Utopia Talk / Politics / Covid was made in a lab

Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jun 06 09:57:37 Some of you may remember I posted the study these two made last year claiming the same thing. It was dismissed by ”experts”. Birger Sorensen is back with even more incendiary stuff. http://in....ared-study-says-033400508.html A new study, quoted by ANI, has found that Chinese scientists created the virus in a lab in Wuhan, then tried to cover their tracks by reverse-engineering versions of the virus to make it look like it evolved naturally from bats. The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 virus has no “credible natural ancestor” and was created by Chinese scientists who were working on a “Gain of Function” project in a Wuhan lab, the Daily Mail reported on Sunday, citing a new research paper by British professor Angus Dalgleish and Norwegian scientist Dr Birger Sorensen. The new research claims that scientists took a natural coronavirus “backbone” found in Chinese cave bats and spliced onto it a new “spike”, turning it into the deadly and highly transmissible COVID-19. The paper also quotes that researchers found “unique fingerprints” in COVID-19 samples that they say could only have arisen from manipulation in a laboratory. Authors Dalgleish and Sorensen wrote in their paper that they had prima facie evidence of retro-engineering in China” for a year, but were ignored by academics and major journals, reported DailyMail.com. The study alleged “deliberate destruction, concealment or contamination of data” at Chinese labs and notes the silencing and disappearance of scientists in China who spoke out about the activities. The research, has been obtained by DailyMail.com, is expected to intensify the ongoing debate on China’s role in creating the virus that has claimed thousands of lives. In the 22-page paper which is set to be published in the scientific journal Quarterly Review of Biophysics Discovery, Dalgleish and Sorensen pieced together how Chinese scientists, some working with American universities, allegedly built the tools to create the coronavirus. Incidentally, “Gain of Function” projects, which involves tweaking natural viruses to make them more infectious, had been outlawed by former US President Barack Obama. In the paper, the scientists wrote that a natural virus pandemic would be expected to mutate gradually and become infectious but less pathogenic, which did not happen in the case of Covid-19. Dalgleish and Sorensen claimed that after the pandemic began, Chinese scientists took samples of the COVID-19 virus and “retro-engineered” it, making it appear as if it had evolved naturally. The scientists also highlighted that Chinese scientists who wished to share their knowledge have not been able to do so or have disappeared. Sorensen said that he believes the virus escaped from lower security areas of the institute, where he believes Gain of Function research was performed, reported DailyMail.com. Meanwhile, US President Joe Biden on May 26 said he has asked the US intelligence community to “redouble their efforts” to come to a conclusion on the origins of Covid-19 and report back to him within 90 days.
Dukhat Member	Sun Jun 06 10:48:30 Pretty devious. They infected their own population and knew that Trump would be so stupid, he would literally adopt the worst policies possibly to combat the virus even though he had literally months and months of warning. Those Chinese are on a whole other level of strategery.
Hrothgar Member	Sun Jun 06 11:17:55 I'm still extremely skeptical. Lab escape? Possibly. Lab escape AND human manipulated without being easily detectable? Highly unlikely. When there is an entire world of microbiologists but only a fringe few are making claims, those claims should always be held suspect.
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Sun Jun 06 11:55:07 I do love how the same folks who badly want this to be a lab originated conspiracy are typically the same ones who claimed it was all a hoax. It’s either a deadly virus or it’s not, fuQtards.
TheChildren Member	Sun Jun 06 12:45:37 Nutcase racist fuckfaces, thats all it is. anyone who still try 2 claim it made in a lab 18 months after it started, are completely fuckin crazy racist.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jun 06 12:47:45 There is a lab i Wuhan across the street from the market where everyone thought this pandemic started. That lab conducts gain of function research, on corona virus, among other things. Where exactly is the conspiracy of something escaping this lab? Especially since USA’s own risk assessment, for their own labs puts the risk accidental contagion release as significant over a few decades. The conspiracy are the idiots who still say it is a conspiracy to assume the easiest explanation is a valid explanation.
Hrothgar Member	Sun Jun 06 12:52:51 I don't think lab escape hypothesis is crazy, just unlikely. But even if so it seems far more likely it was a natural virus being studied there that broke containment vs a human manipulated one.
TheChildren Member	Sun Jun 06 13:20:42 that lab, gaymatzo, is 15 miles away from the market, u fuckin idiot. its not right next door 2 da market. who puts a wet market right next 2 high technology campus. do u see a wet market next 2 a uni campus doing research. r u retarded, gaymatzo. stop readin fake news and believin all da antichina crap, u fuckin idiot.
nhill Member	Sun Jun 06 13:39:37 All theories are valid (some more than others, obviously) until the cause is found. I don't think it's ridiculous to think it came from the Wuhan Lab until the reservoir hosts are found. There seems be an equal (& scant) amount of evidence for both sides at this point. Fauci is investigating the lab angle and, like him or not (I don't have any particular feelings towards the man), he knows more than any of us about infectious diseases. Not racist, and no particular offense to China. The country doesn't matter to me. If it was 15 miles from a P4 lab in the USA I'd feel the same way.
Habebe Member	Sun Jun 06 13:44:46 It seems more and more likley. Once again "experts" gaslit the public and wonder why people dont trust institutions. How many times did I say before that the CDC and Fauci intentionally lied to the public about masks early on,* they've now admitted it*, but these are the people we should blindly follow.
nhill Member	Sun Jun 06 13:44:57 > I'm still extremely skeptical. Lab escape? Possibly. Lab escape AND human manipulated without being easily detectable? Highly unlikely. In gain-of-function research, a microbiologist can increase the lethality of a coronavirus enormously by splicing a special sequence into its genome at a prime location. Doing this leaves no trace of manipulation. But it alters the virus spike protein, rendering it easier for the virus to inject genetic material into the victim cell. Since 1992 there have been at least 11 separate experiments adding a special sequence to the same location. The end result has always been supercharged viruses. ^WSJ quote.
hood Member	Sun Jun 06 14:21:01 "Fauci intentionally lied to the public about masks early on" No? It's just that fucking retards such as yourself are not intelligent enough to actually understand what was being said. And since you can't comprehend it, IT MUST BE LIES!
nhill Member	Sun Jun 06 14:39:35 I agree with Hood in spirit, if not in insult. Here's how it works: The cloth masks you buy at the pharmacy (and that you commonly see people wear) don't protect the user very much, other than preventing respiratory droplets from entering your system (i.e. helps prevents spread from someone coughing out their spit). Their purpose is primarily to prevent one from spreading their own droplets, in case they are infected. All in all, it's fairly clear that the cloth masks are more assuage fears than prevent them while being marginally effective. N95 masks on the hand obviously work. No it can't filter out particles the size of COVID19, but that's not even the point. Imagine an arena with massive doors all around it, and 10,000 people trying to get into the arena. They'll filter in pretty quickly. Now imagine an arena with only one small door. Those 10,000 people will take a very long time to get in, and most would not make it in within a short time-frame. That's how masks work. Even if N95 can't directly filter out the COVID19 particles, it can jam up the entry points. And that's how diseases work. You can get exposed to COVID19 particles with no issues. What makes it is a disease is the viral load, which N95 masks reduce massively. Cloth masks reduce it very slightly due to preventing droplets, but are mostly useless.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jun 06 14:49:23 Hrothgar The first people who claimed that corona was an accidental release from that lab, where CHINESE researchers and scientists. They were quickly shut down. The reason you find the hypothesis unlikely is because we have a poor frame of reference for how likely these things are. The lab in wuhan conducts research, on corona virus and use gain of function research, to rapidly evolve virus and as the name indicates, gain new function. This new study now claims there are 4 positively charged aminoacids in row on the covid spike protein, which apparently is very very rare as a natural phenomena. Let that color the likelihoods.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jun 06 14:58:17 ”What makes it is a disease is the viral load, which N95 masks reduce massively” We all had to learn some new concept to make sense of this, like ”viral load”. These concept and fact trickled out slowly and so it gave the impression that the fact ”changed”. Some people take this as ”the man” changing the facts to fit the narrative. It is silly, because people like that must operate on the assumption that they already know EVERYTHING about everything, but also that nothing new can be discovered as we move forward.
nhill Member	Sun Jun 06 15:07:35 Agreed for the most part. People feel uncomfortable with their lack of knowledge and when things are explained more intricately they pull a Duckhat and say "yOu mOvEd tHe gOaLpOsTs!". Intellectual honesty is hard to find.
Paramount Member	Sun Jun 06 15:29:33 Nimatzo is a clown. Either that or he is drunk tonight. Who is this Dr Birger Sorensen? There is no info on him on the internet. If he was some kind of Doctor, an expert or a professional of some kind, there would be info on him. And the other guy, Richard Dearlove. He is the former head of the British MI6. Now, why would they want to spread fake news, propaganda and try to damage China? Britian is probably hurt because China decided that Hong Kong too (just like every place else on the planet) needs a national security law.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jun 06 15:32:57 Well paramount, even if I were drunk, tomorrow I will be sober, but you will still be retarded.
Paramount Member	Sun Jun 06 15:38:56 So you are not drunk? You are a clown then.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jun 06 15:42:25 Just to clarify about the labS in Wuhan, there are two. One of them is of lower security class and is indeed across the street from the market, the other one where the high level research is conducted is a few km away, you can see it on the map in this bbc article. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57268111
Seb Member	Sun Jun 06 15:49:52 There's a fair amount of God and compelling arguments as to why the spike protein doesn't have the features of a gain of function experiment. There's also the fact that people appear to have fallen sick before the first cluster identified in the market in other parts is Wuhan. Finally if you have people traveling to collect bat samples and coming back to Wuhan, it doesn't have to have escaped from the lab. People could have been infected in the wild and carried it back to Wuhan. Nim: "This new study now claims there are 4 positively charged aminoacids in row on the covid spike protein, which apparently is very very rare as a natural phenomena." I've seen critiques of this already saying actually there's no basis at all for saying this is particularly unlikely.
Seb Member	Sun Jun 06 16:00:29 I think it unlikely it was deliberately created. And I think it also pretty unlikely that it leaked by accident, simply because zoonotic transfer of similar diseases have happened before several times in the last few decades and was predicted to eventually cause a pandemic, which is why such research is of importance and interest ; so there's no compelling *need* to explain it in terms of a lab leak. Wuhan is the place this diseases was first identified, but Wuhan is a major transport hub as well having a lab doing such research. And indeed, increased pharmacovigilence as a result of the lab may in part be why the disease was first noticed there as opposed to in smaller towns in the province. Starting off from the idea that the lab is there, therefore let's try and find effect to link to the lab is a classic case of salience bias. You need to look at all angles and eliminate rather than starting to build a case around the lab.
Seb Member	Sun Jun 06 16:03:36 Also everything I've seen around analysis's of the spike protein trying to determine if it's artificial seems to be pretty damning of every claim that it is.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jun 06 16:52:53 There is also US intelligence report that people working at the lab had flu symptoms as early as nov 2019. The plot thickens every day. Arguably, we may never find out the truth, which is the worst outcome. If China did fuck up and cover this up, we want to know, if they are innocent, we want to know. I think it is at this point, it is just as likely that is escaped from the lab, as it developing spontanous in the wild. The proximity of the labs is just to simple of an explanation to not be plausible. I am not a technical expert, so I have no assessment to make of the different technical explanations of the different hypothesis. Personally, I really hope this was a wild thing, China can clamp down on bush meat even harder. I don’t want this to materialize into the wedge some want between China and the West. Having said that, I am really concerned about this gain of function research shit and the risk assessment from the US on it’s own labs. I think we covered it last year on UP, but it is worth repeating, this is the stuff of Zombie apocalypse movies. Land escapes are bound to happen, gain of function research is an important research tool. It is like AI research, everyone knows the risks, but no one is going to stop doing it.
kargen Member	Sun Jun 06 17:07:05 They say they do gain-of-function research to help develop better vaccines. That may be the main reason but I'm betting there is still weaponized versions being developed as well by a variety of militaries.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jun 06 17:12:58 That is how half the zombie apocalypse stories start: they were trying to find the cure to ALL disease, oops, we accidentally destroyed civilization and killed almost everyone.
habebe Member	Sun Jun 06 17:20:41 hood, Your wrong. I had posted a while back I thought they lied about masks because they wanted to keep the limited supply for frontline workers. That's exactly what happened, its been admitted by Fauci. They thought if they told people the truth that the m95 masks were more effective that frontline workers would lack an already limited supply and they needed them more. Theur solution was to lie. The problem is lieing diminishes trust which is important, its shit like this that leads people to not beleive such institutions.
nhill Member	Sun Jun 06 17:41:49 Ah, that was your angle. Yeah, they totally lied about N95 not being more effective early on. Actually, I had forgot about that one.
nhill Member	Sun Jun 06 17:43:40 http://www...hortages-from-the-start-2020-6
nhill Member	Sun Jun 06 17:46:57 A few days earlier, he tweeted that masks were "not effective in preventing" COVID-19 in the general public, saying, "Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS!" He later reversed his advice. Fauci explained the early advice against masks by saying: "The public-health community — and many people were saying this — were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply."
Seb Member	Sun Jun 06 18:00:38 Nim: "There is also US intelligence report that people working at the lab had flu symptoms as early as nov 2019." Which are incredibly common symptoms of an incredibly common disease. Also I have read that "admission to hospital" is actually "booked into clinic delivered primary care based at a hospital" - the vagaries of how Chinese health care system works is that a lot is done by hospitals in cities which in Europe and America would be considered primary care. tl;dr - "they went to the doctor because they had the flu", rather than anything exciting like "they needed to be sent for intensive treatment" may be a better description. An interesting calculation would be how unlikely it would be for nobody at the research lab to fall ill with flu during flu season.
habebe Member	Sun Jun 06 18:04:47 Nhill, Yup, absolutely.Back when that happened I posted about it several times. And I understand the reasoning, the greater good probably was served by people saving the masks for frontline workers HOWEVER in the long run it derodes trust and places them as thebkind of people who look down on people with the attitude of "Just trust what Im saying, I know better than you so when I lie its for your benefit" its the stereotypical "liberal elite" mentality in my personal opinion.
kargen Member	Sun Jun 06 18:09:33 Personal protective equipment was already in short supply before the virus hit. A lot of that was coming from China and didn't meet the standards required for hospitals in the US. I almost had to reschedule my knee surgery because of a lack of gowns and the surgery was considered elective. Good thing I was able to do it when I did because a month later everything was shut down pretty much. When I got my 2nd Covid vaccination I had to fill out the form that asks about all kinds of symptoms and if you have had any in the last 10 days. I marked three or four of them and so was asked about them. Wasn't a place on the form to explain. When I told them it was caused by hay fever (elevators here were drying grain and it pumps a lot of grain dust in the air) they just said okay and off I went for the shot. A lot of the symptoms on the check list could be caused by all kinds of things. Four of them could probably describe a good solid hangover.
habebe Member	Sun Jun 06 18:10:26 "There is also US intelligence report that people working at the lab had flu symptoms as early as nov 2019." As much as I do think its very plausible it was a lab leak, especially because of cover ups by China. Im also weary of US Intel being honest.They also have reasonably good reasons to be dishonest or disingenuous with this sort of thing.
TheChildren Member	Mon Jun 07 01:12:50 "The first people who claimed that corona was an accidental release from that lab, where CHINESE researchers and scientists. They were quickly shut down. " > no u stoopid assclown wipe. they were FALUNGONG FUCKFACES and taiwanese cucks. just like the whole "threegorgeous dam already bursted" complete lies that they made up for over 3 months brainwashin morons like u in da west. they are zero qualified in talkin anythin bout china just like ur iranian cuckface is not qualified to talk about iran. coz ur a sellout. well, werent they saying peoples were droppin dead on da street at da beginning of da pandemic. then they showed u clips from sars 1. and all u morons thought it was real. well, u have corona for 1,5 years now. did anyone drop dead on da street in ur country. how fuckin thick in da head do u have 2 be 2 believe that shit. these peoples and antichina crowds r literally lying and makin up accusations and facts every day in ur face. u didnt even know da lab wasnt close by. all this time u fuckin didnt know. a low level security lab? GTFO. theres no low level security lab. They set that up AFTER da lockdown, moron. it was 2 investigate that market during jan 2020. just like in pandemic movies where u see theres always peoples and base of operations close by "Ground zero" u fuckin cunt.
nhill Member	Mon Jun 07 01:49:54 lol
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jun 07 06:07:41 He is basically like Dukhat with horrible spelling. Amirite?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jun 07 06:13:48 Seb There are plausible explanations for every coincidence, but there are a few coincidences too many in this soup to dismiss the entire chain of events, as a coincidence. You said you had read a re-buttal on the spike protein, can you link it?
habebe Member	Mon Jun 07 06:41:08 Tom Cotton has to feel pretty smug about now. remember that almost a year and a half ago he was routinely dismissed as a xenophobic loon by pretty much the entire democratic party and the left wing media for even considering a lab leak theory. However history seems tonhave proved him right that its atleast a very plausible source. While the party of truth and science dismissed, covered up and was flat out humorously wrong.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 07 06:47:24 https://gidmk.medium.com/was-covid-19-created-in-a-laboratory-88dd731c627e This wasn't it, but covers some of it. There are many biological proteins with four positive charges in a row, many of them in humans.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 07 06:49:32 Also has this, WSJ covered the hospital bit: "Except, in China the majority of primary care services are provided from hospitals, which includes things like sick certificates for people who miss a day of work due to a cold. In other words, three people going to a hospital for care might literally be what you’d expect of a normal flu season and have no nefarious connotations at all. This was even noted in the Wall Street Journal piece, but since it was buried deep down towards the bottom the fact that these hospital attendances are proof of very little was lost in the noise."
Seb Member	Mon Jun 07 06:55:01 All in all, it's not hugely compelling to me. Could China have been doing gain of research function, the disease escaped, and then became a global killer? I mean it's possible. But then again, zoonotic transfer is how SARS happened and various flu concerns. Indeed that's why they would be conducting gain of function experiments in the first place. Assure from pure coincidence, there's a number of other reasons why you might expect the lab and the disease detection to be correlated without gain of function research or accidental release.
habebe Member	Mon Jun 07 07:16:43 Id like to point out that the Chinese government actually denies that those 3 people were sick at all and have called it "lies" My source was DW news.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 07 07:22:57 What precisely did they deny: That those three individuals were sick? That those three individuals had symptoms? That those three individuals had covid-19? That those three individuals worked at the lab? That those three individuals were treated at hospital? That anyone at the lab got sick? Etc etc
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 07 07:29:07 That anyone from the lab was sick. I'll try to find the video.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 07 07:32:01 http://youtu.be/qs461dOk9QU About 2:30 in. They said their was zero infection among the wuhan lab staff.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 07 07:35:44 "But then again, zoonotic transfer is how SARS happened and various flu concerns." Is it? I remember China caught lying about data then too. Also far less scrutiny, do we actually have reasonable evidence that it was natural then? China was late to report it and denied WHO investigations for a while. I'm not saying it was, or even that it was likley, IDK. But if you jabe trust issues with the news, imagine how bad history is.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 07 07:44:28 So a quick Google search came up with an interesting read. Basically the consesus was that it came from bats, this conclusion was reached by Chinese scientists and an Australian team. However, it was controversial since if it did come from bats many scientists thought it would have mutated multiole.times through different animals since the bat version and human version were very different. This article is from 2013. "However, no specific source has been identified. Today we still do not know where the SARS virus came from and how it disappeared." Under new scrutiny, this seems strange.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 07 07:47:35 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3747529/
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 07 08:03:00 Here is another from.2004 saying at least three sars cases were traced to Chinese labs. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC416634/ Again, this isn't absolute proof, but its enough suspicion to say, mabey sars wasn't natural.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 07 08:40:43 Serica Delenda Est!!!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jun 07 10:06:43 Seb I actually read those debunking tweets that, many of them got hung up on the "physically impossible" part that comes from the daily mail article. Something other tweeters quoted Sorensen saying being misquoted and misunderstood. It isn't exactly unheard of that journalists and scientists fail to communicate properly. I was looking for something more specific, because I didn't understand the claim in context as applicable to "protein", but spike protein specifically. I don't think it is likely that 2 distinguished scientist would claim something that is so obviously wrong, when according to the tweets 1/3 of all human proteins have 4 positively charged amino-acids in a row? These kinds of bad faith assumptions (not by you) makes me more skeptical towards the debunkers.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jun 07 12:23:54 Hrothgar Just to scaffold a frame of reference of lab accidents. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/05/28/biolabs-pathogens-location-incidents/26587505/ High-profile lab accidents last year with anthrax, Ebola and bird flu at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the discovery of forgotten vials of deadly smallpox virus at the National Institutes of Health raised widespread concerns about lab safety and security nationwide and whether current oversight is adequate to protect workers and the public. Wednesday the Department of Defense disclosed one of its labs in Utah mistakenly sent samples of live anthrax -- instead of killed specimens – to labs across the USA plus a military base in South Korea where 22 people are now being treated with antibiotics because of their potential exposure to the bioterror pathogen. As many as 18 labs in nine states received the samples, the CDC said Thursday. .... From 2006 through 2013, labs notified federal regulators of about 1,500 incidents with select agent pathogens and, in more than 800 cases, workers received medical treatment or evaluation, limited public data in program annual reports show. Fifteen people contracted laboratory-acquired infections and there were three unintended infections of animals, according to the reports, which do not identify labs and mostly provide aggregated counts of incidents by type. Reported incidents involve events ranging from spills to failures of personal protective equipment or mechanical systems to needle sticks and animal bites. The program, jointly run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, refuses to release copies of detailed incident reports, citing a 2002 bioterrorism law. Incident records the USA TODAY Network obtained directly from individual labs provide a window on the kinds of mistakes that happen. An animal caretaker in Georgia was potentially exposed to a bird flu virus that kills 60% of the people it infects when a defective respirator hose supplying purified air detached from its coupling in September. A researcher in Wisconsin was quarantined for seven days in 2013 after a needle stick with a version of the same H5N1 influenza virus. A lab worker in Colorado failed to ensure specimens of the deadly bacterium Burkholderia pseudomallei had been killed before shipping them in May 2014 to a co-worker in a lower-level lab who handled them without critical protective gear. None of the workers was infected. The public and the lab community tend to learn only about the rare instances of serious or fatal lab infections, which sometimes are published as case reports in scientific journals or make national news. This isn't even about China, this about the inherent risks involved in this kind of research. If the hypothesis is even correct, China is the victim of bad luck.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 07 13:30:07 Nim: Andrew Wakefield was a respected doctor and researcher until he published his paper. He very specifically claimed that four positive charged ions in a row was a signature of something that would not likely happen in nature. Only it is common. I agree that "laws of physics" comment was way over interpreted, but he was clear that it was unlikely to occur in nature and a signature for artificiality. he's not really provided any basis for this being a signature of artificiality, so not much basis for people pointing out that it is in fact common as bad faith. In the end, he's asking us to take it at trust that somehow 4 positive charges are a sign of artificiality, yet most biochemists seem to disagree.
OsamaIsDaWorstPresid Member	Mon Jun 07 14:06:34 Seb u wana xplane y china tried 2 patent da corona vacine b4 declairin da pandemic and y thay destroiyed all there lab coronavirus samplez?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jun 07 14:39:53 Seb "Andrew Wakefield was a respected doctor and researcher until he published his paper." You mean until he engaged in a massive fraud. That isn't the case here, they are being accused of an error, on the level of confusing the laws of thermodynamics. Probably something you expect from undergrads. Anyway I started skimming the original study (you would think the debunkers would have bothered reading it), that your link provided: "The concentration of positive charge is on the receptor binding domain near the receptor binding motif at the top of the Spike protein. As with (2) this is more elegantly explained by an hypothesis of purposive manipulation than one of natural evolution." They are indeed talking about spike protein, not all protein. Now, whether the conclusion is true that this is "elegantly explained by" this or the other, I don't know. However my skepticism towards people who make bad faith assumptions is validated for the millionth time.
TheChildren Member	Mon Jun 07 15:29:28 u wanna know da truth about covid. u gotta go ask bout fort derrick, cuckold. wuhan military games, dumbass. ever heard of it before. event 201 fuckface
Seb Member	Mon Jun 07 16:28:09 Nim: "You mean until he engaged in a massive fraud." Yup. "That isn't the case here" That we know of. There are a host of "respected scientists" that have gone to bat on outlandish theories that have tanked their careers. Pons and Fleischman, Schon, Freeman Dyson on pollywells... You really can't read anything into the idea that because they are a respected scientist - the argument needs to stand up. He says 4 positive charges are a signature of artificiality because they are unlikely to occur in nature - and then you see lots of such strings, then obviously he needs to explain more; we can't assume that your rejecting it must be doing so in bad faith. As you say, in the original article he offers no reason as to why the concentration of positive charges is suggestive of artificiality. He expounded further in the Daily Mail interview, and said the four positive charges were "physically impossible", by which I think we can be generous and say "should not occur naturally" - again without reasoning why this would be so. There's nothing obviously immediately specific about a spike protein for other proteins, so no, it's not disingenuous or bad faith to point to all sorts of other proteins that have this feature. What exactly is it about spike proteins that he feels mean that concentration of four positive charges is overwhelmingly unlikely to occur in nature when we know it can in other proteins? He's offered no argument as to why. And many biochemists disagree with his assertion. This isn't bad faith: the onus is on him to make an argument; not everyone else to accept an assertion without supporting arguments and evidence. It might be bad faith if there's an obvious way to interpret his statements in a way that is consistent. But there isn't. Instead you seem to be deploying this argument that to cite any example is bad faith because it doesn't counter a statement he has made; but the statement he has made its so broad as to be unfalsifiable: there's something specific about this spike protein that makes it different from other proteins that have high positive charges concentrations... well that may well be. But until he sets that argument out; what he has set out to date falls below what is required of a scientific statement.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jun 07 17:32:08 "That we know of." You are right, but we also have no reason to suspect it either. You seem to want to take this further and dirtier, now that the study shows they are indeed as I said, talking about spike protein and not all protein, you insinuate fraud. I think it is a bit strange that you want to look in that direction for no good reason. Do we have good reasons to sprinkle the stench of fraud on them? "You really can't read anything into the idea that because they are a respected scientist - the argument needs to stand up." I didn't. I said "I don't think it is likely that 2 distinguished scientist would claim something that is so obviously wrong" (all protein). Which the old paper shows, they didn't. "we can't assume that your rejecting it must be doing so in bad faith." Read above, my comment was towards the 1/3 of human proteins have 4 positive charges rebuttal. We are talking past each other here. I am saying accusing them of making low bar mistakes, such as not knowing that 1/3 of human proteins are structured this way, is bad faith assumption, made by the debunkers on twitter. Of course, Sørensen needs to make a clear case around the why here. I already said, I don't know if the conclusion is true, but they are talking about this being a novelty on spike protein, not all protein. Anyway, your link was actually useful, thanks. We have to wait for the publishing to get more details.
kargen Member	Mon Jun 07 18:08:32 "wuhan military games, dumbass. ever heard of it before." That is where China tried to infect the participants so they would spread the disease around the world. I already told your ignorant ass in another thread that the participants from the USA were not stationed at Fort Derrick. A simple search will confirm that for you.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 08 00:53:17 Nim: No, no, you misunderstand. I'm saying your approach to evaluating his statement is dangerously unscientific. You can't use his status as a scientist to provide a "blank cheque" here. There's no reason to think a spike protein would be different from another protein and no mechanism offered as to why specifically spike proteins would differ from other proteins in not naturally having four positive charges in a row. You absolutely cannot say "well, there must be some reason because he's a researcher, and anyone pointing out that incidence , of four positive charges in other proteins is engaging in bad faith". Consider this, suppose someone found four positive charges on a spike protein on an adenovirus, would this like work "ah, well, thats bad faith too, because we talking about Coronavirus, he wouldn't have made such a blinding error, so obviously he means there's something about Coronavirus spike proteins that makes 4 charges unlikely, and to compare to adenovirus spike proteins is bad faith". If you take this attitude, his statement is unfalsifiable. Attempting to falsify a statement is key to the scientific method, and you absolutely can't start dismissing attempts to do so as bad faith. The onus is on him to create a more specific statement that isn't falsifiable.
TheChildren Member	Tue Jun 08 01:01:07 "That is where China tried to infect the participants so they would spread the disease around the world. I already told your ignorant ass in another thread that the participants from the USA were not stationed at Fort Derrick. A simple search will confirm that for you. " >> sure cuckold. we need u 2 come 2 china 2 infect u... lol just like china needs u 2 be in china 2 hack u, am i rite. lol fuckface. if anyone wanted 2 infect u, they wuldnt do it in there own lands. and they wuldnt need 2 infect there own peoples. great logic there. butbutbut they didnt close down there international travelzzzz...but which one is it. wuhan military games, or international travels. OWNED bitch.
TheChildren Member	Tue Jun 08 01:01:58 event 201 cuck, keep denying coz it doesnt fit ur agendas.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 08 01:10:09 Nim: Also, another thing to consider, predicting the structures of proteins and what is possible/not possible is a specialism in its own right. I can't find exactly what either of the two scientists specialisms are, but the paper is wide ranging. So inherently I'm distrustful of a paper with only two authors that covers wide ground. It is more likely to be lower quality as a result, and make errors. Secondly, it's deeply odd to issue a press release before publication. Cf. Pons and Fleischman. Particularly on something controversial. Everything here reads to me like two people having gone off the rails a bit. It happens. Science is a discipline, it doesn't innoculate people from being kooks.
Paramount Member	Tue Jun 08 01:50:49 ”just like ur iranian cuckface is not qualified to talk about iran. coz ur a sellout.” I don’t think Nimatzo is Persian/Iranian. I think he is a Kurd like his wife. Kurds are very strict with who their daughters can marry. They have their so called ”honor” and are like only allowed to marry other Kurds. If Nimatzo is a Kurd (from Iran) it could explain his hate for Iran.
kargen Member	Tue Jun 08 03:54:30 "lol fuckface. if anyone wanted 2 infect u, they wuldnt do it in there own lands. and they wuldnt need 2 infect there own peoples. great logic there." Why not? I mean for China, not the civilized world. China doesn't give a fuck about their citizens and has a problem with how quickly the rise in percentage of people over 65 years is. Release a virus on home land at a military games and two problems solved.
Paramount Member	Tue Jun 08 04:46:03 Mr Has-Not-Been-Right-About-Almost-Nothing-Since-USA-Invaded-Iraq-In-2003-Kargen, The US has a history of releasing viruses. See the so called ”Spanish” flu which originated from the USA, but which you and western media tried to hide and cover up because you didn't want to hurt people's morale. So you conveniently named it "The Spanish" flu. I can almost see how the US and western media are doing the same thing now. You have got to open up Fort Detrick for inspections, and you must be open and transparent. If the virus came from the US (again) then the world has a right to know. The US also has a tradition of not caring about their citizens. Millions of Americans are homeless and pooping on the streets. The infrastructure such as roads and railroads is cracking apart. Millions of Americans are very disappointed about the health care. Etc. In the USA you call it freedom, but in other countries you call it violations of human rights.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 08 05:13:05 Seb "I'm saying your approach to evaluating his statement is dangerously unscientific. You can't use his status as a scientist to provide a "blank cheque" here." ...I didn't bring it up to evaluate his statement, I brought it up to evaluate the accusations of the twitter debunkers you linked to, who didn't even get what they were saying correct, because they didn't read the old paper. It isn't very likely that 2 distinguished scientists confuse such simple things. Not impossible, just not very likely. Which, btw they had not. "There's no reason to think a spike protein would be different from another protein" I can think of many functional reasons for why proteins that have evolved for different purpose, would be different. Do you have a source for this?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 08 05:52:52 Anyways, regardless of the daily mail article and what people say on twitter, the contents of the paper makes no mention of the things we are talking about. They set out 5 points and why these are arguments for manipulation. The paper reads more like a rebuttal to the study (Andersen et al., 2020) which argues for natural evolution and cites 2 other sources in support, that they say actually does not support their claims, the opposite in fact. Ergo, ipso facto, the burden of proof has shifted since Andersen et al. have fucked up, they claim. Just as a summary, I am not really that interested in the twitter sphere and the politics around this. This is very simple for me, 2 distinguished scientists have put the reputation on the line and going against the stream. I think everyone should listen, give them the benefit of doubt and not make bad faith assumptions. Especially if you/I disagree with them, because if they are right we can learn some important things. If they are wrong, well then nothing has changed. I already set out my own personal motivation, for geopolitical reason, I rather this not be true. I am biased towards the natural evolution hypothesis, for that reason I will bend over backwards to get what they are saying right.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 08 06:47:57 Nim: There isn't a meaningful distinction between what was said in the old paper, what he said in the interview, and what the rebuttal I linked to said Your entire basis for saying so is *assuming* that there must be a key distinction between spike proteins and other proteins, such that while 4 positive charges are common in other proteins, they are so uncommon in spike proteins that they are a hall mark of artificiality. Your basis for making this assumption is that an eminent scientist should not make such an error. My point is this: 1. Scientists to occasionally get things very badly wrong. This is especially exacerbated when publications are made by small teams working outside of institutional governance. 2. Especially because fields are getting increasingly narrow and deep. Protein structures and the bio-physics thereof are notoriously so (cf. Deep folding because there are no really good analytical models). 3. It doesn't appear either of the two scientists are experts in this area. 4. They don't provide any reason why 4 positive charge regions are unlikely, they (so far) assert it without citation or argument - which you would expect for such a claim.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 08 06:49:02 "give them the benefit of doubt" Absolutely not. Ever. Science is adversarial and skeptical. If they say something is a signature for artificiality, they need to explain why.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 08 08:10:07 "that there must be a key distinction between spike proteins and other proteins" That part of this thread relates to the discussion on twitter based on the daily mail article, which there is no trace of in the paper. After having read the paper, I lost interest in the twitter stuff. I will state it more clearly, I don't care about the twitter comments or the daily mail article, they are of no informative value given what I know of misreporting, miscommunication, twitter and now that we can read the old paper. "Your basis for making this assumption is that an eminent scientist should not make such an error. My point is this: 1. Scientists to occasionally get things very badly wrong." What I actually said was, "Not impossible, just not very likely." i.e on occasion they get things wrong, it just isn't the first assumption I make based on the reporting of the daily mail and some twitter comments. I read the paper and it validated my heuristic around not reading too much into tweets and news articles that report "so and so scientist said such and such is physically impossible". "They don't provide any reason why 4 positive charge regions are unlikely" They don't say this is unlikely, they say this is exactly the objective of some known gain of function* research. All in all, they list 5 points that together they argue is signs of manipulation, where the number of positive charges is 1 of the variabels in 1 of the 5 main points. Regarding this they say this is found in the "very first isolate" [of covid]. Failing to detail the exact lineage of covid, is a problem here. Until we do, you have a virus that just fell out of the sky, not just jumping to another specie, but exceptionally well prepared to spread in the new specie. That can happen, it just isn't very likely. *Not any gain of functions research, they list some specific stuff conducted in China on exactly the things now found on Covid spike protein and binding receptors. "Absolutely not." You are right, "benefit of doubt" isn't the appropriate term for what I meant, I explained what the intention was in the last paragraph. I am biased towards an outcome, no matter how trivial, when I see such things in myself, I need to make an extra effort to not misunderstand the other sides argument. This is good advice for all discussion and dialogue, particularly those that are adversarial in nature. It is the steel maning of arguments, instead of straw maning them.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 08 09:32:35 Nim: "They don't say this is unlikely" In the interview, he does. As to the older paper, the argument is nonsensical "Gain of function seeks to see if we can get something that binds strongly to human receptors, this bonds strongly to humans, therefore it must be gain of function". But the whole point of evolution of the virus in humans would be selecting for a mutation that binds strongly to humans (which was what was rebutted initially, hence I assume leading to the argument that was deployed in the interview that it is implausible to have evolved naturally). So I don't see how that argument stacks up at all. "Failing to detail the exact lineage of covid, is a problem here. Until we do, you have a virus that just fell out of the sky, not just jumping to another specie, but exceptionally well prepared to spread in the new specie. That can happen, it just isn't very likely." How do you assess the likelihood - what quantitative analysis backs that statement up? We do have close lineages - this seems pretty much a re-run of the anti-evolutionists argument about "where are the transitional fossils". Early strains of the virus that are not as competitive are quickly drowned out by those that are. In the UK, we've had several different strains completely dominate over the course of the pandemic. The idea that because we can't find an ancestral form of the virus that spreads not so well in humans, therefore a well adapted strain "fell out the sky", and this is unlikley, ipso facto it was engineered ... this seems a crazy argument to me. A version of the virus that spread not so effectively would likely have been dismissed as flu - it is only when it starts to spread really well that you suddenly get these clusters that let you spot it is a pandemic, and then get the concentrated numbers to notice the disease is actually a lot more severe than flu. Phenomenologically speaking, it seem entirely likely that this is what we would see in such a disease. After all, we never identified the exact precursor to SARS 1. Ultimately, all these problems are inherent problems with the argument they are making - if their argument is so poorly specified and lacking in detail that it can be easily rebutted - we shouldn't be pointing at those that have rebutted it and gone "Well obviously they couldn't have meant this because it is so easily rebutted, let us try and confabulate what they *actually* must have meant..." I'm more inclined to believe they are poor researchers, because a good researcher would not have published such an assertion without a good deal more citation and argument to support it in the paper in the first place. Clearly, they have rushed to publication - which is poor practice.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 08 10:57:05 ” therefore a well adapted strain "fell out the sky", and this is unlikley, ipso facto it was engineered” It is unlikely, but I didn’t say ipso fact it was engineered. Anyway eventually I grow tired of saying, ”that isn’t what I said” and the slow realization that you are not actually arguing with me, but with yourself, is fully internalized. Thanks for the link.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 08 11:14:45 Nim: "therefore a well adapted strain "fell out the sky", and this is unlikley, ipso facto it was engineered”" This is essentially the argument *they* are making though isn't it: If not natural, then engineered. I don't think we really do have a problem with not having early, poorly adapted strains of covid: we would not expect to find them for the same reason you don't find poorly adapted species in the fossil record. They are too few to be likely to find, compared to better adapted ones that proliferate and dominate. The fact we cannot find poorly adapted ancestral covid strains then doesn't mean we have the unlikely situation Covid suddenly emerged from a virus that affected a non-human host fully fledged: , and there's no "unlikely" scenario to explain.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 08 11:54:32 ”This is essentially the argument *they* are making though isn't it: If not natural, then engineered.” Yes, but not simply because of 1 thing, I think you are simplifying things too much and strangely hostile towards these two, going as far as likening them to known fraudsters. My understanding is that they are rebutting Andersen et Al. which cites research they say support their research, but infact does not. There are other issues with Andersen et Al. As you say there are two possible explanations, ipso facto they argue, the burden of evidence has shifted towards the natural evolution camp to provide evidence, since some key evidence they cite, actually says the opposite of what they claim: ”Therefore this reference supports the very opposite of the Andersen et al hypothesis. We are immediately wary of any paper containing such egregious errors.” Then they detail their own findings. Al the quantifying issues and questions you ask are valid, where the likelihood assessments come from all of them valid. But let us be honest ALL you question need to be answered for the natural evolution hypothesis, but on that you simply ahrug and say, there are other virus we can’t really account the origina of either. There is a lot of conjecture regardless of hypothesis and I think very few people are being honest with that, Sorensen, Andersen, all of them are asserting things they don’t know for sure.
TheChildren Member	Tue Jun 08 12:06:08 "Why not? I mean for China, not the civilized world. China doesn't give a fuck about their citizens and has a problem with how quickly the rise in percentage of people over 65 years is. Release a virus on home land at a military games and two problems solved. " >> cuckian thinks it smart 2 release something nasty on own pop. becoz releasin it say near mexico and have it spread with those border crossers isnt a heck lot easier and no added lockdown and economic damage and rep damage. idiot. but yes, release it on own land, with lockdown and economic damage as consequences and have anglo racists countries make racist accusations and racist insults 4 a whole year, now THATS smart thing 2 do. thats why ur IQs r borderline single digit. and noooo of course china doesnt care about it own pop. thats why they locked it down early on. thats why all corona jabs r free and thats why they also help out pop during floods and storms. but lets play along and pretend cuckian the idiot is on 2 something here. they dunt care about own pop. but why still release it causin big economic and rep damage. if they dunt care bout peoples, surely they care bout moniez. at this point, does ur cuck brain even work.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 08 12:09:45 This is all compounded by the fact that all of the natural evolution people were out in force WEEKS into pandemic (signing letters and such) before we knew anything about anything dismissing a lab leak and anyone talking about it as conspiracy loons. Meanwhile one of the people central to this early media campaign was actually directly tied to the Wuhan lab, while lying about conflict of interest. These things are conveniently forgotten, while you sprinkle ”fraud” on the Sorensen study. You can see how that gives people the notion that, the truth didn’t matter, the narrative had already been written.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 08 12:31:29 ”After all, we never identified the exact precursor to SARS 1.” I had to look this up, but you are wrong. There is ample evidence for SARS 1 being natural, even though not everything is know, intermediary hosts where identified in a few months, the gap is no where near to that of what we are talking about. China has not presented any evidence of that kind for cov-19. Of course that isn’t evidence of a lab leak, but that is basically the situation for either hypothesis. A lot of conjecture and weak evidence and assertions of how unlikely or likely things are without any solid evidence. So, I start paying attention to behavior patterns. Andersen of Andersen et al, was one of these people who signed an open letter, weeks in to the pandemic to denounce the lab leak hypothesis. Does that sound scientific to you?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 08 12:43:02 ”we would not expect to find them for the same reason you don't find poorly adapted species in the fossil record.” This a very poor anaology and wrong, there would be anti body trail of this early ancestor, either in the chinese population (if it was a flu variant) or in bats if it was a zoonotic jump. No such evidence has been presented, despite a lot of effort looking. Again, I am cautious to say that this lack of evidence is evidence for something, but absence of evidence is evidence of abscence, when you expect to find something... and you don’t.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 08 19:31:34 Nim: "Yes, but not simply because of 1 thing" Granted, we can move onto the next thing after we are done with this thing, namely the positive charges. "As you say there are two possible explanations, ipso facto they argue, the burden of evidence has shifted towards the natural evolution camp to provide evidence," This isn't how science works. It is not a forced choice between two options - the answer can be unknown. The burden on any hypothesis here is equal - they have to prove their case. That said, the general likelihood is still more towards zoonotic transfer because that's something we know happens and something we would default to. "ALL you question need to be answered for the natural evolution hypothesis, but on that you simply ahrug and say, there are other virus we can’t really account the origina of either." No, that's no a fair reading of what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is the absence of an isolated sample of ancestral covid 19 virus that can infect humans but not particularly well adapted to humans isn't inconsistent with a zoonotic transfer scenario: it's exactly what we *would* expect from a zoonotic transfer that happened sometime before the disease adapted and became pandemic. Such an ancestral strain would be rare, and misidentified until it mutated to be much better adapted and only then would it be noticeable, isolated and distinguished; by which point it would have outcompeted and likely driven to extinction it's ancestral strain by depriving it of hosts. Therefore, the absence of such a strain and the adaptation of covid 19 to humans isn't evidence of artificiality. It cannot be. It is what we would expect to see. It would need to be something *specific* about the and adaptation, i.e. one that bares a fingerprint of manipulation techniques or perhaps some biophysical reason for not being likely to occur in nature. But such reason needs to be explicit, not implicit, as is the case so far with the positive charge cluster.
Seb Member	Wed Jun 09 03:32:03 Nim: " had to look this up, but you are wrong. There is ample evidence for SARS 1 being natural, even though not everything is know, intermediary hosts where identified in a few months," Now, earlier you accused some people of acting in bad faith when they looked for charge motifs in proteins other than specifically spike proteins. Here, you have substituted identifying and isolating a precursor strain to SARS with identifying it's immediate host. I'm just going to leave that there and ask yourself whether you were truly acting in bad faith, or raising a valid counterpoint; and whether you maybe should afford the same leway. "the gap is no where near to that of what we are talking about." Intermediate hosts haven't been identified for COVID, it is true. However, I think it is fair to say that most of the research capacity has been focused more on treatments etc. and the kind of survey work needed to confirm intermediate hosts has likely been hampered by the pandemic itself. We know it's origin is in bats, and there are a number of potential intermediate hosts. "So, I start paying attention to behavior patterns." In that case, you should consider why it is you have so few people writing papers suggesting lab leak, why they publish un-peer reviewed work in right wing political magazines, how it is they are able to speak authoritatively without collaborators in the specific technical areas they cite, what level of internal and external peer review has tested these out-of-specialism elements of their paper, and why they choose to announce findings in lay media prior to publication of the article itself. These are all relevant behavioural considerations. "Andersen of Andersen et al, was one of these people who signed an open letter, weeks in to the pandemic to denounce the lab leak hypothesis. Does that sound scientific to you?" Yes - at the time the lab leak claims were largely lurid nonsense implying it was deliberately manufactured - and being pushed by the Trump admin - as a means to assign culpability to china for political purpose. Lab leak, in my view, and many others, has been massively over sold, and rather than starting from evidence it seemed to mostly run backwards from a conclusion - under that circumstances the whole pushing and premature elevation of the lab leak posed a very real risk (from a scientific perspective) of falling into confirmation bias but also causing China to withdraw from any useful scientific process around the viruses origin. By all means, check out the lab etc. - but this cannot easily be done under the circumstances of seeking evidence to confirm a particular theory. And inductive approach rather than deductive is needed in these circumstances. "This a very poor anaology and wrong, there would be anti body trail of this early ancestor" Not necessarily - you create a range of different antibodies that lock onto a various elements of the viral protein jacket. The idea that you would be able to identify and isolate a variant that has a different spike protein purely from sampling anti-bodies without any access to a sample of poorly adapted original virus or its genome is highly unlikely. You also need to consider how you would tell apart antibodies developed for an ancestral strain vs antibodies developed for a mutant strain that had mutated in a way that made it less effective. Such stains emerge all the time and die out quickly because they are outcompeted (we only see the ones where a change provides a selective advantage and are thus amplified, but here we are hunting around with serology to see if we can find antibody traces). The signature for an ancestral covid strain that is poorly adapted to humans can be distinguished from a more recent mutant that has a deformed spike protein *how*? "in bats if it was a zoonotic jump." Hold on, that is not accurate at all. We *know* (and the authors agree) that the pre-jump virus is from Bats. Their argument is that there is an intermediate step: a virus post jump that can infect humans, but is not particularly good at doing so because (in their view) it is too unlikely to have acquired so much adaptation to humans at the same time*. It is that poorly adapted post-jump ancestor that is missing. B That is *exactly and precisely* the "intermediate fossil" argument; not an analogy: the absence of evidence of a poorly adapted intermediate species. *Note, I believe this assessment of probability is contested and they don't provide much evidence to support that assertion, but lets run with it for now.
Habebe Member	Thu Jun 10 10:09:22 So basically from the hard evidence Nothing really screams out that this was engineered. However there are certain traits that while not implausible for nature to make may be more likely to be found in an engineered.virus-very debated* From some quick googling the two issues most frequently raised are 1.Furin cleavage site differs from the closest relatives. 2.A cluster of Nucleotides that encode agrinine. The arguments are that these are rare in wild strains, but they do exist in 5% ish of them, so plausible...but remember that means 95% dont. ------ Then the other issue is politics. China has been shady about this.from.day one, pushing to discourage reasonable inquiry. This has happened before there, in 2004 sars wqs.spread from a lab in Beijing. The attempts to cover up the notion of the lab leak for me seems be the biggest red.flags. Both from the CCP and from scientists involved in such research. Which leads me to.think 1.They know or suspect a lab leak is the cause and are.covering it up tomdave their asses/careers. 2. (More likley) they have no clue where it came from but knoe that a lab leak is plausible and could lead to alot of backlash.
Seb Member	Thu Jun 10 11:55:43 habebe: "Nothing really screams out that this was engineered." The reverse: it looks un-engineered. Using an entirely novel backbone and a novel spike is the opposite to what you would do if it was engineered (as in, designed). In terms of outcome of a gain of function, aside from these folks claims, overall the consensus seems to be that if it was the product of gain of function work that forces evolution of certain features - like repeated passage - it would likely have evolved other features it lacks. "The arguments are that these are rare in wild strains, but they do exist in 5% ish of them, so plausible...but remember that means 95% dont." Or, to put it another way, 1 in 20 do. "China has been shady about this.from.day one, pushing to discourage reasonable inquiry." Defensive, because from day 1 the Trump administration sought to attribute culpability to China as part of it's foreign policy and trade objectives. "This has happened before there, in 2004 sars wqs.spread from a lab in Beijing." There have been disease escapes from many countries labs. "he attempts to cover up the notion of the lab leak for me seems be the biggest red.flags." This implies that there was a leak to cover up. The obvious issue in starting with a theory that it was leaked from a lab, calling it Kung Flu, Chinavirus etc. and seeking to blame China is that it is going to clam up and provide little access in case agents of the US govt seek to frame China with false argument and evidence. The US govts with far better track record for honesty than Trumps has form in shamelessly exaggerating or misrepresenting flimsy evidence to create a basis for conflict with a country. Road mobile bioweapons labs, aluminium tubes for uranium separation etc.
Seb Member	Thu Jun 10 11:57:34 It's easy to see that China wasn't going to provide an opportunity for the US to frame it for leaking a bioweapon. Pointing to defensiveness against a pattern of fraudulent behaviour you are well known for as evidence of their untrustworthiness is not terribly compelling.
Seb Member	Thu Jun 10 16:56:21 Nim: http://vir...cov-2-has-a-natural-origin/691 You might find this interesting. Unsure of the provenance of this, but claims the existence of second lineage in market centred outbreaks in Wuhan province better supports zoonotic transfer.
Habebe Member	Sun Jun 13 09:57:28 "The reverse: it looks un-engineered. Using an entirely novel backbone and a novel spike is the opposite to what you would do if it was engineered (as in, designed)" Perhaps, but arent non engineered viruses also kept in a virology lab regularly? The Sars outbreak was directly linked to a Chinese lab. Also, if it was nefarious, wouldnt the goal to be to make it look unengineered? I doubt we will ever know the truth with certainty. "Or, to put it another way, 1 in 20 do." Thats the same thing. " Defensive, because from day 1 the Trump administration sought to attribute culpability to China as part of it's foreign policy and trade objectives" They were shady abput it from before Trump knew aboit it. Now you could argue they feared such a response, but the problem is ots like accidentally running someone over with your car, and then burning the body to hide it only to get caught. "There have been disease escapes from many countries labs." Thats kind of the point.But theyve made it look worse by trying to hide it. Now also their is the high risks of the wet markets.The US also has high risks with factory farms which seem to not being discussed, but it should be, theyre both dangerous. "This implies that there was a leak to cover up." Well, if their wasnt they have not helped their case. Scientists may be debating it, but in public opinion people think it was a lab leak, and that will be the narrative. "It's easy to see that China wasn't going to provide an opportunity for the US to frame it for leaking a bioweapon. Pointing to defensiveness against a pattern of fraudulent behaviour you are well known for as evidence of their untrustworthiness is not terribly compelling." To you maybe, remember the Dr. Who tried to warn people was thrown in jail before he died. And in the court of public opinion Trumps narrative is clearly winning, people think it was Chinas fault somehow, someway.Appearances are everything.Chinas view in most western and many asian nations is at the lowest levels in memory.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 14 02:56:43 Habebe: Woah, the SARS outbreak wasn't linked to a Chinese Lab. Rather, a few people were infected with SARS in a lab, handling a sample, after the initial outbreak (and for not lead to further spread). "Also, if it was nefarious, wouldnt the goal to be to make it look unengineered" And release it in your own country? Surely by that logic you'd release it in US, not China. Hmm, maybe it was made in the US and released in China next to their lab to discredit China. This kind of evidence indifferent ad-hoc theorising gets your everywhere and nowhere
Seb Member	Mon Jun 14 03:00:44 Habebe: "Thats the same thing." Or to put it another way, it's fully equivalent I was reframing the original point in a way that is factually identical but more easily evaluated as "actually quite likely on the scheme of things". "They were shady abput it from before Trump knew aboit it. Now you could argue they feared such a response, but the problem is ots like accidentally running someone over with your car, and then burning the body to hide it only to get caught." Um, no, because they haven't been caught and there's no evidence of a body to hide. It's more like someone who knows they are going to get fingered for a crime by the lazy, corrupt self appointed sheriff pre-emptively skipping town.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 14 03:23:49 "And in the court of public opinion Trumps narrative is clearly winning, people think it was Chinas fault somehow, someway.Appearances are everything.Chinas view in most western and many asian nations is at the lowest levels in memory." Well, depends on what you think is important here: Trump's attempts to try and exert global political leverage irrespective of the truth (in which case, one can hardly complain about China not providing opportunity for further lies to be spread). Or alternatively, you care about learning lessons to mitigate the risks of future pandemics, in which case it shows exactly how dangerous to humanity Trump's rhetoric and attempt to pin China has been.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 14 04:03:46 "Um, no, because they haven't been caught" They have been caught withholding information, arresting doctors who tried to warn people, as far as public opinion goes that's enough , China's image has sank due to this. And if they were knowingly innocent, why notnoush that narrative. Remember that recent case where a cop shot a young black female? The one where they within an hour put the tapes up for all to see because she was in mid stab trying to kill people. They were clearly justified in dropping her, so they were transparent.However if their response was to conduct a private investigation and arrest anyone who tried to talk about the case, what dp you think people would think? "Well, depends on what you think is important here: Trump's attempts to try and exert global political leverage irrespective of the truth (in which case, one can hardly complain about China not providing opportunity for further lies to be spread)." Perception is important. "Or alternatively, you care about learning lessons to mitigate the risks of future pandemics, in which case it shows exactly how dangerous to humanity Trump's rhetoric and attempt to pin China has been." So your arguing that the greater good was served by the CCP blatantly lying, hiding evidence and being as non trasnparent as possible? Odds are we will never know the truth, because they withheld evidence and jailed doctors who spoke out. Sp of they are presumed guilty by most people It's a hard sell to blame Trump.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 14 04:50:54 Habebe: "They have been caught withholding information, arresting doctors who tried to warn people," China (and the US govt) default position is often to withold information in order to be able to control the situation. Do you want me to list all the things that the US govt withheld during the pandemic? "as far as public opinion goes that's enough" Yeah, but what has public opinion got to do with anything? It doesn't tell us what is true, it just tells us what people think. As your mother might have once told you "If someone jumps off a cliff, you going to jump off too?" "And if they were knowingly innocent, why notnoush that narrative." They have been, but allowing US govt inspectors to come and conduct an "investigation" when the US govt is pushing a "China's fault" narrative the surest way possible to undermine China's interests here. America has repeatedly framed countries this way - I gave you some examples. So why are you still repeatedly arguing that non-cooperation is evidence of China's guilt? China is going to be resistant to inspections under either scenario. "Perception is important." How do you think America looks globally? "So your arguing that the greater good was served by the CCP blatantly lying, hiding evidence and being as non trasnparent as possible?" No, I'm saying the greater good was unachievable from the moment US political commentators and politicians decided to turn this into a point of foreign policy contention. Everything else flows from this. The arrest of the doctor and initial cover up (by regional leaders, many of whom have now... ceased to be regional leaders) didn't preclude a decent investigation of the origin now. But hey, you got to call it Kung Flu, and public opinion is on your side. If you value that more than long term survival of the species...
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 14 05:10:36 "China (and the US govt) default position is often to withold information in order to be able to control the situation. Do you want me to list all the things that the US govt withheld during the pandemic?" And two wrongs do not make a right, didn't your mother tell you this? If the virus knowingly spread under the US while they arrested whistleblowing doctors and such, I would tell you the US government was wrong as well. However that is not the case. If you would like to discuss all the things the US government handles wrong, please open a thread, this is about China and their dangerous selfish actions about an actual occurence. "Yeah, but what has public opinion got to do with anything? It doesn't tell us what is true, it just tells us what people think. As your mother might have once told you "If someone jumps off a cliff, you going to jump off too?"" Public opinion is very important, you are right it OFTEN isn't the truth, but its clearly important, especially in Democracies and Republics. China earned this badge of shame just as the US and many other countries have earned theirs. In this case they have made it almost impossible to find out the truth , intentionally. Now its my personal opinion at this point in time that they did this because they were not sure where the virus came from and opted for what they viewed as the safer route explanation just in case it was more damaging. As I stated earlier and many times before Im often weary of trusting US intel agencies without good cause and evidence, because they have a bad track record. You still seem to fail to grasp the timeline of events. And even if they thought the US would mislead people regardless, wouldnt transparency be the best defense? "No, I'm saying the greater good was unachievable from the moment US political commentators and politicians decided to turn this into a point of foreign policy contention. Everything else flows from this." By this logic every shady corruption of any nation anywhere can be excused as pre emptivley acting in case people will use it against them.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 14 05:23:55 To summarize my opinion, I think it most likley wasnt nefarious, but accidental, although I dont reule ot put entirely. I think the seemingly cover up actions were employed because they didnt actually know where it came from but as standard MO they sought to discourage any notion it was a lab leak for the dame reason whinnie the pooh ans southpark are banned in China, they dont like bad press. In this case theu got caught doing some shady shit and it backfired leaning public opinion against them even though biologically its more plausible to have been wild. That is important though because next time it may not be and they lost what trust they did have by being shady, similarly to why people are skeptical of the CIA.
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 14 05:27:48 I would also point out that the Trump administration was very supportive of China early on amd even praised what they then thought was a good handling of events.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jun 14 05:58:44 "No, that's no a fair reading of what I'm saying at all." I was not attempting to make a "fair" reading of what you are saying, I just touched upon the evidence that is needed to establish zoonotic transfer. "What I'm saying is the absence of an isolated sample of ancestral covid 19 virus that can infect humans but not particularly well adapted to humans isn't inconsistent with a zoonotic transfer scenario: it's exactly what we *would* expect from a zoonotic transfer that happened sometime before the disease adapted and became pandemic. Such an ancestral strain would be rare" I didn't say it was inconsistent, remember that when I started this discussion, I said I think both hypothesis is just as likely right now? However, you brought up SARS1, well ok let's look at these cases of proven zoonosis and when we do that, some key pieces of evidence are missing, such as posterior diversity and the antibodies in the blood archives. For every one of these things, there is a natural explanation, but the fact remains that the proximity of the lab, the opportunity embedded in the research they have been doing at Wuhan, is the simpler explanation. We have not even gotten to the furin site, the arginine codon sequences, the double arginine codon i.e the more technical evidence, all of which are the subject of _known_ gain of function research. Yes all of them can be provided natural explanations, but they all rely on explanations that are less likely to occur, than an accident at a lab that specialized on corona virus and gain of function research. Especially given how common accidents are. And it isn’t the absence of an “isolate” they speak of in the paper, I quote the study as the details of the spike protein existing on the first isolate, i.e it was highly optimized with infecting human cells. You don’t expect that in a zoonotic jump, you expect a bunch of failed jumps that would leave genetic trace (like sars1 and mers) you expect to find anti bodies in blood banks (like mers and sars1). You can actually see the evolution of such virus as it adapts to the new host in the other virus and guess what, generally this is exactly the spike protein that evolves to infect new hosts. There is no such data for cov-19, this is a problem for the natural origins theory. It doesn’t invalidate it, and leaves on the table the less parsimonious explanation. "the general likelihood is still more towards zoonotic transfer because that's something we know happens and something we would default to." What is the source for this general likelihood? Given how much contact humans are with wild animals, not just in wet markets (consider the dozens of biologist in the field, working with just bats), zoonosis is actually quite rare. On the other hand we know lab accidents occur incredibly frequently, like really serious lab accidents occur at least a dozen times per year in the USA alone. There were 4 leaks with sars1, two of them in China! That is the likelihood of that. *P.S We also know that BSL-2 and BLS -3 labs in China were handling live corona virus.* "It is what we would expect to see." I expect to see the same evidence as with Sars1 and MERS. I have no idea what you are on about, this evidence is exactly what the WHO and everyone else have been looking for and not found, it has people scratching their heads, it is one of the reasons "respected" people who denounced the lab leak hypothesis are giving it more serious thought, because the evidence you expect to find in a zoonotic transfer, are not there. Again, I am cautious in overinterpreting the lack of evidence as positive evidence for something else "Now, earlier you accused some people of acting in bad faith when they looked for charge motifs in proteins other than specifically spike proteins. Here, you have substituted identifying and isolating a precursor strain to SARS with identifying it's immediate host." You have a point, but you are far too quick to throw judgement, I did say “exact lineage”, exact is a very poor choice of word. So let me explain. What I explained was that we have certain kinds of evidence for SARS1 and MERS (proven zoonosis) and that our knowledge gap, while not having all the details, isn't nearly as big as with cov-19. You can actually read this from my post, since I responded to you at a lesser detailed level, "There is ample evidence for SARS 1 being natural, even though not everything is know", which is the salient point, not the details. So… if we lack 1 kind of evidence, other types of evidence can be good substitutes, i.e we do not need the exact origins, we just need the zoonotic trace. I am showing good faith by not going full autism and obsessing over 1 kind of evidence. I said you were “wrong” on something (which I believe you still are), that isn’t your background, you don’t even have a BSc like I do in Biotech. So, you being wrong, on what I estimate to be actually pretty nerdy stuff, isn’t a bad faith conclusion akin to the twitter folks assuming 2 scientists at the end of their career would get undergrad level stuff wrong. I also think you have misunderstood what I said about the twitter people. I said, if you based on an daily mail article (clearly having not read the science article) assert that two distinguished scientist have made an undergrad error and that isn't just the premise of your argument for why they are wrong, but that IS you argument, you are acting in bad faith. *You* want them to be two lunatics so we can dismiss them out of hand, you made this perfectly clear when first rebuttal to this was to throw in a bunch of known fraudsters. I find this entire line of argument very strange. I have no idea why you have tried to tarnish their reputation, based on what, some tweets and a daily mail article? FYI The magnitude of influence a couple of tweets and a daily mail article have on my thinking is practically zero. "and there are a number of potential intermediate hosts." The operative word being "potential", not the other P word we are looking for, which is proven. I agree, there are _potential_ natural explanations, but to get back to my point, until those are established, there is this lab in Wuhan, that specializes in corona virus and has been doing gain of function research. And also, lab accidents occur all the time. There is something about not acknowledge the simplicity in connecting those dots that could be perceived as either dishonesty or cognitive dissonance. "Yes - at the time the lab leak claims were largely lurid nonsense implying it was deliberately manufactured - and being pushed by the Trump admin - as a means to assign culpability to china for political purpose." Wow... No. There is nothing scientific about an organized chain letter (that involved the same Peter Daszak who is involved with the Wuhan lab) to assert scientific conclusions, for which there was no evidence for, to reduce political fallout. No matter how well intentioned or how much we would agree to it in spirit, it has nothing to do with science and in fact now acts as a shit stain on the very science conducted by these very same people. It was, as you allude to, 100% political and not consequence neutral as good science should be. I was not expecting this answer, unfortunately it signals to me that you will literally say anything to defend this position, rendering this discussion completely fruitless.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 14 06:04:11 Habebe: "And two wrongs do not make a right, didn't your mother tell you this?" This isn't a question of wrong and right. Morally, transparency would have been better. Realistically and pragmatically, China would likely have paid as high a price for transparency if the vaccine escaped from the lab as if it didn't; because the US govt would have sought to portray many things as positive evidence of escape even if it were not. Therefore, nothing *factual* can be inferred from their secrecy. As to the moral question as to whether the Chinese should have stood up for the principle of transparency despite the very high likelihood the US would have abused the process to secure its own political interest without any regard for finding objective truth - well that's a question you can come down on two sides on. My view is that it is wholly unrealistic to expect any country to be transparent under those circumstances, which is why it is utterly vital to avoid talking about pandemics in terms of culpability in a speculative manner. You, obviously from your prior posts and a thread you've set up, don't see it that way. You can see it only from the perspective of "Saying China virus isn't racist" perspective; without consideration for broader strategic aims and objectives. The moment you start on a campaign to assign blame, you need to recognise you have made transparency and lessons learned impossible - which is a huge price to pay for a little bit of political advantage (both internationally and domestically). "If the virus knowingly spread under the US while they arrested whistleblowing doctors and such," Cf. tobacco link to lung cancer, climate change etc. etc. "Public opinion is very important, you are right it OFTEN isn't the truth, but its clearly important, especially in Democracies and Republics." I couldn't give a fig about US public opinion on this matter. What matters is whether there are lessons to be learned about preventing the next pandemic. The fact that X% of Americans or anyone believe China released it or not is rather irrelevant to that question; and if you want to use American or global public opinion to start a trade war or whatever with China, again, I care about the trade war, but will discount heavily the supposed rationalisation. We are back to mobile bioweapon labs and aluminium tubes. It just means we should trust US leadership less and less. "And even if they thought the US would mislead people regardless, wouldnt transparency be the best defense?" I don't know how many times I need to say No before you can understand otherwise. Letting international weapons inspectors into Iraq did not help Saddam, did it? The Bush admin took whatever they could from the report, and turned that into evidence that they were hiding something instead. The lesson is clear: you cannot trust America to abide by any process, so give them nothing to work with.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 14 07:07:34 Nim: You: "but on that you simply ahrug and say, there are other virus we can’t really account the origina of either." Me: "No, that's no a fair reading of what I'm saying at all" You: "I was not attempting to make a "fair" reading of what you are saying, I just touched upon the evidence that is needed to establish zoonotic transfer." I mean, if you are going to openly admit to arguing with phantoms you *know* don't reflect my actual position, what's the point in discussing anything?
Seb Member	Mon Jun 14 07:44:03 Nim: "I didn't say it was inconsistent," That *is* the argument of the two authors though: that the adaptation of c-19 to humans is suspicious for a natural process. Yet that it's exactly what we would expect: an early strain that first had the ability to infect humans would be utterly lost in a pandemic strain and perhaps never be isolated, and a pandemic strain is necessarily adapted to infection . "but the fact remains that the proximity of the lab, the opportunity embedded in the research they have been doing at Wuhan, is the simpler explanation" What quantitative analysis supports this? We don't know that the disease originated in Wuhan, just that it's the place that the first super spreader events occurred *which were big enough to be identified as a novel disease*. So you need to consider the likelihood of the disease emerging in the broader country, of it getting to a city with a lab doing research on that disease, and only being noticed then. Including in that selection bias. One reason you might site such a lab in Wuhan in the first place is a particularly good concentration of medical expertise. Which would make recognition of such diseases as being novel more likely. Similarly, one reason a cluster of pneumonia might be correctly identified as a novel disease might be because hospitals are more likely to be on the look out given the possibility of lab release. The thing you need to evaluate this is how likely it is for the disease to have been circulating at some level for quite some time before the major Wuhan outbreak. Simply assigning the two probabilities as roughly equal and then saying the lab is simpler "because" isn't evidence based. It's entirely intuitive. There have been many examples of zoonotic transfer. There have been no examples of a *novel* pandemic strain emerging for the first time from release from a lab. Leaks tend to be from known strains and affecting few people rapidly isolated. In many ways, a single leak leading to a pandemic without a reservoir is less likely than zoonotic transfer from a reservoir. Further there's little evidence that the lab was conducting gain of function research at the time. So we have to assume a lot of things we don't have evidence for or have evidence for the contrary: * Research not happening at the time * Slipshod practice at a lab that doesn't have a track record of such and which has been accredited in good practice *Extraordinary bad luck that the few people exposed in a lab leak somehow managed to infect lots of other animals in the wet market (under lab leak the disease jumps from bat to human and then from human to wet market animals). This is not remotely obviously simpler than from bats to intermediates to human. "quote the study as the details of the spike protein existing on the first isolate, i.e it was highly optimized with infecting human cells." Well yes, because the first isolate is from *after* it became pandemic. A strain poorly adapted (immediately post zoonotic transfer) by definition couldn't cause a pandemic. "you expect a bunch of failed jumps that would leave genetic trace (like sars1 and mers)" Can you give a specific reference here? "You expect to find anti bodies in blood banks (like mers and sars1)" Has this been looked for and explicitly *not* found? Because stored blood with known dates is about the only way I think you would be able to distinguish a failed post pandemic variant that had mutated in a way that reduced infectivity to one that was pre pandemic. Even so, it depends on how widespread that might be. If obviously transfer happened out in the countryside, you might not have enough blood samples. "it is one of the reasons "respected" people who denounced the lab leak hypothesis are giving it more serious thought" But they aren't really. They are saying they can't rule it out, but that the overwhelming likelihood is zoonotic transfer. "You have a point, but you are far too quick to throw judgement" I'm not throwing judgement. I'm pointing out how quick *you* are to do so, based on far greater gap between the point made and the rebuttal. You were equating identifying the ancestral virus with the intermediate host! That's far more of a leap than the protein Vs spike protein. "said, if you based on an daily mail article (clearly having not read the science article) assert that two distinguished scientist have made an undergrad error and that isn't just the premise of your argument for why they are wrong, but that IS you argument, you are acting in bad faith." But they aren't asserting. They are addressing a direct quote, not the daily mails interpretation of that. So far, neither author have explained why they think four positive charge regions in a row is particularly unlikely, and there's no particular reason I'm aware of that spike protein should be different in that regard to any other. Surely the best point here is to shrug and say "it's not clear what the authors are getting at with this line of argument", rather than accusing people rebutting the point of bad faith. Either the daily mail misquoted him, or he misspoke, or they made an error in their paper. Need to break now.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jun 14 07:59:46 Let me clarify your selective quoting: Me: "ALL you question need to be answered for the natural evolution hypothesis, but on that you shrug..." You: "No, that's no a fair reading of what I'm saying at all" Me: "I was not attempting to make a "fair" reading of what you are saying, I just touched upon the evidence that is needed to establish zoonotic transfer." [all your questions are valid...] i.e I accept your critical questions as valid, but that they flow in both directions. Was the intentions, despite how you received as “bad faith”. So, let me clear up the confusion I created since you are so extremely greedy in giving a charitable reading to anything I say*: We do not need the exact lineage and origins of covid-19, I will gladly correct that. However, we still have _far less_ evidence of zoonotic transfer than either Sars1 or MERS, where we identified intermediary hosts, there is serological evidence and a posterior diversity. All of which are lacking for cov-19 despite a lot of effort looking. Now you can provide natural explanations based on conjecture for all of this, for the furin site, the arginine codons, but they will all be more contrived and less likely. At the same time, I will be cautious in saying that, we didn’t find the same trail as MERS and Sars1 ergo this proves it leaked from a gain of function lab (despite the constant accusation from you that I am). To do that I have to assume the present and the future all have to conform to what we knew about the past. Hence my caution in interpreting this as convincing evidence. You on the other hand decided fairly early this was natural, based on nothing. Of course, that is your right, it just isn't very robust or scientific, it is politics. *kind of like the people on twitter.
	show deleted posts