Generic Virus Thread

[bickster]

25 minutes ago, BigJim said:

I don't have any theory about a conspiracy, just interested to know which part of the following is fake news? (genuinely interested, honest).

 1. The Obama administration placed a moratorium on gain-of-function research after hundreds of scientists voiced fears that accidents could lead to a pandemic?

 2. Fauci authorized funding for this type of research on coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology?

3. The current pandemic started in Wuhan?

The linking of 2 with 3

[mjmooney]

44 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Dont bother you just get called a conspiracy theorist

And rightly so. 

[BigJim]

7 minutes ago, bickster said:

The linking of 2 with 3

Thanks Bickster. 

I'm mildly surprised though why you would consider the two things a mere coincidence and discard the possibility of a leak which looks more obvious.

[Demitri_C]

Just now, mjmooney said:

And rightly so. 

Not everything is a conspiracy mj lets leave it at that

[Davkaus]

Initially, I take issue with the phrasing: Dr Fauci continued to fund risky Gain of Function research at the Wuhan Institute for years despite Obama administration's 2014 ban

Nothing about the funding contravened the federal ban. The wording suggests this wasn't the case. If I posted "Dean Smith continued to play John McGinn despite his ban", you see the problem there, surely. The phrasing is very much attempting to lead us down the garden path. It omits saying that the ban was of GOF research in the US, not specific to any concerns at Wuhan in particular.

In addition, it continues to stoke to fire that this virus was in some way man made, with no evidence at all that this was the case, in fact, scientists so far seem fairly confident it wasn't

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

Quote

It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus. As noted above, the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 is optimized for binding to human ACE2 with an efficient solution different from those previously predicted^7,11. Furthermore, if genetic manipulation had been performed, one of the several reverse-genetic systems available for betacoronaviruses would probably have been used¹⁹. However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone²⁰. Instead, we propose two scenarios that can plausibly explain the origin of SARS-CoV-2: (i) natural selection in an animal host before zoonotic transfer; and (ii) natural selection in humans following zoonotic transfer. We also discuss whether selection during passage could have given rise to SARS-CoV-2.

The criticism he throws at Peter Daszak cites this article as being a pre-emptive, unjustifiable attack on the "man made" theory despite "there's been no investigation, nothing".

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext

Quote

 

 We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2),1 and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife,2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  9,  10 as have so many other emerging pathogens.11,  12

 

That's a lot of linked research for "no investigation, nothing". It's a conspiracy theory puff piece, taking headlines, stringing them together, and misrepresenting the actual content. It's a conflict of interest apparently, having a respected expert on disease and zoology looking in to the origins of a disease that originated in animals, just because he's skeptical. Presumably they should appoint someone from QAnon to run it.

Additionally, he further fuels this idea of conspiracy that WHO won't even look into this by quoting this except of this article.

https://apnews.com/article/who-team-arrives-wuhan-virus-origins-db3e9adcbfa801d3e8274c1976ea5fcd

Quote

there are no plans to assess whether there might have been an accidental release of the coronavirus at the Wuhan lab

The full quote:

Quote

According to WHO’s published agenda for its origins research, there are no plans to assess whether there might have been an accidental release of the coronavirus at the Wuhan lab, as some American politicians, including President Donald Trump, have claimed.

So basically they've looked at an article by a journalist who's looked at the document, not found "let's check if it's manmade" and decided it's not being looked at, then Hilton has decided that's a cover up.

The actual document includes lines such as:

The approach will be open-minded, iterative, not excluding any hypothesis that could contribute to evidence generation and help narrow the focus of research.

And:

Serological studies based on stored blood/serum samples collected in weeks and months before December 2019. Consideration should be given to population group of focus (e.g. groups at higher risk of exposure such as frontline workers, laboratory workers, farm workers)

[bickster]

Just now, BigJim said:

Thanks Bickster. 

I'm mildly surprised though why you would consider the two things a mere coincidence and discard the possibility of a leak which looks more obvious.

I'm extremely surprised you have actually found a shred of evidence to support this theory apart from the two events taking place in the same region

See what you are doing is similar logic to the following

Edinburgh is built on Basalt rock formations

Basalt Rocks are radioactive

It's dangerous living in Edinburgh because of the radioactivity

The first two statements do not add up to the third, the third is pure supposition based on no evidence at all but because you think the two are connected your brain allows you to think "it must be true"

[darrenm]

[BigJim]

8 minutes ago, bickster said:

I'm extremely surprised you have actually found a shred of evidence to support this theory apart from the two events taking place in the same region

See what you are doing is similar logic to the following

Edinburgh is built on Basalt rock formations

Basalt Rocks are radioactive

It's dangerous living in Edinburgh because of the radioactivity

The first two statements do not add up to the third, the third is pure supposition based on no evidence at all but because you think the two are connected your brain allows you to think "it must be true"

Perhaps the parallel you draw is fair, perhaps not.

I don't have any evidence really, and I don't think it must be true. However, the link to wet markets could be argued to be just as circumstantial.

 

[TrentVilla]

19 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Not everything is a conspiracy mj lets leave it at that

That is what they want you to think.... 

[Davkaus]

8 minutes ago, BigJim said:

 

I don't have any evidence really, and I don't think it must be true. 

 

I can respect this view. I've not read and understood enough of the evidence either way to feel particularly strongly about it. If the wet market stuff doesn't pan out, it can't hurt to just double check the lab theory is bogus.

This isn't how you started the discussion though, you used the phrase "looks like Fauci was heavily involved after all" which I think is a claim that can't really be justified.

[Demitri_C]

10 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I can respect this view. I've not read and understood enough of the evidence either way to feel particularly strongly about it. If the wet market stuff doesn't pan out, it can't hurt to just double check the lab theory is bogus.

This isn't how you started the discussion though, you used the phrase "looks like Fauci was heavily involved after all" which I think is a claim that can't really be justified.

The thing is dav, if fauci was involved kets say hypocritically speaking we would never know. He is too high level.

There is a lot of junk out there on youtube social media etc that im not gonna deny but i just fail to believe a virus of this scale was from bats.

But thats just me who knows

[BigJim]

13 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I can respect this view. I've not read and understood enough of the evidence either way to feel particularly strongly about it. If the wet market stuff doesn't pan out, it can't hurt to just double check the lab theory is bogus.

This isn't how you started the discussion though, you used the phrase "looks like Fauci was heavily involved after all" which I think is a claim that can't really be justified.

You are quite right, my bad.

I don't particularly have anything against Fauci, my position has always been that this research is dangerous and shouldn't be allowed. I believe Fauci last year publicly denied any possibility of an accidental leak, and there I think he has been disingenuous. 

 

[Davkaus]

13 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

The thing is dav, if fauci was involved kets say hypocritically speaking we would never know. He is too high level.

 

What do you think someone is doing to protect him? They need to work harder so people stop talking about it on national television. 

Furthermore, the previous administration *hated* Fauci. they'd have absolutely thrown him under the bus, exposed him and ruined his career if at all possible, surely, yet you think he's so powerful that didn't happen?

Quote

but i just fail to believe a virus of this scale was from bats.

You do you, but I think I'm going to favour peer reviewed and published scientific research over gut instinct.

Who do you think manufactured the plague? Were the rats just a patsy? 

Edited January 26, 2021 by Davkaus

[TrentVilla]

3 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Who do you think manufactured the plague? Were the rats just a patsy? 

You know the plague started in China right?

[bickster]

Just now, BigJim said:

You are quite right, my bad.

I don't particularly have anything against Fauci, my position has always been that this research is dangerous and shouldn't be allowed. I believe Fauci last year publicly denied any possibility of an accidental leak, and there I think he has been disingenuous. 

 

Quote

Did coronavirus come from a lab?

No, this virus isn’t a bioweapon...

Even the most secure laboratories do sometimes have accidents, and a human-engineered pandemic has been identified as a possible risk to our civilisation, but there is no good evidence that either has happened....

Researchers led by Shan-Lu Liu at the Ohio State University say there is “no credible evidence” of genetic engineering (Emerging Microbes & Infections, doi.org/dpvw). The virus’s genome has been sequenced, and if it had been altered, we would expect to see signs of inserted gene sequences....

New Scientist

The actual Scientific Paper linked in the article says

Quote

The emergence and outbreak of a newly discovered acute respiratory disease in Wuhan, China, has affected greater than 40,000 people, and killed more than 1,000 as of Feb. 10, 2020. A new human coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, was quickly identified, and the associated disease is now referred to as coronavirus disease discovered in 2019 (COVID-19) (https://globalbiodefense.com/novel-coronavirus-covid-19-portal/).

According to what has been reported [1–3], COVID-2019 seems to have similar clinical manifestations to that of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) caused by SARS-CoV. The SARS-CoV-2 genome sequence also has ∼80% identity with SARS-CoV, but it is most similar to some bat beta-coronaviruses, with the highest being >96% identity [4,5].

Currently, there are speculations, rumours and conspiracy theories that SARS-CoV-2 is of laboratory origin. Some people have alleged that the human SARS-CoV-2 was leaked directly from a laboratory in Wuhan where a bat CoV (RaTG13) was recently reported, which shared ∼96% homology with the SARS-CoV-2 [4]. However, as we know, the human SARS-CoV and intermediate host palm civet SARS-like CoV shared 99.8% homology, with a total of 202 single-nucleotide (nt) variations (SNVs) identified across the genome [6]. Given that there are greater than 1,100 nt differences between the human SARS-CoV-2 and the bat RaTG13-CoV [4], which are distributed throughout the genome in a naturally occurring pattern following the evolutionary characteristics typical of CoVs, it is highly unlikely that RaTG13 CoV is the immediate source of SARS-CoV-2. The absence of a logical targeted pattern in the new viral sequences and a close relative in a wildlife species (bats) are the most revealing signs that SARS-CoV-2 evolved by natural evolution. A search for an intermediate animal host between bats and humans is needed to identify animal CoVs more closely related to human SARS-CoV-2. There is speculation that pangolins might carry CoVs closely related to SARS-CoV-2, but the data to substantiate this is not yet published (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00364-2)....

Much more on the scientific paper

[Davkaus]

2 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

You know the plague started in China right?

I have my suspicions about funding  

[bickster]

14 minutes ago, BigJim said:

I believe Fauci last year publicly denied any possibility of an accidental leak, and there I think he has been disingenuous. 

See above post, he wasn't being disingenuous at all, he was refering to peer reviewed scientific research

[Demitri_C]

14 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

What do you think someone is doing to protect him? They need to work harder so people stop talking about it on national television. 

Furthermore, the previous administration *hated* Fauci. they'd have absolutely thrown him under the bus, exposed him and ruined his career if at all possible, surely, yet you think he's so powerful that didn't happen?

You do you, but I think I'm going to favour peer reviewed and published scientific research over gut instinct.

Who do you think manufactured the plague? Were the rats just a patsy? 

I think the hate is fabricated- i dint think its only fauci though i think others from other powerful people are involved. Sounds a bit conspiracy so dont want to go down to deep on that

You go with all the science thats fine. Ill stick with what i read and done lots of research on this.  Bats bloody bats

[BigJim]

12 minutes ago, bickster said:

See above post, he wasn't being disingenuous at all, he was refering to peer reviewed scientific research

Since he knew he had funded the research there then yes, he was, by refuting all possibility of a leak. But thanks for posting the research.

[ml1dch]

10 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

You go with all the science thats fine. Ill stick with what i read and done lots of research on this.  Bats bloody bats

Research:

A careful consideration of study regarding a particular concern or problem using scientific methods.

Not research:

Watching a bunch of algorithm-targeted YouTube videos because y'know, the science men are probably lying to us.