Lab Leak: The conspiracy theory is shaping up to look like real possibility

[oxmixmudd]

So then you admit my suspicion is not due to Trump's claims?

Oh, and I never said they were trying to manufacture a virus to unleash on the world. That is you reading some nonsense of your own into my statements due to your Trump obsession.



Even if you are 100% right about Trump's character, and how dangerous he is, it still has nothing to do with my post and my suspicions. You found a way to cram Trump in and rant at him anyway. You do this on pretty much any topic, even stuff barely related at all to Trump. That is an obsession.

Also, you pretty much described every politician ever. Especially the candidate who was opposite Trump, and Trump's immediate predecessor.

Simply not true. But you can't see it because of your own bias. You accused me of hatred and obsession with Trump. I simply responded to that accusation detailing why any person should be concerned about what Trump is doing. That you think that response is somehow forced or evidence of my obsession is absurd. It is simply a rebuttal of your accusation, in context and unforced.

Again, you are the one obsessed. You are the one that has foisted some sort of fantasy onto a caricature of me that simply doesn't exist. To the point that you will twist every word I say trying to point out the error of your obsessed bias into justification of it. This fantasy is part of the group think here at TWEB. You are not alone, and you reinforce each other in it, it's part of what connects you to each other. And so it is actually very nearly impossible for me to lead you to the folly of it. It is an interesting study of human nature and group think. But you are all completely wrong about me on this thing. I can only hope that someday some of you will realize just how foolish and absurd your caricature is.

[shunyadragon]

And your article was referring to the SAME interview as the other one. And it didn't even quote what he said, it summarized it. So this isn't something new, it's referring to the same interview we have been discussing for the last 3 pages.

His actual words were:

Q. Sure, but what if scientists found the virus outside the lab, brought it back, and then it escaped?

Fauci: But that means it was in the wild to begin with. That's why I don't get what they're talking about [and] why I don't spend a lot of time going in on this circular argument.

Which newsweek summarized as "He added that he doesn't believe the alternate theory that someone discovered coronavirus in the wild, brought it to a lab and then it accidentally unleashed it on the public."

Well I am going to do some checking, but nonetheless the other question remains unanswered.

"Pompuse Pompeo said there was a great deal of evidence that the virus came from the lab.Where is the evidence?"

You cited one question and answer. Do you have a reference for the whole interview verbatuum.

[shunyadragon]

And your article was referring to the SAME interview as the other one. And it didn't even quote what he said, it summarized it. So this isn't something new, it's referring to the same interview we have been discussing for the last 3 pages.

His actual words were:

Q. Sure, but what if scientists found the virus outside the lab, brought it back, and then it escaped?

Fauci: But that means it was in the wild to begin with. That's why I don't get what they're talking about [and] why I don't spend a lot of time going in on this circular argument.

Which newsweek summarized as "He added that he doesn't believe the alternate theory that someone discovered coronavirus in the wild, brought it to a lab and then it accidentally unleashed it on the public."

Actually I think you are citing the wrong interview (?). I believe his interview with NAtional Geographic cites his view more accurately.

Source: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/05/anthony-fauci-no-scientific-evidence-the-coronavirus-was-made-in-a-chinese-lab-cvd/

© Copyright Original Source

"Pompuse Pompeo said there was a great deal of evidence that the virus came from the lab. Where is the evidence?"

Can you cite any scientists or better yet epidemiologist that advocates you position that a natural COVID 19 escaped from the lab. If it was taken from nature. What would prevent it from jumping hosts and infecting humans in the Natural world?

There is no paper trail that identifies the COVID 19 virus was ever in the lab.

[Juvenal]

Thanks for the really wordy way of saying what I said.

How're ya doing, Sparklet? Look, ya don't want to read the thread, great. You don't notice the quotes you're providing in 262 were just given in 261, awesome. I know you're still recovering from a really scary health crisis, so I'm good with whatever you want to do. Me, I like to look deep, vet sources, provide details, have reasons. Writing these things up gives me a chance to clarify my thinking. Yeah, sometimes the posts go longer than the attention span of some readers, but you can't summarize briefly what hasn't yet been assembled.

Here's what's come together for me, in tl/dr form:

SARS-CoV-2 is nearly identical to RaTG13, another bat betacoronavirus collected for the WIV lab a decade ago. At the tip of the spike where it pierces the cell, it's now optimized for getting in. That's the biggest difference. The lab's been criticized previously for "gain of function" research.

That's why I think it came from the lab.

I've got more to say about those O-linked glycan residues now, but that's for another post.

It'll come with pictures. You'll like that.

[shunyadragon]

How're ya doing, Sparklet? Look, ya don't want to read the thread, great. You don't notice the quotes you're providing in 262 were just given in 261, awesome. I know you're still recovering from a really scary health crisis, so I'm good with whatever you want to do. Me, I like to look deep, vet sources, provide details, have reasons. Writing these things up gives me a chance to clarify my thinking. Yeah, sometimes the posts go longer than the attention span of some readers, but you can't summarize briefly what hasn't yet been assembled.

Here's what's come together for me, in tl/dr form:

SARS-CoV-2 is nearly identical to RaTG13, another bat betacoronavirus collected for the WIV lab a decade ago. At the tip of the spike where it pierces the cell, it's now optimized for getting in. That's the biggest difference. The lab's been criticized previously for "gain of function" research.

That's why I think it came from the lab.

I've got more to say about those O-linked glycan residues now, but that's for another post.

It'll come with pictures. You'll like that.

Can you cite an epidemiologist or related scientist that presents a comprehensive proposal that agrees with you, because all the references I have cited and read do not including Fauci.

I asked before, and no response, still waiting . . .

[oxmixmudd]

How're ya doing, Sparklet? Look, ya don't want to read the thread, great. You don't notice the quotes you're providing in 262 were just given in 261, awesome. I know you're still recovering from a really scary health crisis, so I'm good with whatever you want to do. Me, I like to look deep, vet sources, provide details, have reasons. Writing these things up gives me a chance to clarify my thinking. Yeah, sometimes the posts go longer than the attention span of some readers, but you can't summarize briefly what hasn't yet been assembled.

Here's what's come together for me, in tl/dr form:

SARS-CoV-2 is nearly identical to RaTG13, another bat betacoronavirus collected for the WIV lab a decade ago. At the tip of the spike where it pierces the cell, it's now optimized for getting in. That's the biggest difference. The lab's been criticized previously for "gain of function" research.

That's why I think it came from the lab.

I've got more to say about those O-linked glycan residues now, but that's for another post.

It'll come with pictures. You'll like that.

ok - Sparko, Juvenal, looks like it was I that misunderstood Juvenal's point, which I apparently unconsciously assumed matched the conclusion of the paper itself (one of those unconscious biases we talked about in another thread)

Source: paper abstract

Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.

© Copyright Original Source

My apologies, I stand corrected.


So - to clarify - Juvenal - do you believe the virus evolved naturally (in the wild) but after being sent to the lab for analysis it leaked out of the lab, or do you believe the virus evolved from other virus being worked with in the lab and then leaked out?

[seanD]

Wasn't Fauci linked to the WHO, and the WHO was linked to China? Or has the former been debunked?

[shunyadragon]

Wasn't Fauci linked to the WHO, and the WHO was linked to China? Or has the former been debunked?

No

[seanD]

No

No, it hasn't been debunked?

[shunyadragon]

No, it hasn't been debunked?

Please explain what you consider debunked? You may be right, but it is unclear.

[oxmixmudd]

Wasn't Fauci linked to the WHO, and the WHO was linked to China? Or has the former been debunked?

AS I understand it, Fauci has worked with WHO - he was involved in efforts to deal with MERS, ebola, etc. and there are nutter conspiracy theories that want to paint him as evil because of this as there are nutter conspiracy theories about Bill Gates and even Francis Collins of all people based on their work in the global medical community.

His 'linkage' to the WHO is important to you because ... ?

[seanD]

AS I understand it, Fauci has worked with WHO - he was involved in efforts to deal with MERS, ebola, etc. and there are nutter conspiracy theories that want to paint him as evil because of this as there are nutter conspiracy theories about Bill Gates and even Francis Collins of all people based on their work in the global medical community.

His 'linkage' to the WHO is important to you because ... ?

Potential confirmation bias. That's not a conspiracy theory.

And putting the word "nutter" doesn't change whether something's a conspiracy or not. Facts or no facts about a subject do that. As far as Bill Gates, no one even needs to link him to any complex conspiracy theories. The dude already has a tarnished rep as the billionaire creepy tech geek (plagiarizer really) with the bizarre vaccine fetish. His tarnished rep even expands over continents.

[oxmixmudd]

Potential confirmation bias. That's not a conspiracy theory.

And putting the word "nutter" doesn't change whether something's a conspiracy or not. Facts or no facts about a subject do that. As far as Bill Gates, no one even needs to link him to any complex conspiracy theories. The dude already has a tarnished rep as the billionaire creepy tech geek (plagiarizer really) with the bizarre vaccine fetish. His tarnished rep even expands over continents.

Yeah - I thought so ...

[Starlight]

Juvenal - do you believe the virus evolved naturally (in the wild) but after being sent to the lab for analysis it leaked out of the lab

I'm not Juvenal, but I quite like the lab theory, in the sense that there was a lab that was trying to study animal diseases in order to protect humans from them, and in the course of this work they had gathered a bunch of diseased animals from around China and had them in cages like a zoo would, and they were trying to assess how likely/unlikely the diseases they had were to pose a threat to human health (since previously things like SARS, HIV etc have transferred to humans from animals)... and perhaps in the course of that work a human working with an infected animal caught the infection off them.

In that scenario, the virus is not man-made, and the lab would be doing little different to the average zoo in terms of humans interacting with animals. In this scenario, at no stage would there have been any human intervention to alter the virus.

Fauci's view seems to be that if the virus is natural, it doesn't matter where the virus happened to transfer to a human (be it a wet-market, a lab, a zoo, a child playing in a tree, a person eating infected meat, etc). However, I'd say there is an important difference going forward in order to prevent a repeat of this, because one political policy result could be a tightening of quality standards used in labs, and a different political policy result could be shutting down wet-markets.

[DivineOb]

Potential confirmation bias. That's not a conspiracy theory.

And putting the word "nutter" doesn't change whether something's a conspiracy or not. Facts or no facts about a subject do that. As far as Bill Gates, no one even needs to link him to any complex conspiracy theories. The dude already has a tarnished rep as the billionaire creepy tech geek (plagiarizer really) with the bizarre vaccine fetish. His tarnished rep even expands over continents.

I'll defend Bill Gates to no one since I grew up back when Wintel was the only game in town.

That said, what are you claiming he plagiarized?