• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Cont: Origins of Covid (2)

Sorry I haven't gotten back to this sooner:

Really? That's not what I remember him saying.
Unfortunately the written version of the article is behind a paywall and I can't re-listen now. Maybe later.

I guess if "biased" means that he has an opinion on the matter, and presents facts and arguments to support that opinion, then you are correct.

Again, I seem to remember his saying the opposite. That lab leaks have occurred and therefore it is not an implausible possibility. (He was more dismissive about the idea that it was engineered to be a bioweapon.)

"Never once" said that he might be biased toward spillover hypothesis? I thought he suggested precisely that possibility. :confused:

Has anyone else listened? Because it seems like I heard something different from SG.
I quoted from the interview. Those blatantly biased words were Quammen's, not an interpretation by someone else. That's why they are in quotes.

Here's an interview transcript with Quammen from Oct 2022. Keep in mind the guy wrote a book called "Spillover". It's unlikely he has a completely open mind about the COVID origin.

Unraveling the Causes of the Pandemic, and Preparing for the Next
David Quammen was one of the first science writers to report on the spillover of viruses from wildlife to humans. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, he talks about what scientists now know – and don’t know – about what caused the Covid-19 pandemic and why it matters.

BY NICOLA JONES • OCTOBER 19, 2022
[Jones] ... Is there a final consensus?

David Quammen: There is a consensus among experts that it came almost certainly from a wild animal, most likely a horseshoe bat from somewhere in southern or Central China, and spilled over into humans, possibly by way of an intermediate animal.
I agree with this. But it's when "possibly" becomes "probably" that objectivity wanes.


And that's where Quammen goes next.
There are still people arguing what I call the “nefarious origins” school of thought, which encompasses the idea that it’s an intentionally engineered virus, or that it was a virus manipulated for scientific reasons in lab, or that it was a wild virus brought into the lab and cultured and that accidentally escaped. ...
Nefarious? Not every lab accident scenario is nefarious. Nefarious is of course framing that sets up people who don't agree with a natural spillover origin as CTers.

... Do we know, absolutely, that this was not the result of a lab leak? I’d say we know with 98 or 99 percent probability
No we don't know with that level of certainty. There are too many issues with the spillover origin in this case.


This part is easily demonstrated to be flawed, biased thinking:
[Quammen] And there is no evidence whatsoever that this virus existed in any viral lab that works on coronaviruses.
Sure but the same can be said for evidence of SARS CoV2 anywhere in any animal species. Yes, one can speculate, there are all the bits and pieces of SARS CoV2 circulating in the wild. And the virus is known to sometimes replicate via recombinant events. But such a resulting recombinant virus has to go on to establish a replicating colony. Otherwise we'd see a gazillion different lineages of coronaviruses with none of them establishing a clade of any kind.


It seems this is Quammen's idea of what happened:
Quammen: It does seem a remarkable coincidence. But it’s not, if you understand that viruses circulate from animal to animal all the time. If you put a whole lot of animals of different species together in a wet market — meaning live animals for sale as food stacked in wire cages on top of one another — it is just the ideal situation for the transmission of viruses from one animal to another and from animals into people. It most likely was not just one animal that was carrying a coronavirus like this. It was a virus that was being shared among animals, probably across species boundaries. And those various different animals were all coming in contact with humans. And that makes it seem very plausible that it would spill over twice.
And yet no such circulating coronavirus precursor has been found. His suggestion is that somehow there were recombinant events going on willynilly in the market animals developing a SARS CoV2 that then spread to a human.

There is no evidence of this whatsoever. None. Where is the evidence of any recombinant coronaviruses developing within market stalls or even in the wild animal farms some of the market animals came from?
You can find a number of recombinant events in colonies of horseshoe bats in one or two caves in Yunnan, China and in some caves in Laos. But these are not SARS-like CoVs in multiple species recombining all the time in the wild. Yes a single gene segment here and there might be involved in a cross species recombinant event. The majority of the events are within species.


Quammen goes on to describe how a single spillover event leads to a pandemic. It happens of course. But in this case there are plot holes, several of them. Mainly why can this precursor virus not be found? Yes, it only needed to happen once. But a lab accident only needed to happen once as well. So why is one scenario so much more likely than another?


If you've been immersed for decades of your life looking at spillovers, you see a spillover. If like me you've been immersed for decades of your life looking at occupational safety, lab safety, occupational infection hazards, and so on, you do not so easily dismiss a lab origin hypothesis. You look at the evidence for both scenarios.


It wasn't found circulating in humans outside of Wuhan before the Dec 2019 Wuhan cases.

You have Daszak saying on camera at almost the same time as the first cases began occurring in Wuhan that coronaviruses were easily manipulated in the lab and they were doing so to find a universal vaccine before a spillover event occurred. There was a grant proposal to the same effect in 2018 that while denied didn't mean it was the only source of funding for this project.

Did Quammen mention Daszak's interview or the grant proposal? I don't think so.


Here like others those excusing why the animal source of COVID has not been found Quammen conflates finding the natural reservoir with finding the intermediary source species:
So when people say, “Oh, if this had come from a wild animal, we would have found it by now,” they really just don’t know what they’re talking about.

The intermediary species SARS jumped from the market to humans was found within months and SARS was found circulating in civet cats in multiple market locations. Camels were suspected early on when MERS appeared in people. Here we have a virus, SARS CoV2, that readily infects other species yet no circulating SARS CoV2 can be found in any animal species including humans before the human outbreak in Wuhan. No closely related viruses have been found despite extensive searching.
Think about that for a minute. I call it the immaculate infection. SARS CoV2 began abruptly in humans in Wuhan China very close to the WIV which was doing intensive research on SARS-like (or related) CoVs. The research had the intended goal of developing a universal vaccine before a natural spillover of this dangerous virus occurred.


Quammen did note this:
Quammen: There’s a ton of evidence. It began early on, when some person who was sick with this virus had a Pomeranian dog and the dog tested positive. A German Shepherd in Hong Kong also tested positive. And then very quickly, a cat in Belgium; a cat in France; tigers at the Bronx Zoo in New York; snow leopards at a zoo in Louisville; gorillas at a zoo in San Diego. Mink all across Europe now seem to be infected with this virus. White-tailed deer in Iowa, in Pennsylvania, in Michigan are testing positive at high rates. There may soon be evidence that it has gotten into mice in the wild. We should not be surprised if we hear that.

So there has been a passage of this virus into all kinds of animals. And that means that it can also pass from them back into us.
No question of this evidence. But there is one big fat problem and that is the timeline. All of these cases he mentions occurred after the virus entered the human population in Wuhan. There were some tragic news accounts of people in China being rounded up and placed in isolation 'camps' or apartments. Meanwhile other Chinese security or military went into their homes and killed their pets. In one case a dog was beaten to death on the pet owner's security camera, the poor man watched his dog being beaten to death.


Sorry, I digress because when I go over this stuff again I get upset.


Back to Quammen's spillover biases. Of course you didn't notice when you listened to the podcast. That's how biased narrative framing works.

This post is too long already. I'll see what else is in the 2022 transcript in a bit.
 
I quoted from the interview. Those blatantly biased words were Quammen's, not an interpretation by someone else. That's why they are in quotes.

Why do you do this?

You didn't "quote" from an interview in your reply to Puppycow. You made it sound as though you had listened to the podcast. On the other hand, I quoted from the article that the podcast was essentially an audio version of and proved your claims about what Quammen said were wrong. No mention of his own biases? WRONG! Barely anything about lab leaks? WRONG!

The interview that you NOW quote from was from October 2022, and it says nothing about bias. The podcast you say you listened to was from August 20th, 2023. It shows that he has clearly been talking to people who are worth listening to on the possibility of lab leak such as Jesse Bloom.


Back to Quammen's spillover biases. Of course you didn't notice when you listened to the podcast. That's how biased narrative framing works.
This post is too long already. I'll see what else is in the 2022 transcript in a bit.


This is also WRONG! Puppycow didn't say he didn't notice Quammen's biases (or priors, in Quammen's words). Puppycow said that Quammen was up front about his biases (or priors, in Quammen's words). He specifically referenced them and acknowledged them. He pointed out that his "priors" were for spillover because that is what his career was spent researching.

You are the one who is constantly trying frame a message by repeating the same formulations over and over again. Maybe you think that is a good strategy but it looks heavy-handed and grating, not to mention hypocritical.
 
NO doubt from now on, whenever you mention Quammen, it will be "The biased David Quammen and his outdated Spillover" a la Trump.

ABF, Always Be Framing in the post-truth world.
 
This part is easily demonstrated to be flawed, biased thinking:

Sure but the same can be said for evidence of SARS CoV2 anywhere in any animal species. Yes, one can speculate, there are all the bits and pieces of SARS CoV2 circulating in the wild. And the virus is known to sometimes replicate via recombinant events. But such a resulting recombinant virus has to go on to establish a replicating colony. Otherwise we'd see a gazillion different lineages of coronaviruses with none of them establishing a clade of any kind.

No such "colony has ever been found for SARS, AIDS, Ebola, the 1918 spanish flu, etc yet no one is claiming this is "evidence" that these are lab leaks not zoonotic crossover

It seems this is Quammen's idea of what happened:
And yet no such circulating coronavirus precursor has been found. His suggestion is that somehow there were recombinant events going on willynilly in the market animals developing a SARS CoV2 that then spread to a human.

Literally no on thinks the recombination event that created SARS-CoV-2 happened in the Wuhan Fish market.

You also keep ignoring the fact that the reason there is minimal data on animal infections in the market is because the CCP ordered the incineration of all animals in the market before any samples could be taken. Later, when environmental data emerged that could link animals to the CCP immediately tried to suppress it.

WRT evidence China is trying to cover something up, this is stronger than any "evidence" for a lab leak. The very last thing CCP officials want is for scientists to conclude their negligence in allowing such live animal markets to exist caused the pandemic.
 
Last edited:
In case some of you haven't noticed, this thread is not about what you understood me to have said or not said, it is about the evidence for COVID's origin.
 
In case some of you haven't noticed, this thread is not about what you understood me to have said or not said, it is about the evidence for COVID's origin.


It would indeed be nice if this thread could spend more of its time discussing evidence instead of refuting what you misunderstood others to have said or not said.
 
If one addressed the evidence there would be no need to address my posts. If, OTOH, certain people are intimidated by my posts and want to discredit me instead, well post away.

Just don't expect an answer. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
If one addressed the evidence there would be no need to address my posts. If, OTOH, certain people are intimidated by my posts and want to discredit me instead, well post away.

Just don't expect an answer. :rolleyes:

Post the evidence. Just don’t distort the evidence or continually make factual errors and sling insults or of course you will get pushback.

Nobody is “intimidated” by you. I have reposed directly to your ad hominem attacks such as suggesting I have a disability or lack reading skills or can’t use Goggle. It is in fact infuriating to read your obnoxious insults so of course I will respond. If you don’t want to be the subject of the thread then stop being obnoxious. It is easy for most people to do.
 
Post the evidence. Just don’t distort the evidence or continually make factual errors and sling insults or of course you will get pushback.

Nobody is “intimidated” by you. I have reposed directly to your ad hominem attacks such as suggesting I have a disability or lack reading skills or can’t use Goggle. It is in fact infuriating to read your obnoxious insults so of course I will respond. If you don’t want to be the subject of the thread then stop being obnoxious. It is easy for most people to do.

Don't see anything here about the evidence, just more addressing annoying little me. If all you say is true then if you ignore me and address the evidence, it would solve the problem.

You could start by looking at Quammen's interview I linked to.
 
Don't see anything here about the evidence, just more addressing annoying little me. If all you say is true then if you ignore me and address the evidence, it would solve the problem.

You could start by looking at Quammen's interview I linked to.

Why read an outdated irrelevant interview from October 2022 when you could be correcting your misunderstanding of the podcast of 2023. Once we can agree on a correct interpretation we can move on. But you won’t because your whole tactic in this discussion is to misrepresent then play the victim when your mistakes are pointed out (of course there first need to be pages and pages of your doubling and tripling down on your errors and pretending that you don’t know full well you have been caught in the act of fabricating evidence and inventing claims).
 
The 2022 interview wasn't out of date. The transcript of the 2023 podcast was in the NYTs, behind a paywall for me and Puppycow. Quammen said much the same thing last year as he says in the podcast.


Your snark proves my point, BTW, trying to make this discussion about me instead of about the evidence. IMO if the evidence for a spillover was stronger you wouldn't need to discuss me.
 
Last edited:
If one addressed the evidence there would be no need to address my posts.
When someone tells lies about what others have said, or persists in making stupidly false statements about evidence (such as saying a cable sent in 2018 is evidence for something that allegedly happened in 2019, or saying an article that was last updated two years ago had been updated just "yesterday"), then we will address those attempts to lie, to distort, or to distract from the evidence.

Don't see anything here about the evidence, just more addressing annoying little me. If all you say is true then if you ignore me and address the evidence, it would solve the problem.
To ignore lies, distortions, and stupidly false assertions would not solve the problem created by those who lie, distort, and make stupidly false assertions.
 
"Lies, distortions and false assertions"? :rolleyes:

What are you so angry about? You prove my point as well, you want to talk about me and not about the origin evidence. If you could address the evidence you would, but you aren't so that suggests you can't.

Take the source of the three ill workers that was reported in the State Department Fact Sheet. I said it began with a cable from the embassy to the State Dept. That was wrong. :eek: Oh the horror!

It didn't change the fact it was in the State Department Fact Sheet. It didn't change the fact the WSJ reported on it which was unfortunately behind a paywall. It didn't change the fact other news sources picked up on the story. It didn't change the fact the 3 workers were named in the media.

Then we had Ben Hu who denied he was ever ill back in Nov. And the most recent US Intel report that found the story was all over the map.

And we had Shi (and China) still refusing to share the raw data of the employee tests for COVID antibodies.

There is so much worth discussing there. Or maybe there is no more to say at the moment that hasn't already been said. Yet you spent a significant amount of time hunting down if I ever had a source the initial report was in an embassy cable*, something most trivial about the evidence lab workers at the WIV were ill with COVID symptoms in Nov 2019.

Ding ding ding ding ding, Ginger made a mistake!!!!!! She thought the initial source was from an embassy cable. Wow!!!!!!!! That's so important relative to this discussion. And she repeated that mistake! OMG!!!! :eye-poppi

Does my making that minor mistake mean the WSJ must have been wrong? *In my defense there were cables from the embassy about how unsafe the WIV lab was. Apparently that fact wasn't important, my faulty memory and refusing to hunt through the thread for that one citation was.

How about the State Department Fact Sheet, does my minor error recalling the report was from a cable make the State Dept wrong? Fact Sheet: Activity at the Wuhan Institute of Virology; FACT SHEET; OFFICE OF THE SPOKESPERSON; JANUARY 15, 2021
The U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses. This raises questions about the credibility of WIV senior researcher Shi Zhengli’s public claim that there was “zero infection” among the WIV’s staff and students of SARS-CoV-2 or SARS-related viruses.


Does that nullify this NBC report? U.S. intel report identified 3 Wuhan lab researchers who fell ill in November 2019


How about this Reuter's report? Wuhan lab staff sought hospital care before COVID-19 outbreak disclosed - WSJ Anything worth discussing there?


Of course not. Stop the presses Ginger made a mistake. Oh but what about everything spillover proponents want me to cite again and again that was already posted? If anyone wants me to repeat a citation I already posted, they can go first. Cite some refuting evidence we can actually discuss.


I am taking a break from addressing all the personal attacks by proxy in this thread. It's clear to me people doing it don't have any rebuttal arguments supporting the spillover origin or refuting the lab origin evidence.

It's difficult to stand one's ground when one is right but there is a wall of opposition. I am confident there is not a strong case for a spillover origin no matter the media is snookered by a bombardment of a few scientists named Steve* promoting the spillover as practically a given. There are cracks in the case and some researchers are still keeping an open mind.

*If you don't know the 'scientists named Steve' joke ask someone who has been here longer. ;)
 
This is a great time to take a short break from our unending focus upon scientific evidence. Just kick back, shoot the breeze, have a meta-discussion about how we can all work together to make sure no one feels intimidated.

"Lies, distortions and false assertions"? :rolleyes:

What are you so angry about? You prove my point as well, you want to talk about me and not about the origin evidence. If you could address the evidence you would, but you aren't so that suggests you can't.
That must be my problem.

Take the source of the three ill workers that was reported in the State Department Fact Sheet. I said it began with a cable from the embassy to the State Dept. That was wrong. :eek: Oh the horror!
Thank you for acknowledging your error so graciously.

It didn't change the fact it was in the State Department Fact Sheet. It didn't change the fact the WSJ reported on it which was unfortunately behind a paywall.
Yeah, those commies at WSJ will do anything to prevent ISF sleuths from uncovering the cover-up.

It didn't change the fact other news sources picked up on the story. It didn't change the fact the 3 workers were named in the media.
Without a free press, we'd never have known that, somewhere in the world, three people got sick sometime in 2019.

Then we had Ben Hu who denied he was ever ill back in Nov. And the most recent US Intel report that found the story was all over the map.
Ben who?

Are you talking about one of the guys who was not named by the ODNI as one of "several WIV researchers" who "fell mildly ill in Fall 2019" and "experienced a range of symptoms consistent with colds or allergies with accompanying symptoms typically not associated with COVID-19"? Some of whom "were confirmed to have been sick with other illnesses unrelated to COVID-19"?

And when you say "the most recent US Intel report that found the story was all over the map", might you be referring to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence's report in June 2023 (for the horologically challenged: that was two months ago) that says the intelligence community "continues to assess that this information neither supports nor refutes either hypothesis of the pandemic's origins"?

And we had Shi (and China) still refusing to share the raw data of the employee tests for COVID antibodies.
Are you referring to the employees that, "According to the World Health Organization's March 2021 public report", are said by "WIV officials including Shi Zhengli" to have "all tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies"?

There is so much worth discussing there. Or maybe there is no more to say at the moment that hasn't already been said. Yet you spent a significant amount of time hunting down if I ever had a source the initial report was in an embassy cable*,
Are you referring to the fact that I didn't spend any significant amount of time hunting that down until (as documented by the quotations in this link) you had spent almost a month and a half ignoring requests for a source that might be a little more plausible than a cable that was sent the year before the alleged incident is alleged to have occurred, insisting all the while that you had already provided the source?

Yeah, you got me there. I probably should have spent a lot more time on that a lot sooner than I did.

something most trivial about the evidence lab workers at the WIV were ill with COVID symptoms in Nov 2019.
It was so trivial that someone gaslighted us about it for that month and half.

Ding ding ding ding ding, Ginger made a mistake!!!!!! She thought the initial source was from an embassy cable. Wow!!!!!!!! That's so important relative to this discussion. And she repeated that mistake! OMG!!!! :eye-poppi
Thank you for acknowledging your mistake so graciously.

Does my making that minor mistake mean the WSJ must have been wrong?
No, that is probably not the reason WSJ got anything wrong. (For the horologically challenged: The WSJ could not have gotten its story from Skeptic Ginger's mistake because the WSJ story was published before Skeptic Ginger embarked upon that month and a half of gaslighting.)

*In my defense there were cables from the embassy about how unsafe the WIV lab was. Apparently that fact wasn't important, my faulty memory and refusing to hunt through the thread for that one citation was.
Thank you for this gracious acknowledgement of your fallibility and refusal to expend effort that might provide evidence for your claim instead of gaslighting.

How about the State Department Fact Sheet, does my minor error recalling the report was from a cable make the State Dept wrong? Fact Sheet: Activity at the Wuhan Institute of Virology; FACT SHEET; OFFICE OF THE SPOKESPERSON; JANUARY 15, 2021
I very much doubt whether any of your errors are to blame for any errors in that fact sheet. (For the horologically challenged: That fact sheet is dated January 15, 2021, which was more than two and a half years ago, so it could not have been influenced by Skeptic Ginger's error of 17 June 2023, no matter how often that error was repeated during the subsequent month and a half.)

No. That NBC report appears to be an example of responsible journalism. A less responsible report might not have warned that "the evidence is far from conclusive."

I would say, however, that the ODNI report of June 2023 (from which I quoted earlier) is more up to date and more nuanced than the original WSJ report.

How about this Reuter's report? Wuhan lab staff sought hospital care before COVID-19 outbreak disclosed - WSJ Anything worth discussing there?
Probably not, because that's just another fourth-hand news report based on the same WSJ article, so it too has been superseded by the ODNI report of two months ago.

Of course not. Stop the presses Ginger made a mistake.
Thank you for yet another gracious acknowledgement of your fallibility.

Oh but what about everything spillover proponents want me to cite again and again that was already posted?
Is this an oblique reference to the month and a half in which you insisted you had already posted evidence you had never actually posted?

Or should we take it as a more general reference to all of the occasions on which you insisted you had already posted evidence but had never actually posted that evidence?

I am taking a break from addressing all the personal attacks by proxy in this thread.
That might be for the best.

It's clear to me people doing it don't have any rebuttal arguments supporting the spillover origin or refuting the lab origin evidence.

It's difficult to stand one's ground when one is right but there is a wall of opposition. I am confident there is not a strong case for a spillover origin no matter the media is snookered by a bombardment of a few scientists named Steve* promoting the spillover as practically a given. There are cracks in the case and some researchers are still keeping an open mind.
Confidence can be a good thing.

Keeping an open mind can be a good thing.

Those two good things are not always in conflict.
 
"Lies, distortions and false assertions"? :rolleyes:
*In my defense there were cables from the embassy about how unsafe the WIV lab was. Apparently that fact wasn't important, my faulty memory and refusing to hunt through the thread for that one citation was.

How about the State Department Fact Sheet, does my minor error recalling the report was from a cable make the State Dept wrong? Fact Sheet: Activity at the Wuhan Institute of Virology; FACT SHEET; OFFICE OF THE SPOKESPERSON; JANUARY 15, 2021

What does the cable actually say?
First thing to note was that this was in relation to the opening of the BSL4 laboratory at WIV.

“its current productivity is limited by a shortage of the highly trained technicians and investigators required to safely operate a BSL-4 laboratory”

It does not report that the laboratory was unsafe. It reports that there was a shortage of trained staff, not surprising given that this was China's first BSL4 laboratory and had just opened, it recommended that the US support training of Chinese scientists and technicians. That this shortage of staff meant that the laboratory was less productive than it could be.

https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/WIV-State-July-production-excerpt.pdf

Andersen, a specialist in biosecurity, was working in the WIV BSL4 laboratory upto December 2019. She says she observed no unsafe activity in the BSL4 laboratory. She also reports that there was no outbreak of illness in staff at WIV and in particular none involving Shi's group. She also notes that on returning to Australia she tested serologically negative for SARS-CoV-2 infection, similarly to other scientists who had worked at the WIV as reported to WHO.

I do not know why you are fixated on Ben Hu. He is a data scientist who did not work with live viruses. he denies being ill. There is no good source for the claim he was ill. The same source that claimed Hu was ill also claimed that another scientist who had previously worked at WIV was one of the three who became ill in November 2019. However, she had left WIV and had been working in Beijing in 2019.
 
The forum’s been down a couple of days, but I would like to echo W.D Clinger’s thanks and words in praise for Skeptic Ginger’s acknowledgment of her error.

I think it is important, when assessing evidence, that we put the correct value of reliability on it. And in the case of the alleged sick workers from WIV, we should acknowledge that it is vague in the extreme and that we have no reliable source for it. Should that change I and Clinger will surely be more than willing to reassess the claim. Until then it is probably not worth making.
 
Interesting article about the Australian virologist who was the first person to publish the sequence of covid. Apologies if Holmes has already been mentioned in this thread.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/...-the-origins-of-covid-19-20230906-p5e2jq.html

Among the public, virologist Eddie Holmes is perhaps best known for his strident and repeated argument SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, did not come from a lab.

“There’s no evidence in any of the science. There’s absolutely nothing,” he said last year. “The siren has definitely sounded on the lab leak theory.”

He has refused to appear before the Republican kangaroo court, and good on him. The Australian Academy of Science has backed him against accusations he was pressured or bribed to change his position.

It is easy to sow doubt – to take sentences from here and there in email streams and compare early thinking with later conclusions – and presume any change is due to some unspecified pressure rather than a change in the weight or direction of evidence, or even argument,” the academy’s letter reads, noting similar tactics were used by the tobacco industry to attack evidence about the harms of smoking.
 
Resources mentioned:
SARS, Plague, Smallpox, and Ebola: Previous viruses that Wendy Orange has researched and written about.
Biological Weapons: A focus area of Wendy's work.
Vincent Roccaniello: A virologist mentioned in the discussion about virus transmissibility.
Aron Fouchier and Nishihiro Okawa: Scientists referenced in relation to research on virus adaptation and transmissibility.
Michael Warabi: A scientist whose work on virus origin tracing is discussed.
Alison Young: Investigative reporter mentioned in relation to lab leak theories.
Dr. Fauci: Referenced in the context of email communications regarding virus origins.
Emily Kump: A writer with a viewpoint supporting the lab leak theory.
Igor Domoradze: A scientist with whom Wendy worked closely, mentioned in the context of virus engineering.
Dr. Parr: A scientist who co-authored a study on virus lineages.

Looking for something specific? Here you go!
00:04:41 Origin of virus still uncertain.
00:09:56 No takeaway.
00:13:04 Origin of virus still uncertain.
00:16:23 Lab leak theory debunked.
00:24:11 Lab leak theory lacks evidence.
00:24:50 Lab-origin of virus unlikely.
00:33:14 Origin of virus likely from market.
00:34:33 Lab leak theory debunked.
00:39:45 Lab leak theory lacks evidence.
00:44:10 Bats have unique immune systems.
00:51:16 No conclusive evidence for origin.
Pandemic Origins Explored (Apple Podcasts, Dec 3, 2023)


From Jonathan Howard's series We Want Them Infected Podcast.
 
The facts are indisputable but no doubt I will have a lot of members telling me that it is not so.

So rather than waste my time listing the events and what is now known of the coverup I have listed the results of my searches.

There is still a lot of misinformation trying to say that the zoonotic theory is still plausible. It is not. Fauci is a liar and a perjurer and evil.

Take the file name and google it. You will get the source. The bold video by John Campbell was the most compelling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaJt5jC5gbY&ab_channel=Dr.JohnCampbell

One (or maybe more) of the videos by Jeffrey Sachs tells how the scientists he chose to assist in the first inquiries were all implicated in the coverup and did not disclose their interests in the matter. They all lied to him. Science it not the problem but modern scientists are.

Some key facts:
Fauci wrote a series of emails telling scientists that the lab leak theory was to be considered a conspiracy theory and hastily wrote a paper about the origins being zoonotic. Before that almost all scientists considered the lab leak the most plausible.
Now we know that 3 scientists at the lab were the first victims.
There is no intermediate host animal and no intermediate mutations.
Fauci led a gain of function research to manufacture the virus and they succeeded.
Fauci did not notify the relevant oversight agencies and it seems he had gotten rid of all documentation and notes.


= 2021-01-01_Fauci and Paul, Round 2 - FactCheck.pdf
= 2021-02-01_Jeffrey Sachs Findings of the Lancet COVID-19 Commission.mp4
= 2022-09-14_TheLanvetPIIS0140673622015859.pdf
= 2022-09-15_WHO responds to The Lancet COVID-19 Commission.pdf
= 2022-10-24_report_an_analysis_of_the_origins_of_covid-19_102722.pdf
= 2023-01-19_Unredacted NIH Emails Show Efforts to Rule Out Lab Origin of Covid.pdf
= 2023-02-01_Jeffrey Sachs US biotech cartel behind Covid origins and cover-up.mp4
= 2023-02-01_SDSN Webinar Origins of the COVID-19 Pandemic.mp4
= 2023-02-01_US Senate- lab origin most likely_Campbell.mp4
= 2023-07-01_Wuhan Lab Leak Theory CONFIRMED- Fauci-Backed Research at Center of DEADLY EXPERIMENT Robby Soave.mp4
= 2023-08-01_BOMBSHELL Covid Origins Hearing REVEALS LAB LEAK Evidence- Alina Chan Breaks Down Testimony.mp4
= 2023-08-01_INSIDER How They Buried COVID Origins Debate- w Jeffrey Sachs SYSTEM UPDATE.mp4
= 2023-09-01_Napolitano_Origin of Covid - Whistleblowing w Jeffrey Sachs.mp4
= 2023-09-01_Napolitano_Origin of Covid - Whistleblowing w Jeffrey Sachs.mp4.part
= 2023-11-01_Rand Paul on the lab leak deception.mp4
= 2023-11-01_Viral origins and dystopia_Campbell.mp4
= 2023-11-28_Bombshell revelations COVID-19 lab leak cover up 7 News Australia.mp4
= 2024-01-01_Lab Leak `SMOKING GUN' New Docs PROVE Scientists Proposed to Engineer Covid-Like Virus in Wuhan.mp4
= 2024-01-01_Lab leaks_Campbell.mp4
= 2024-01-14_Dr. Anthony Fauci deserves to go to prison over 'dishonesty' on COVID-19 origins_ Sen. Rand Paul.pdf
= COVID Origins Hearing Wrap Up_ Facts, Science, Evidence Point to a Wuhan Lab Leak - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability.pdf
= Covid origin_ Why the Wuhan lab-leak theory is so disputed - BBC News.pdf
= COVID-19 ORIGINS_ Experts Consulted by Fauci Suddenly Changed Their Minds _ The Heritage Foundation.pdf
= Fauci Is GASLIGHTING America With Latest Lab Leak CONFESSION Robby Soave.mp4
= Hearing Wrap Up_ Suppression of the Lab Leak Hypothesis Was Not Based in Science - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability.pdf
= How Fauci and NIH Leaders Worked to Discredit COVID-19 Lab Leak Theory _ The Heritage Foundation.pdf
= Jeffrey Sachs on Rising I Was a Democrat... COVID CHANGED THAT.mp4
= Key articles on origins of Covid-19, gain-of-function research.pdf
= Lab viral origins report.mp4
= New Documents Bolster Lab-Leak Hypothesis _ City Journal.pdf
= NEW Emails EXPOSE Faucis Lab Leak Disinformation Campaign- Report Michael Shellenberger.mp4
= Origin of COVID-19 - Wikipedia.pdf
= Rand Paul Deception Book.docx
= Summary of Deception by Rand Paul eBook by Ava Winslow - EPUB Book _ Rakuten Kobo South Africa.pdf
= The COVID Lab-Leak Theory, Jeffrey Sachs, and Peter Daszak.pdf
= The evidence remains clear_ SARS-CoV-2 emerged via the wildlife trade _ PNAS.pdf
= Viral The Origin of Covid 19 Matt Ridley EP 310.mp4
= Why did journalists dismiss Wuhan lab leak Covid 19 origin theory.pdf
 
The facts are indisputable but no doubt I will have a lot of members telling me that it is not so.

So rather than waste my time listing the events and what is now known of the coverup I have listed the results of my searches.

There is still a lot of misinformation trying to say that the zoonotic theory is still plausible. It is not. Fauci is a liar and a perjurer and evil.

Take the file name and google it. You will get the source. The bold video by John Campbell was the most compelling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaJt5jC5gbY&ab_channel=Dr.JohnCampbell

One (or maybe more) of the videos by Jeffrey Sachs tells how the scientists he chose to assist in the first inquiries were all implicated in the coverup and did not disclose their interests in the matter. They all lied to him. Science it not the problem but modern scientists are.

Some key facts:
Fauci wrote a series of emails telling scientists that the lab leak theory was to be considered a conspiracy theory and hastily wrote a paper about the origins being zoonotic. Before that almost all scientists considered the lab leak the most plausible.
Now we know that 3 scientists at the lab were the first victims.
There is no intermediate host animal and no intermediate mutations.
Fauci led a gain of function research to manufacture the virus and they succeeded.
Fauci did not notify the relevant oversight agencies and it seems he had gotten rid of all documentation and notes.


= 2021-01-01_Fauci and Paul, Round 2 - FactCheck.pdf
= 2021-02-01_Jeffrey Sachs Findings of the Lancet COVID-19 Commission.mp4
= 2022-09-14_TheLanvetPIIS0140673622015859.pdf
= 2022-09-15_WHO responds to The Lancet COVID-19 Commission.pdf
= 2022-10-24_report_an_analysis_of_the_origins_of_covid-19_102722.pdf
= 2023-01-19_Unredacted NIH Emails Show Efforts to Rule Out Lab Origin of Covid.pdf
= 2023-02-01_Jeffrey Sachs US biotech cartel behind Covid origins and cover-up.mp4
= 2023-02-01_SDSN Webinar Origins of the COVID-19 Pandemic.mp4
= 2023-02-01_US Senate- lab origin most likely_Campbell.mp4
= 2023-07-01_Wuhan Lab Leak Theory CONFIRMED- Fauci-Backed Research at Center of DEADLY EXPERIMENT Robby Soave.mp4
= 2023-08-01_BOMBSHELL Covid Origins Hearing REVEALS LAB LEAK Evidence- Alina Chan Breaks Down Testimony.mp4
= 2023-08-01_INSIDER How They Buried COVID Origins Debate- w Jeffrey Sachs SYSTEM UPDATE.mp4
= 2023-09-01_Napolitano_Origin of Covid - Whistleblowing w Jeffrey Sachs.mp4
= 2023-09-01_Napolitano_Origin of Covid - Whistleblowing w Jeffrey Sachs.mp4.part
= 2023-11-01_Rand Paul on the lab leak deception.mp4
= 2023-11-01_Viral origins and dystopia_Campbell.mp4
= 2023-11-28_Bombshell revelations COVID-19 lab leak cover up 7 News Australia.mp4
= 2024-01-01_Lab Leak `SMOKING GUN' New Docs PROVE Scientists Proposed to Engineer Covid-Like Virus in Wuhan.mp4
= 2024-01-01_Lab leaks_Campbell.mp4
= 2024-01-14_Dr. Anthony Fauci deserves to go to prison over 'dishonesty' on COVID-19 origins_ Sen. Rand Paul.pdf
= COVID Origins Hearing Wrap Up_ Facts, Science, Evidence Point to a Wuhan Lab Leak - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability.pdf
= Covid origin_ Why the Wuhan lab-leak theory is so disputed - BBC News.pdf
= COVID-19 ORIGINS_ Experts Consulted by Fauci Suddenly Changed Their Minds _ The Heritage Foundation.pdf
= Fauci Is GASLIGHTING America With Latest Lab Leak CONFESSION Robby Soave.mp4
= Hearing Wrap Up_ Suppression of the Lab Leak Hypothesis Was Not Based in Science - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability.pdf
= How Fauci and NIH Leaders Worked to Discredit COVID-19 Lab Leak Theory _ The Heritage Foundation.pdf
= Jeffrey Sachs on Rising I Was a Democrat... COVID CHANGED THAT.mp4
= Key articles on origins of Covid-19, gain-of-function research.pdf
= Lab viral origins report.mp4
= New Documents Bolster Lab-Leak Hypothesis _ City Journal.pdf
= NEW Emails EXPOSE Faucis Lab Leak Disinformation Campaign- Report Michael Shellenberger.mp4
= Origin of COVID-19 - Wikipedia.pdf
= Rand Paul Deception Book.docx
= Summary of Deception by Rand Paul eBook by Ava Winslow - EPUB Book _ Rakuten Kobo South Africa.pdf
= The COVID Lab-Leak Theory, Jeffrey Sachs, and Peter Daszak.pdf
= The evidence remains clear_ SARS-CoV-2 emerged via the wildlife trade _ PNAS.pdf
= Viral The Origin of Covid 19 Matt Ridley EP 310.mp4
= Why did journalists dismiss Wuhan lab leak Covid 19 origin theory.pdf

I was going to ask for this post to be moved to the 'Origins of Covid' thread if you ignored my suggestion and put it here but, having now read it, I'm going to ask for it to be moved to the Covid Conspiracy thread instead. I don't know why I expected better, but I did.
 
Last edited:
Take the file name and google it. You will get the source. The bold video by John Campbell was the most compelling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaJt5jC5gbY&ab_channel=Dr.JohnCampbell

John Campbell is a complete quack. He is about as much of a good source for information on Covid as Alex Jones.

Anyway, I was not sure about bothering to post this, but recently a survey of actual experts (not John bloody Campbell), asked virologists, epidemiologists and biosafety experts their opinions on whether the virus was zoonotic in origin or had escaped from a lab.

They largely had the opinion that it was zoonotic.

Link

Most experts believe that COVID-19 was very likely to
arise from a natural zoonosis, but experts also see at
least some chance of a research-related accident.

When asked how likely it is that COVID-19 originated from
natural zoonosis, experts gave an average likelihood of
77% (median=90%). In fact, four out of five experts stated
that a natural zoonotic origin was more than 50% likely.
However, consensus was not complete. Across all experts,
the average likelihood they gave for a research-related
accident origin was 21%. Overall, one out of five experts
reported a 50% or greater chance for an origin other than
natural zoonosis.

So why it is that some lay people can assert with such overwhelming confidence that Covid definitely escaped from a lab, I don't know.
 
The post belongs in the science subforum. Cherry picking a name or two as has been a common occurrence in this thread does not mean all the details in PartSkeptic's post are reflective of a CT.

There might be some disputable facts like that Fauci was involved in the accidental development of the virus with his own gain of function research. There is no evidence of that. Given his initial emails to his colleagues that just doesn't fit.

Fauci's quick switch to ruling out the lab origin along with the WHO chief telling the first investigative team that they ruled out the lab origin before any evidence was collected provides very strong suggestion it wasn't politically correct to go down the lab leak rabbit hole. And the evidence points squarely toward Peter Daszak as the initial source of the coverup and of being directly involved in the lab origin itself, followed by Dr Shi as the other person most directly involved.

I need a little time to go through PartSkeptic's post. Of course his facts need checking. But there was plenty of evidence of Fauci's quick reversal of his email at the beginning of the pandemic, corroborated by Tedros' (WHO) position that Daszak had manipulated the first team to investigate COVID's origin into declaring the lab leak was ruled out when in no way, shape or form had that been evidence supported.
 
Last edited:
I was going to ask for this post to be moved to the 'Origins of Covid' thread if you ignored my suggestion and put it here but, having now read it, I'm going to ask for it to be moved to the Covid Conspiracy thread instead. I don't know why I expected better, but I did.
Maybe because there is a lot of evidence COVID did originate in one of the labs at the WIV.
 
And the evidence points squarely toward Peter Daszak as the initial source of the coverup and of being directly involved in the lab origin itself, followed by Dr Shi as the other person most directly involved.

This is not true. Why would all the world's virologists decide to jump to Peter Daszak's tune?

There is another possibility, which you seem to rule out, that the virologists who looked into it came to the conclusion that it was a zoonotic origin through good-faith investigation, not because they are compromised or lying.
 
Maybe because there is a lot of evidence COVID did originate in one of the labs at the WIV.

My impression from following this thread (I'm not knowledgeable enough to contribute) is that a lab leak cannot be ruled out but a zoonotic one seems more likely, whilst deliberate engineering can be ruled out with a reasonable degree of certainty.

When PartSkeptic posted this in his dedicated thread:

Moving on to this topic, namely that Fauci funded the Wuhan lab research into gain of function, the lab made Covid and it escaped from the lab. (I know there are others which I will get to, but this one is easy.)

I will gather the evidence and present it to you.

I expected him to actually make the case, rather than post an unsupported Gish Gallop.
 
My impression from following this thread (I'm not knowledgeable enough to contribute) is that a lab leak cannot be ruled out but a zoonotic one seems more likely, whilst deliberate engineering can be ruled out with a reasonable degree of certainty.

My take is that, yes, a lab leak cannot be ruled out, but when trying to make a plausible coherent argument for it, it necessarily spirals into more and more implausible events occurring and bigger and bigger cover-ups that it just starts to sound like a CT.

It also seems to require, or at least nod towards, completely incompatible theories.

Much of the "evidence" centred on different labs. When trying to pin down a lab leak theorist on which lab it actually came out of, they don't seem to be that fussed. They will talk about the WIV BSL-4 lab as being the big coincidence, but then will get animated at research done at BSL-2, or even an unrelated lab run by the Wuhan CDC. If all else fails they will claim it was caught in the wild and brought back to Wuhan by accident.

In short, I don't think they really have a coherent theory so it comes across as similar to the 9/11 theories where any old rationale will do even if it doesn't fit together.

This is not to say that one of the theories cannot be correct. But I think zoonosis is more parsimonious given that it came from a wet market, which was the most likely nexus that even the Chinese government appeared to believe was the case by their actions. It is sometimes countered that the only reason why so many cases were found at the wet market was because that was where they were looking. Well, if that's the case, why do you think they thought that? It seems evidence on the surface that that is what they believed. Lab leakers may claim that this is merely the government story (in a similar way to how 9/11 Truthers talk about the government story), but in fact the Chinese government's official line on this is that the virus came from outside China.

Anyway, I am of course just rehashing the whole thing again, so I won't go any further into it right now.
 
My note is that those pushing the 'lab leak' are actually pushing it because they are pretending that the virus was human made.

There is no evidence that the virus has been manipulated in any way by any lab.

It also seems to be a cover for "all chinks are evil" and other racist clap trap.

Local authorities turning a blind eye to shoddy practices in a market is believable.

The lab leak stuff is just CT.

Even if it was true, so what?
 
The lab leak stuff is just CT.

Even if it was true, so what?


Clearly, there is no useful information that could come from knowledge that government-funded virus research could cause a pandemic. It would provide no input into future risk-benefit analyses of research proposals, or information on safety standards for laboratories.
 
My note is that those pushing the 'lab leak' are actually pushing it because they are pretending that the virus was human made.

There is no evidence that the virus has been manipulated in any way by any lab.

It also seems to be a cover for "all chinks are evil" and other racist clap trap.
Local authorities turning a blind eye to shoddy practices in a market is believable.

The lab leak stuff is just CT.

Even if it was true, so what?

The highlighted is not the argument for a lab leak.

I think I have been as critical as anyone about the lab leak, but I don't see this as a useful argument to counter it at all. It's equivalent to saying, "You think that because you are bad people!"

Besides, if you make that a premise of your argument against the lab leak, you would end up having to assent to a racist idea if, somehow, the virus did leak from a lab, which presumably, logically, is possible.

As for the final question, if it was true, so what? The so would be how to prevent such a thing happening again. At this point it would be even more serious given that most virologists have staked their reputations on the claim that it was most likely zoonotic. They would look a bit silly if they turned out to be wrong. And of course, if it was lab-origin, then it would indeed implicate a lot of people. Some form of justice would indeed be required.

If the converse is true, then the issues are one of how to prevent future spillovers. This requires managing the ecosystem, living with bats and other mammals, and cleaning up the wildlife trade.

Of course, these courses of action don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive.
 
This is not true. Why would all the world's virologists decide to jump to Peter Daszak's tune?

There is another possibility, which you seem to rule out, that the virologists who looked into it came to the conclusion that it was a zoonotic origin through good-faith investigation, not because they are compromised or lying.

All the world's virologists? The virologists who looked into it? :rolleyes:

We've been through this before, no sense repeating the same stuff. All the world's virologists including all the virologists you claim looked into the origin of COVID do NOT support your POV even though you keep imagining they do.
 
My impression from following this thread (I'm not knowledgeable enough to contribute) is that a lab leak cannot be ruled out but a zoonotic one seems more likely, whilst deliberate engineering can be ruled out with a reasonable degree of certainty.
If the zoonotic origin were likely then the intermediate species and a trail would have been found long before now. Yet neither have been found.

When PartSkeptic posted this in his dedicated thread:

I expected him to actually make the case, rather than post an unsupported Gish Gallop.
Why is a list of evidence brushed off as a gish gallop?

I'll withhold my conclusion about PartSkeptic's list until I've had time to look at his list.
 
Last edited:
This is not true. Why would all the world's virologists decide to jump to Peter Daszak's tune?

There is another possibility, which you seem to rule out, that the virologists who looked into it came to the conclusion that it was a zoonotic origin through good-faith investigation, not because they are compromised or lying.

How many of these virologists were well-versed in gain-of-function no-see-um Baric/Shi technology applied to mammalian bat corona viruses and tested on humanized mice?

Because that is what they were confirmed to be doing in Wuhan. Confirmed. And in all the world, that is where a new corona virus, contagious to humans escaped. It isn't near where those bats lived.

For the 'experts' and officials and other scientists to discount the mere possibility, within days of getting a 'select' team together--- is idiocy. But that is what they did. And some, seeing the seniority, went along. And we now know much more about the motivations. Much more. And it all makes perfect sense where it was a bit puzzling as to why they would cover for China before.

But keep towing that 'spillover' line. It makes zero sense. It has zero evidence.
 
Last edited:
My note is that those pushing the 'lab leak' are actually pushing it because they are pretending that the virus was human made.
WTF?

There is no evidence that the virus has been manipulated in any way by any lab.
This is not true. This thread is full of very specific evidence how gain of function research manipulated existing coronaviruses to end up with COVID. The same cannot be said for a natural evolution of a coronavirus except to note the pieces are all there. But it leaves the problem that no evidence those pieces came together anywhere in the wild exists.

It also seems to be a cover for "all chinks are evil" and other racist clap trap.
"Chinks"? Is that Aussie for Chinese? I have no issue with the Chinese.

Local authorities turning a blind eye to shoddy practices in a market is believable.
Yes, undoubtably.

The lab leak stuff is just CT.
This is the opinion of people who have little knowledge about microbiology and infectious disease. If you think it's all CT stuff then how do you support that conclusion when the evidence of a 'spillover' event amounts to some holding the opinion spillovers are more common? That's it, that's the whole body of evidence. Lab leaks have been documented in this thread including some that resulted in outbreaks.

Even if it was true, so what?
Is this a serious question?
 
If the zoonotic origin were likely then the intermediate species and a trail would have been found long before now. Yet neither have been found.
Having followed the previous discussion on that point I still don't see how it follows, but as I say I'm not particularly knowledgeable in this area.

Why is a list of evidence brushed off as a gish gallop?

I'll withhold my conclusion about PartSkeptic's list until I've had time to look at his list.

I look forward to it.

Incidentally this was PartSkeptic's response to my suggestion that he put his Covid research post here:

No need to. This forum is not skeptical. It is about sowing the message of the elites who wish to control the masses.

It is an indication of the many false beliefs held by the members posting on this thread that they think that the origin of Covid was anything else but a lab leak.

I wonder. Does JayUtah get funding from Fauci? And pay some of you to support him? :rolleyes: (Note: I am not really serious but the world is so screwed up I am no longr shocked by the extent of the rot.)

I'll be interested to see how he responds to the lively - and informed - discussion here.
 
All the world's virologists? The virologists who looked into it? :rolleyes:

We've been through this before, no sense repeating the same stuff. All the world's virologists including all the virologists you claim looked into the origin of COVID do NOT support your POV even though you keep imagining they do.

How many of these virologists were well-versed in gain-of-function no-see-um Baric/Shi technology applied to mammalian bat corona viruses and tested on humanized mice?

Because that is what they were confirmed to be doing in Wuhan. Confirmed. And in all the world, that is where a new corona virus, contagious to humans escaped. It isn't near where those bats lived.

For the 'experts' and officials and other scientists to discount the mere possibility, within days of getting a 'select' team together--- is idiocy. But that is what they did. And some, seeing the seniority, went along. And we now know much more about the motivations. Much more. And it all makes perfect sense where it was a bit puzzling as to why they would cover for China before.

But keep towing that 'spillover' line. It makes zero sense. It has zero evidence.

I've already posted here that virologists and epidemiologists as well as biosafety experts who were surveyed here, favour the zoonosis by a clear majority.

You can dismiss them all as being stupid or corrupt if you like, but if you do I would say you are the ones with motivated reasoning. There was a time when you were open-minded on these topics but you both now assert with far too much confidence what you believe as though it had been proven.

Link

As for the claim that the "select" scientists were somehow browbeaten into believing in the zoonosis, you would have to explain why it is that they went back and forth. If you look at the reasoning that came out of the Slack channel leaks rather than focusing on specific wording that you find most incriminating, then you can see that this was not a case of being offered money, fame, power etc, but was entirely in keeping with the scientific method.

Link
 
My note is that those pushing the 'lab leak' are actually pushing it because they are pretending that the virus was human made.

There is no evidence that the virus has been manipulated in any way by any lab.

It also seems to be a cover for "all chinks are evil" and other racist clap trap.

Local authorities turning a blind eye to shoddy practices in a market is believable.

The lab leak stuff is just CT.

Even if it was true, so what?

When a smallpox or a flu virus has leaked....or when the original SARS virus leaked--from scientists who had them 'secured' to be studied....was it due to human manipulation of that virus? Were they altered? Maybe. Didnt need to be. Other viruses have infected researchers by developing on their own due to natural events expedited by lab conditions.

Can we think a bit less narrow about what a leak means? Or what it means to have come about due to the work at the lab? Or whether it is intentional? I happen to think now that it was a manipulation, but that would be actually a new type of leak.

Most leaks in history were NOT novel. But they do happen. And it isn't even a rare thing.
Oh, and guess what? The premiere, internationally recognized place with a lead scientist called 'bat woman' that held many of these types of infectious bat viruses- that had killed miners in the very same cave as the closest relative to this cov-2 virus- and had researchers trying to make them infectious to hmans to develop a vaccine in case it escaped- was in ...hhmmm wait, where was it?....wait for it. Thinking.
...thiiiinnnkkiingggg. Got it. It was-


...Wuhan!!

Amazing, isnt it?

Maybe there really are bots and paid shills on here. People really cannot be this dense after seeing what is presented.
 
Last edited:
If the zoonotic origin were likely then the intermediate species and a trail would have been found long before now. Yet neither have been found.

This is an unsupported assertion. You keep repeating this but there is no reason to think this must be the case.

Why is a list of evidence brushed off as a gish gallop?
I'll withhold my conclusion about PartSkeptic's list until I've had time to look at his list.

I think "list of evidence" is a dubious description of that infodump.

Napolitano, Jeffrey Sachs, John Campbell, Michael Shellenberger, Rand Paul... quack, quack, quack, quack, quack!
 
Last edited:
I think "list of evidence" is a dubious description of that infodump.

Napolitano, Jeffrey Sachs, John Campbell, Michael Shellenberger, Rand Paul... quack, quack, quack, quack, quack!
I must admit it was the reference to the John Campbell video as being "the most compelling" that made me consider the post an unworthy contribution to this serious thread, as I've checked out his stuff in the past and he's one of the worst sources of Covid disinformation on the net. But it's possible I dismissed the rest of it too cavalierly as also being the usual CT stuff, i.e. a few carefully cherry picked facts, their significance exaggerated out of all proportion, and then used to support unwarranted conclusions and wild speculation.
 
I must admit it was the reference to the John Campbell video as being "the most compelling" that made me consider the post an unworthy contribution to this serious thread, as I've checked out his stuff in the past and he's one of the worst sources of Covid disinformation on the net. But it's possible I dismissed the rest of it too cavalierly as also being the usual CT stuff, i.e. a few carefully cherry picked facts, their significance exaggerated out of all proportion, and then used to support unwarranted conclusions and wild speculation.

Yes, in my view it is a good heuristic that if someone is giddily brandishing a John Campbell video as evidence, then they might not be the best evaluator of evidence.

It was clear from fairly early on that John Campbell was tailoring his videos to the most credulous audience with his promotion of ivermectin, his insistence, initially that Covid vaccines had to be aspirated, then that they were useless or dangerous, and now he has moved onto claims that Covid vaccines create huge clots in the veins and arteries of those who received the mRNA vaccine. All of this is complete nonsense and just a rehash of garbage InfoWars-style documentary Died Suddenly, often using stock footage of autopsies taken from long before the pandemic as evidence of the dangers of the mRNA vaccines.
 
Here's some fun. I haven't looked much into this recently because nothing new has happened.

BUT, this skeptic-minded guy debated with Yuri Deigin about the lab leak, and he bet 100,000 dollars that he could persuade two judges that the zoonotic origin is most likely.

He seems to give some succinct answers to the constellation of Lab Leak Truther Factoids that make up the various inconsistent and incoherent arguments.

He calls it a conspiracy in search of a theory.

Anyway, maybe you might want to watch or at least bookmark it if you hear any more of the Gish Gallops that pop up periodically.

 
Back
Top Bottom