citation for the 3rd (at least) time: An investigation into the WIV databases that were taken offline

Quote:

Abstract
On the 12th Sep 2019, the main database of samples and viral sequences of the Wuhan Institute of Virology went offline. Eventually every single of the 16 virus databases managed by the WIV was taken offline. Here we show how these databases may provide essential clues at to the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and review the circumstances in which they were taken offline....

Objectives:
- List all the DBs that were taken offline
- Explain their significance
- Back it up with screenshots and proofs of deletion

The doc is 26 pages and very carefully laid out so please take the time to look at this citation before you continue on with your false conclusions about this data.

On page 20 the data is entered in a chart format so you can see it at a glance. The columns are: # (1 to 15); name; description; URI /URL; Status (all are offline); Issuing agency; Contact

From the last page:

Quote:

2.d Zoom: Access Interruption:
The portals and all the databases are inaccessible. The machine is there but not serving any web-page at any of the relevant addresses.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

...That's not how it works. Researchers took the data of a hundred or so genomes from patients diagnosed with COVID 19 in the months around Dec, 2019. ...

Correction, the actual number of full genomes was 27 plus some smaller segments.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Capsid

But you would need to do some investigations on those very same lifts that are killing people to work out why.

Well, we certainly know more about coronaviruses than we did in late 2019. So, um, research mission accomplished? Good job everyone? Let's do more gain-of-function studies in insufficiently bio-safe facilities so we'll learn even more?

Nope. IF (remember this is all hypothetical as there's insufficient evidence at present to conclude any specific source for Covid-19) this was an accidental lab release, there damn well better be some big changes going forward.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Correction...

My correction is that you are certain the virus escaped from the lab.

You've made 28 of the past 100 posts in the thread trying to convince everyone the virus came from the Wuhan lab. You pay lip service to the fact that there is still both insufficient evidence to be certain of anything, and that we have evidence from an actual virologist that it's unlikely to have been created in a lab.

You're obsessed with the idea that it's a Chinese conspiracy, and the silliest part of that is, so what where it came from?

What are going to do, sue China? Get them to reanimate the 10 million dead? Pay compensation to long Covid sufferers?

Try waiting for actual evidence before trying to convince everyone your "theory" is right. Then it might be worth a few posts.

[Puppycow]

I recently started watching this podcast again. Just started on this one, but since it is relevant to the topic here, I thought I'd share it for anyone interested.

I may or may not have comments on it after I get through it all:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I recently started watching this podcast again. Just started on this one, but since it is relevant to the topic here, I thought I'd share it for anyone interested.

I may or may not have comments on it after I get through it all:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Wow! I was waiting for this one.

I guess this has only gone up a few hours ago.

TWiV with Peter Daszak and Marion Koopmans...

I know what I am doing for the next 90 minutes.

Thanks for this!

[Capsid]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

But it hasn't escaped my notice that you haven't attempted to defend your claim that a genome mutates because it "hits a difficulty". You seem ignorant of the basic fact that vaccines don't attack a virus. They stimulate the host's immune system to produce antibodies capable of attacking the virus.

You also haven't provided a source for the quote in your recent post. Where are you acquiring this information? Did you find it yourself, or merely copy and paste it from someone else?

I feel sorry for all those bats that get infected with SARS-related viruses from vaccinated bats.

Reading that back, it may not make sense. It's in response to the claim that vaccines cause mutations. Mutations occur in the absence of vaccines all the time and continuously as we can see with the evolution of beta coronaviruses in bats.

[angrysoba]

This might be an interesting part:

On the question of evidence of transmission before Dec 2019:

https://youtu.be/d7kRxmEgzbQ?t=1338

They agree that there probably had been transmission prior to Dec 2019.

The interesting thing is that some lab leakers are trying to have it both ways. They argue

Premise 1: that there was probably transmission going as far back as Sept 2019 (after all, that's when the WIV took down the database, right?).

But then they also

Premise 2: try to rule out the market as the centre of the outbreak - "No, the first case in early Dec 2019 had no contact with the market. And 40% had no contact with the market!"

Therefore, it started in the WIV.

But of course, if we accept premise 1, then we negate premise 2.

The mere fact that the first known case had no contact with the market merely means that it wasn't the first case.

The non-lab leakers clearly have no problem with that part because they agree about multiple lineages predating the "first case". Therefore the markets are back in play.

++++++
There could have been direct spillover from a bat without an intermediary.

https://youtu.be/d7kRxmEgzbQ?t=2413
++++++

Cold-chain theory:

https://youtu.be/d7kRxmEgzbQ?t=2683

I get the impression that none of them think it is a good idea, and even if not true then not explanatory from where it comes from initially.

They give some explanation about why it is not crazy, but they think it is unlikely.

+++++++

The elephant in the room: Fourth scenario: lab leak

https://youtu.be/d7kRxmEgzbQ?t=3000


Marion says she asked why they took the database offline and says she was satisfied with the answer. Hmmmm...I didn't hear what the reason she said was.

Daszak also says he asks why they took down the database. Though he doesn't say what they answered.

+++++

Daszak says that if there is solid leads on people being sick then they should share it.

https://youtu.be/d7kRxmEgzbQ?t=3657

Apparently there is nothing but vague hearsay right now.