Have you had a COVID-19 vaccination?

[Ken]

None of us are. Yet we can read and become informed. I'm merely pointing out that the NYT article cited by Judas Maccabeus doesn't actually say what people think it says.

I read it and I fully agree with Jm on what it says.

It actually says:

That studies were done in Wuhan under conditions that were unsafe for working with high level pathogens. The were doing things that we would not do handling potentially infected blood here.

That “gain of function” studies involving the addition of a lysine clamp were proposed. They were not funded by us directly. But they surely were the topic of the discussions over tea or Ertog, whatever they were drinking. A scholar, looking to impress surely had the bright idea that he could do this, in his lab, safe or not, and get a major paper out of it.

Suddenly, a pathogen, with a lysine clamp shows 1500 miles away from where they are commonly found. Government tries to hide all details of the early samples of this pathogen.

Hence, the smoking gun.

The article you are citing doesn't actually say any studies were ever done and provides no evidence of any of these claims.

The author surmises that it is POSSIBLE that such studies were done and that if they were, then that such research might be a plausible explanation for the origin of the pandemic. Nowhere does she point to any US involvement in any of it, or even any evidence that any such research actually happened.

I agree that she laid out a plausible for how the pandemic COULD have started. But the hypothesis that the pandemic was of natural origin is equally plausible as she also admits. And we won't actually know the answer to any of these questions unless the Chinese decide to become more forthcoming.

Which do you think is actually the more scary hypothesis? The lab-leak hypothesis? Or the natural origin hypothesis? Either way China is at at fault. But I find the natural origin hypothesis to be far more terrifying because it means preventing the next similar pandemic is going to be far more difficult.

[Soloist]

The article you are citing doesn't actually say any studies were ever done and provides no evidence of any of these claims.

The author surmises that it is POSSIBLE that such studies were done and that if they were, then that such research might be a plausible explanation for the origin of the pandemic. Nowhere does she point to any US involvement in any of it, or even any evidence that any such research actually happened.

I agree that she laid out a plausible for how the pandemic COULD have started. But the hypothesis that the pandemic was of natural origin is equally plausible as she also admits. And we won't actually know the answer to any of these questions unless the Chinese decide to become more forthcoming.

Which do you think is actually the more scary hypothesis? The lab-leak hypothesis? Or the natural origin hypothesis? Either way China is at at fault. But I find the natural origin hypothesis to be far more terrifying because it means preventing the next similar pandemic is going to be far more difficult.

Actually, the article addresses the stretches in logic one has to take to believe a natural spread argument. Reaction was much too fast for a natural spread and way to extreme for a natural disease.

Sure, it’s possible, it’s also possible that California is going to fall off when the next quack prediction is put out.

[Ken]

The article you are citing doesn't actually say any studies were ever done and provides no evidence of any of these claims.

The author surmises that it is POSSIBLE that such studies were done and that if they were, then that such research might be a plausible explanation for the origin of the pandemic. Nowhere does she point to any US involvement in any of it, or even any evidence that any such research actually happened.

I agree that she laid out a plausible for how the pandemic COULD have started. But the hypothesis that the pandemic was of natural origin is equally plausible as she also admits. And we won't actually know the answer to any of these questions unless the Chinese decide to become more forthcoming.

Which do you think is actually the more scary hypothesis? The lab-leak hypothesis? Or the natural origin hypothesis? Either way China is at at fault. But I find the natural origin hypothesis to be far more terrifying because it means preventing the next similar pandemic is going to be far more difficult.

Actually, the article addresses the stretches in logic one has to take to believe a natural spread argument. Reaction was much too fast for a natural spread and way to extreme for a natural disease.

Sure, it’s possible, it’s also possible that California is going to fall off when the next quack prediction is put out.

How many viruses do you think have been sequenced by labs in Wuhan or anywhere else in the world relative to the total number of viruses circulating on this planet?

Each person on earth has an estimated 380 trillion viruses living on and within their tissues. Every square meter of air has millions of viruses. Viruses can mutate, evolve and change incredibly fast as we saw during the progression of the COVID epidemic. If all the viruses on earth were lined up end to end in a single line it would stretch 10 million light years in distance. Or from here to a point 40 galaxies away. And we think we know everything about viruses?

Personally I'm agnostic when it comes to the origin of the pandemic. I think it is clear we don't have enough information to judge either way. And one can make plausible arguments either way. The Chinese probably do know but they aren't telling. Either way the pandemic is their fault. I also don't think it really matters one way or the other when it comes to how the US needs to respond to COVID and future viral threats. But I do think the natural origin hypothesis is the far more terrifying one. Because it means preventing the next pandemic caused by a novel virus will be far more difficult.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Ken, how do you know researchers in an extremely competitive and cut throat environment. I have heard stories about people sabotaging other’s work, stealing ideas, and representing the ideas and work of others as their own. It is like grabbing the ring on the merry go round, only one gets the ring…..

Grant application is turned down, contains ideas for a gain of function study. Lab is a level 2 lab, not equipped to handle high risk pathogens..

Time elapses, a virus exhibiting the unique characteristics of the referenced study is found in the wild, near a lab that filed the above grant application.

Government is opaque, and is clearly hiding something.

No it is not “proof beyond a reasonable doubt “ but it is certainly “preponderance of evidence.”

[Ken]

Ken, how do you know researchers in an extremely competitive and cut throat environment. I have heard stories about people sabotaging other’s work, stealing ideas, and representing the ideas and work of others as their own. It is like grabbing the ring on the merry go round, only one gets the ring…..

Grant application is turned down, contains ideas for a gain of function study. Lab is a level 2 lab, not equipped to handle high risk pathogens..

Time elapses, a virus exhibiting the unique characteristics of the referenced study is found in the wild, near a lab that filed the above grant application.

Government is opaque, and is clearly hiding something.

No it is not “proof beyond a reasonable doubt “ but it is certainly “preponderance of evidence.”

It is a plausible hypothesis.

But it isn’t evidence at all let alone the preponderance of evidence. It is all just speculation.

I read no actual evidence at all that any of it happened as the author speculated. It is just supposition piled upon supposition.