Origins of Covid

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by lomiller

A Lab leak still requires the virus to have been studied in a lab and for it's animal host to have been identified and brought to a lab. If this were the case we'd expect it to be relatively easy to find the animal host and for there to be data on the virus in existing research.

The explanation we are being given for why there is no data, no samples and no host identified is that there is a conspiracy to purge any related research from the record. At this point ANY lab-leak must have a conspiracy component to explain why there is no record of this virus ever being in a lab.

The WIV employees and students have made trips to the bat caves in Yunnan Province to collect specimens. This is well documented and pics have been posted of them collecting the specimens.

They claim they didn't collect any live bats but evidence has been posted in this thread that they indeed did.

Regardless of the live bats, research has been reported on (again there are links in this thread) where coronavirus was cultured in cells at the WIV.

At what point do you supposed the cultured coronavirus no longer resembles the direct samples initially collected?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by lomiller

The fact that China was studying a known pandemic risk tells us nothing, nor does the fact that the risk turned out to be real.

I'm not making sense of your point or you argument, can you clarify?

You seem to be saying that since we know WIV is a potential source of coronaviruses that it can't be the source of Covid and that doesn't make sense. I'm not getting what you think you're arguing against or arguing for here.

At this point it seems perfectly reasonable to be looking at WIV as the source of the virus. Do you agree with that?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Lets play spot the moving goalposts. There is NO evidence for work with Covid-19 at WIV nor anyplace else in the world.

OF COURSE the WIV has done work with coronaviruses. China has 1 BSL-4 lab dealing with human diseases and China is a hotspot for potential Corona virus jumps to humans. The possibility of a coronavirus in China jumping from animal to humans and causing a pandemic has been recognised for at least 2 decades. This work is central to the very existence of the WIV.

China was going to be researching it and that research was going to be conducted un Wuhan. The fact that China was studying a known pandemic risk tells us nothing, nor does the fact that the risk turned out to be real.

No one is moving any goal posts.

You want to dismiss an awful lot of evidence with the wave of your hand claiming, 'yes but they weren't looking at COVID 19'. Well d'uh.

Once again it is claimed in this thread that the source of the pandemic has not been specifically tied to the lab. But it hasn't been specifically tied to a natural (ie not in the lab) crossover either! It's not yet determined where it first emerged. Neither hypothesis has been confirmed. Why are you dismissing one of the 2 hypotheses when neither has been confirmed?

Not quite 2 decades. SARS emerged in 2003. It was after that interest was sparked to look at the coronaviruses circulating in bats in the Yunnan caves.

Why do you believe that the fact the WIV was studying the very thing that became a pandemic in 2019 tells you nothing. The problem is not that the research was being done (that they were studying live virus notwithstanding), the problem is of all the potential places in China, the pandemic began, not where the bats were, but 1,200 kilometers away where the WIV was.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

I'm not making sense of your point or you argument, can you clarify?

You seem to be saying that since we know WIV is a potential source of coronaviruses that it can't be the source of Covid and that doesn't make sense. I'm not getting what you think you're arguing against or arguing for here.

The fact that coronaviruses are studied there does not help narrow down the source of the virus. It was 100% guaranteed to be studying corona viruses so the fact that it was tells us nothing new

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

At this point it seems perfectly reasonable to be looking at WIV as the source of the virus. Do you agree with that?

It was suggested that the fact they study Coronaviruses WIV is evidence for a leak, but this isn't the case. The mere fact that something is possible doesn't mean the evidence will back it up nor does it mean we don't discard the hypothesis when evidence fails to come forward.

Eg 300 years ago it was "possible" that there was a large unknown hominid wandering around western North America. At least it was possible enough to justify some investigation. As evidence failed to come forward supporting the hypothesis it was discarded by most reasonable people.

"It's possible" isn't evidence and should not be treated as such.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Once again it is claimed in this thread that the source of the pandemic has not been specifically tied to the lab. But it hasn't been specifically tied to a natural (ie not in the lab) crossover either! It's not yet determined where it first emerged. Neither hypothesis has been confirmed. Why are you dismissing one of the 2 hypotheses when neither has been confirmed?

2 theories are not equal just on the basis of "not being confirmed".

One hypothesis is simple, common in nature and consistent will all the know facts. The other is more complex incredibly rare in comparison to the number of zoonotic crossovers that occurred and requires a cover-up in order to explain why there is no data in the lab about either the host r the virus.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Not quite 2 decades. SARS emerged in 2003. It was after that interest was sparked to look at the coronaviruses circulating in bats in the Yunnan caves.

Why do you believe that the fact the WIV was studying the very thing that became a pandemic in 2019 tells you nothing. The problem is not that the research was being done (that they were studying live virus notwithstanding), the problem is of all the potential places in China, the pandemic began, not where the bats were, but 1,200 kilometers away where the WIV was.

A direct ancestor to Covid 19 has not been found in the Yunnan caves, nor has it been found in any samples or data studied at the WIV. The longer and harder you look for something and don't find it the more likely it becomes it's not there at all. A direct Covid ancestor probabaly will not be found there. Wild animal farms in SE China and other countries in SE Asia look more promising at this point and have received far less investigation.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by lomiller

The fact that coronaviruses are studied there does not help narrow down the source of the virus. It was 100% guaranteed to be studying corona viruses so the fact that it was tells us nothing new.

It's a potential source. The fact that we've known it was a potential source even before the pandemic doesn't mean it's not a potential source, correct??

WIV is potential source for the virus. Do you agree with that??

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by lomiller

The fact that coronaviruses are studied there does not help narrow down the source of the virus.

This is oddly accurate.

No, by itself it does not help "narrow things down". In fact, it adds one more place to look at (assuming you're weren't dense enough to not be looking there in the first place).

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by lomiller

2 theories are not equal just on the basis of "not being confirmed".

You're right, the lab leak theory is supported by more evidence.

Originally Posted by lomiller

One hypothesis is simple, common in nature and consistent will all the know facts. The other is more complex incredibly rare in comparison to the number of zoonotic crossovers that occurred and requires a cover-up in order to explain why there is no data in the lab about either the host r the virus.

A direct ancestor to Covid 19 has not been found in the Yunnan caves, nor has it been found in any samples or data studied at the WIV. The longer and harder you look for something and don't find it the more likely it becomes it's not there at all. A direct Covid ancestor probabaly will not be found there. Wild animal farms in SE China and other countries in SE Asia look more promising at this point and have received far less investigation.

The Telegraph: Why the Covid Wuhan lab escape theory, dead and buried months ago, has risen again

Quote:

One of the major problems with the zoonosis – bat jumping – theory was that coronavirus turned up oddly well adapted to infect the human upper respiratory tract. But if a virus had been altered to specifically infect humans it would make more sense, some argue.

A new unpublished research paper, seen by The Telegraph, shows that scientists were doing just that as early as 2008. The tests, known as "gain of function" experiments, were designed to get ahead of an emerging deadly virus.

In 2008, Dr Shi's group in Wuhan first demonstrated the ability to switch the receptor binding domains for bat and human Sars viruses, and by 2010 the Institute of Virology had embarked on "gain of function" experiments to increase the infectiousness of Sars coronavirus in humans.

By 2015, Wuhan scientists had created a highly infectious chimeric virus which targeted the human upper respiratory tract.

In 2018 and 2019, grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) in the US show that Dr Shi had applied to work on "virus infection experiments in humanised mice" using Sars coronaviruses to find out what changes could lead to a spillover event into humans.

Shortly before the first cases of coronavirus were reported, Dr Daszak gave an interview, saying the work had been going on for six or seven years, and warning that they had created "untreatable" Sars viruses which could infect humanised mice. ...

The Daszak interview is linked to in this thread.


BBC: Covid origin: Why the Wuhan lab-leak theory is being taken seriously

Quote:

A team of WHO-appointed scientists flew to Wuhan earlier this year on a mission to investigate the source of the pandemic. After spending 12 days there, which included a visit to the laboratory, the team concluded the lab-leak theory was "extremely unlikely"....

A prominent group of scientists criticised the WHO report for not taking the lab-leak theory seriously enough - it was dismissed in a few pages of a several-hundred-page report.

"We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data," the scientists wrote in Science Magazine.

And there is growing consensus among experts that the laboratory leak should be looked at more closely.

Even the WHO's own director-general, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, has called for a new investigation, saying: "All hypotheses remain open and require further study."

And Dr Fauci now says he's "not convinced" the virus originated naturally. That's a shift from a year ago, when he thought it most likely Covid had spread from animals to humans....

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

It's a potential source. The fact that we've known it was a potential source even before the pandemic doesn't mean it's not a potential source, correct??

WIV is potential source for the virus. Do you agree with that??

"It's a potential source of the virus therefor it's the source of the virus" isn't a sound logical argument. If you are going to call it a potential source then you need other independent evidence supporting it. That's the stage we're at in the discussion and thus far the supporting evidence is not just lacking, it's completely absent.

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

WIV is potential source for the virus. Do you agree with that??

At this point no I don't agree. It could have been considered one at first but the lack of supporting evidence has removed it from consideration IMO. I'd be open to new evidence, but with the evidence available this seems like an unlikely source at best.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by lomiller

"It's a potential source of the virus therefor it's the source of the virus" isn't a sound logical argument. If you are going to call it a potential source then you need other independent evidence supporting it. That's the stage we're at in the discussion and thus far the supporting evidence is not just lacking, it's completely absent. ...

Talk about confirmation bias. You just can't let go of this, can you.

From my previous post, how is this not the presence of evidence?

Quote:

In 2008, Dr Shi's group in Wuhan first demonstrated the ability to switch the receptor binding domains for bat and human Sars viruses, and by 2010 the Institute of Virology had embarked on "gain of function" experiments to increase the infectiousness of Sars coronavirus in humans.

By 2015, Wuhan scientists had created a highly infectious chimeric virus which targeted the human upper respiratory tract.

In 2018 and 2019, grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) in the US show that Dr Shi had applied to work on "virus infection experiments in humanised mice" using Sars coronaviruses to find out what changes could lead to a spillover event into humans.

Shortly before the first cases of coronavirus were reported, Dr Daszak gave an interview, saying the work had been going on for six or seven years, and warning that they had created "untreatable" Sars viruses which could infect humanised mice. ...

Can you justify your assertion there is no evidence whatsoever given the above?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by lomiller

"It's a potential source of the virus therefor it's the source of the virus" isn't a sound logical argument.

Which I didn't make.

Originally Posted by lomiller

If you are going to call it a potential source then you need other independent evidence supporting it.

No I don't. Identifying as a potential is all you have to do identify it as a potential source. WTF is the matter with you?

[Samson]

I am not sure what more evidence is needed to show that a lab manufactured virus escaped with full knowledge of the Chinese and a desperate failed cover up by locking down Wuhan.
A malign superpower has finally been exposed.


https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/cov...EEE3A3KQVULQA/

[Samson]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Utter nonsense.

There are some coincidences, but no evidence.

Christ, I hope none of the people who have decided it came from the lab ever get on a jury.

I have decided it came from a lab, indeed weeks ago this thread was awash with sufficient proof.
Great thread you started thank you.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by Samson

I am not sure what more evidence is needed to show that a lab manufactured virus escaped....

Your source doesn't show that. It's being looked in to is what your source says. Lie much? As if this thread needs more confusion.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Your source doesn't show that. It's being looked in to is what your source says. Lie much? As if this thread needs more confusion.

I don't view a source, but a deep body of evidence where a lab was designing a virus that escaped then spread.
A terrible accident and a criminal cover up that precluded timely steps to containment and international border precautions. This is an evil empire in stark view.
In my opinion.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

No I don't. Identifying as a potential is all you have to do identify it as a potential source. WTF is the matter with you?

But doesn't that require some sort of basis? I think that's what he means by evidence here.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Samson

I am not sure what more evidence is needed to show that a lab manufactured virus escaped with full knowledge of the Chinese and a desperate failed cover up by locking down Wuhan.
A malign superpower has finally been exposed.

Based on what? You've not linked to any evidence.

Quote:

I have decided it came from a lab

I have decide it's a plague sent by Nyarlathotep.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Based on what? You've not linked to any evidence.



I have decide it's a plague sent by Nyarlathotep.

Fair point but I was responding to TA ridiculing those who had decided.
The correct term is concluded.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Samson

The correct term is concluded.

No, you had the right term to begin with. If you had actual evidence, then you could conclude.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Belz...

No, you had the right term to begin with. If you had actual evidence, then you could conclude.

Fair point again, but I went to a dissertation

https://english.stackexchange.com/qu...ecide-in-ameng

I now think decide is wrong usage in any context in the debate.
It is also true to say that I can only conclude it was an escape from the lab if I am factually correct.
I believe that proof of one or other will be available when the Chinese cooperate fully.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Previous lab accidents have been mentioned in this thread. There was a reference to the 1977 H1N1 flu pandemic coming from a lab release and that caught my attention. Looking into it I found this report which lays out multiple cases in detail, what went wrong and what happened because of it. These are only a sample of the cases the report outlines.

Remember, this report was written 6 years ago long before the current COVID pandemic.

2015 National Post: A brief, terrifying history of viruses escaping from labs: 70s Chinese pandemic was a lab mistake

Quote:

The public health danger posed by potentially pandemic-causing viruses escaping from laboratories has become the subject of considerable discussion, spurred by “gain of function” experiments. The ostensible goal of these experiments—in which researchers manipulate already-dangerous pathogens to create or increase communicability among humans—is to develop tools to monitor the natural emergence of pandemic strains. Opponents, however, warn in a variety of recent research papers that the risk of laboratory escape of these high-consequence pathogens far outweighs any potential advance. ...

... If a pathogen appears in nature after not circulating for years or decades, it may be assumed to have escaped from a laboratory where it had been stored inert for many years, accumulating no genetic changes—that is, its natural evolution had been frozen.

... Human H1N1 influenza virus appeared with the 1918 global pandemic and persisted, slowly accumulating small genetic changes, until 1957, when it appeared to go extinct after the H2N2 pandemic virus appeared. ....

Human H1N1 virus reappeared in 1977, in the Soviet Union and China. Virologists, using serologic and early genetic tests, soon began to suggest the cause of the reappearance was a laboratory escape of a 1949-50 virus, and as genomic techniques advanced, it became clear that this was true. ...

The 1977 pandemic spread rapidly worldwide but was limited to those under 20 years of age: Older persons were immune from exposures before 1957. Its attack rate was high (20 to 70 percent) in schools and military camps, but mercifully it caused mild disease, and fatalities were few. It continued to circulate until 2009, when the pH1N1 virus replaced it. There has been virtually no public awareness of the 1977 H1N1 pandemic and its laboratory origins, despite the clear analogy to current concern about a potential H5N1 or H7N9 avian influenza pandemic and “gain of function” experiments.

H5N1 influenza has yet to cause a pandemic. It continues to simmer.


Smallpox has escaped from labs more than once. Here is one of the cases discussed in the report:

Quote:

The first recognized laboratory escape, in March 1972, occurred with the infection of a laboratory assistant at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. She had observed the harvesting of live smallpox virus from eggs used as a growing medium; the process was performed on an uncontained lab table, as was then routine. She was hospitalized, but before she was placed in isolation, she infected two visitors to a patient in an adjacent bed, both of whom died. They in turn infected a nurse, who survived, as did the laboratory assistant.

VEE (Venezuelan equine encephalitis):

Quote:

Genomic analysis identified the 1995 virus as identical to a 1963 isolate, with no indication it had been circulating for 28 years. It was another case of frozen evolution, but unlike the vaccine-related VEE outbreaks, the 1963 virus had never been used in a vaccine. Suspicion fell on an inadvertent release from a virology lab, either by an unrecognized infection of a lab worker or visitor, or escape of an infected laboratory animal or mosquito. The major scientific group working on VEE published a paper in 2001 stating the 1995 outbreak most likely was a laboratory escape, with considerable circumstantial evidence:

SARS accidents have been mentioned upthread:

Quote:

SARS has not re-emerged naturally, but there have been six escapes from virology labs: one each in Singapore and Taiwan, and four separate escapes at the same laboratory in Beijing....

In April 2004, China reported a case of SARS in a nurse who had cared for a researcher at the Chinese National Institute of Virology. ...

Not sure but it sounds like the infected researcher went undiagnosed until the nurse became infected.

Quote:

Subsequent investigation uncovered three unrelated laboratory infections in different researchers at the NIV. At least of two primary patients had never worked with live SARS virus. Many shortcomings in biosecurity were found at the NIV, and the specific cause of the outbreak was traced to an inadequately inactivated preparation of SARS virus that was used in general (that is, not biosecure) laboratory areas

You think the current government in China is going to admit, oops they did it again? They want to maintain an image of being a modern country rivaling any in the West.


In the main COVID discussion thread the FMD (foot and mouth disease) outbreaks in the UK were discussed.

Quote:

In 2007, FMD appeared again in Britain, 4 kilometers from a biosafety level 4 laboratory—a designation indicating the highest level of lab security—located at Pirbright. The strain had caused a 1967 outbreak in the United Kingdom but was not then circulating in animals anywhere. It was, however, used in vaccine manufacture at the Pirbright facility.

Investigations concluded that construction vehicles had carried mud contaminated with FMD from a defective wastewater line at Pirbright to the first farm. ...

The report sums up the risk these labs and researchers are taking:

Quote:

It is hardly reassuring that, despite stepwise technical improvements in containment facilities and increased policy demands for rigorous biosecurity procedures in the handling of dangerous pathogens, potentially high-consequence breaches of biocontainment occur nearly daily: In 2010, 244 unintended releases of bioweapon candidate “select agents” were reported....

Will we ever learn this lesson?

Quote:

Experiments that augment virulence and transmissibility of dangerous pathogens have been funded and performed, notably with the H5N1 avian influenza virus. The advisability of performing such experiments at all—particularly in laboratories placed at universities in heavily populated urban areas, where potentially exposed laboratory personnel are in daily contact with a multitude of susceptible and unaware citizens—is clearly in question.

If such manipulations should be allowed, it would seem prudent to conduct them in isolated laboratories where personnel are sequestered from the general public and must undergo a period of exit quarantine before re-entering civilian life. The historical record tells us it is not a matter of if but when ignoring such measures will cost health and even lives. Perhaps many lives.

Clearly no precautions like that were taken at the WIV.


If people find it not credible this was another lab accident, maybe this report will cause them to think again. Try describing why, if it has happened this many times before, there's no way it happened here.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Samson

Fair point again, but I went to a dissertation

And I went to a summer camp, one time.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Belz...

...You've not linked to any evidence. ...

Could you describe short of finding the actual answer (animal jump or lab accident) just what it is you would consider as evidence?

And maybe address post #730 while you are at it.


I have no problem with folks who have not made up their minds or believe the natural spillover event is a stronger hypothesis.

But this frequent repeating there is no evidence at all when there clearly is a lot of evidence really needs to either stop or folks need to address specifically why they think the evidence posted here is "no evidence".

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Could you describe short of finding the actual answer (animal jump or lab accident) just what it is you would consider as evidence?

Edited by xjx388:

<SNIP> Rule 12

Quote:

And maybe address post #730 while you are at it.

Sorry, I don't address mere assertions.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Now you are calling a citation an assertion.

You guys have dug your heels in so deep ... or is that a hole you've dug too deep to get out of?

Maybe boxed in is a better description?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Now you are calling a citation an assertion.

You guys have dug your heels in so deep ... or is that a hole you've dug too deep to get out of?

Maybe boxed in is a better description?

Edited by xjx388:

<SNIP>Edit Rule 12

You sent me to the wrong post. As for the BBC article, what exactly do you want me to address? As usual you stay as vague as possible.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by Belz...

But doesn't that require some sort of basis? I think that's what he means by evidence here.

Then WTF is the matter with you? Of course it has a basis. It's a place where coronaviruses are routinely searched and studied. WTF are you thinking?

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Samson

I am not sure what more evidence is needed to show that a lab manufactured virus escaped with full knowledge of the Chinese and a desperate failed cover up by locking down Wuhan.

I thought you understood what evidence was, so if you'd like to point me to a single piece of evidence that says it escaped from the lab, I'll look at it.

The parallel between the lab theory and Saddam's WMD is quite remarkable, especially with the involvement of "intelligence" agencies.

We should totally trust them, right?

Originally Posted by Samson

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/cov...EEE3A3KQVULQA/

Contains no evidence. Opinion from right-wing media I can find anytime.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Insider from 5-26-21: A lab leak in Wuhan versus a natural hop from bats: Evidence for each theory of the coronavirus pandemic's origin

To summarize, these are the headings, see the article for the details.


First the lab leak evidence:

Quote:

The Wuhan Institute of Virology was researching coronaviruses before the pandemic

WHO investigators couldn't conduct a full audit of the labs

WIV staff members got sick with 'COVID-like' symptoms in November 2019

The coronavirus [COVID 19] is easily transmissible among humans

Lab leaks happen, and US intelligence suggested the WIV had poor safety protocol

The wildlife farms where the virus might have emerged are 1,000 miles from Wuhan

The animal-spillover theory evidence:

Quote:

The WHO concluded that an animal-to-human hop is 'most likely'

SARS-CoV-2 shares 97% of its genetic code with other coronaviruses found in bats

Three-quarters of infectious diseases come from natural spillover

I have posted more evidence but this post is about the Insider article.

[angrysoba]

Looks like there are some more podcasts about the origins of SARS-CoV-2.
One of them is about the evolution of the virus here:

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

And one of them has just been released. An interview with Robert Garry.

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

I haven't watched them yet, but I expect some people will be interested in watching them, so I put them here.

Some people will demand to know why I posted these videos if I haven't watched them, so please look at the sentence above where I explained that already (Sheesh!).

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's 3 and a half hours of video. Any chance there is a transcript somewhere?

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

That's 3 and a half hours of video. Any chance there is a transcript somewhere?

I don't think so. I'm going to listen to it while I do other things. If something jumps out I will post a link to it.

[angrysoba]

Well, the one with Garry, they pretty much get down to talking about the question of whether or not it was either:

a) manufactured/tweeked (through GoF) in a lab

OR

b) simply escaped from the lab

https://youtu.be/IxwrDSYrhjU?t=785

Basically Garry argues

a) If we take the Gain of Function hypothesis for the manufactured virus, he says there seems no way to go from RaTG13 to Covid through gain of function. He thinks it is simply not credible.

b) "escaped" from the lab? There is no evidence that they had the virus.

Beyond that, the methods by which the cover-up can be concealed involves more and more people to an implausible amount (presumably he would say that and the TWiV people would say that, as they are all part of it, along with Daszak, Shi, Fauci..etc...)

....
So the next question is about the sick workers

https://youtu.be/IxwrDSYrhjU?t=1471

Garry finds this implausible as well.
Is the intelligence trustworthy?
If there were three workers hospitalized, it would suggest a very large outbreak at the institute. But he says serology tests came back negative (if you can trust that information, but it points to another assumption that the coverup must be even bigger, if true).

They think about other forms in which the "lab leak" theory could be sustained such as the idea of a researcher going into the field, getting a mild case, bringing it back to Wuhan then infecting people....

...but if we stretch it that far, as one of the people on the podcast says, that would not even be a lab leak theory any more, because we are just talking about someone interacting with it in the wild.

[angrysoba]

They talk about the early lineages and divergence.

https://youtu.be/IxwrDSYrhjU?t=1998

They seem to think the earliest dates for the emergence of the virus is mid-October.

This would rule out the idea that the database was taken down in response to a leak.

[Hlafordlaes]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You're right, the lab leak theory is supported by more evidence. The Telegraph: Why the Covid Wuhan lab escape theory, dead and buried months ago, has risen againThe Daszak interview is linked to in this thread.

BBC: Covid origin: Why the Wuhan lab-leak theory is being taken seriously

I see lots of in-your-endo in both articles, zip-all in terms of facts. Let us make one thing clear to Islamists, Van Gelicals, GOP zombies and loose thinkers the world over: "Reason" is not, has never been, and will never constitute factual evidence, no matter the sophistry, "clear pointers", or "must be so's". Also, if someone hits a tree while drunk driving 10x and then hits a tree again, there is no evidence drunk driving was involved in the last incident until there is.

Could the virus have been designed? Possible. Fine, the notion may be entertained and examined. So far, no evidence.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Then WTF is the matter with you?

Dude, why are you mad at me? I'm just pointing out, in the context of your discussion with lomiller, that "basis" probably shouldn't be just "well, it could be there". Bare possibility doesn't mean much, even if it seems likely. Some sort of evidence would help at least select the potential sources.

Quote:

WTF are you thinking?

Do you need a vacation or something? Calm the hell down.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Insider from 5-26-21: A lab leak in Wuhan versus a natural hop from bats: Evidence for each theory of the coronavirus pandemic's origin

To summarize, these are the headings, see the article for the details.


First the lab leak evidence:

Quote:

The Wuhan Institute of Virology was researching coronaviruses before the pandemic

WHO investigators couldn't conduct a full audit of the labs

WIV staff members got sick with 'COVID-like' symptoms in November 2019

The coronavirus [COVID 19] is easily transmissible among humans

Lab leaks happen, and US intelligence suggested the WIV had poor safety protocol

The wildlife farms where the virus might have emerged are 1,000 miles from Wuhan

Wait just a minute.

"WHO investigators couldn't conduct a full audit of the labs"? How is that evidence for the leak? "The coronavirus [COVID 19] is easily transmissible among humans"? Isn't that true regardless of source? "Lab leaks happen"? Yeah sure, but we're not talking about bare possibility, here.

It almost sounds as if someone wanted more points on the leak side.

[JesseCuster]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

First the lab leak evidence:

Quote:

The coronavirus [COVID 19] is easily transmissible among humans

I'm confused. How is the fact that COVID-19 is easily transmissible between humans evidence in favour of the lab leak hypothesis?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by JesseCuster

I'm confused. How is the fact that COVID-19 is easily transmissible between humans evidence in favour of the lab leak hypothesis?

Because it got that capability unusually quickly (I'm taking experts word on this point) so it raises the question of whether this virus was a product of gain of function research.

I'm not an expert on this but I also have to wonder why, if the virus was so contagious in it's original form when it jumped species, then why haven't there been more jumps?

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Belz...

How is that evidence for the leak?

It's not.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I'm sticking with that plan until there's some...

Evidence!