Scraps Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 Just now, JDHillFan said: The part Redhawk likes to leave out in his 4 of 6 agencies routine is they declared their beliefs specifically as being “low confidence”. Kind of like the other 2 had about their beliefs? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlando Buffalo Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 1 minute ago, Scraps said: I don't think there is conclusive evidence one way or the other. There is no smoking gun evidence for the lab leak theory. Here is a study supporting the market theory but it is certainly not conclusive. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-new-evidence-from-the-wuhan-market-tells-us-about-covids-origins1/ Even if you believe the lab leak theory, you should still be concerned about potential zoonotic jumps of viruses. How do you think every other pandemic in history was caused when the vast, vast majority of that time we didn't even know about viruses let alone experiment with them? Your article stated that the virus was definitely passed around the market, which of course happened because it is a place of concentration of people. It literally says in the sub headline that there is no evidence the animals even had it much less were the source. The fact that so many previous virus came from animals is not news to anyone except extreme liberals, but that is unrelated to this discussion, unless your only goal is political and has to be a strawman argument Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDHillFan Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 2 minutes ago, Scraps said: Kind of like the other 2 had about their beliefs? And? Despite the recent testimony cited above, it’s always been clear that discussions of a lab leak have been looked down on, to the point of a NYT journalist calling people racists for believing it. If you prefer to align yourself with the natural origin story, have at it. I will keep an open mind but lean towards common sense on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 1 minute ago, Orlando Buffalo said: Your article stated that the virus was definitely passed around the market, which of course happened because it is a place of concentration of people. It literally says in the sub headline that there is no evidence the animals even had it much less were the source. The fact that so many previous virus came from animals is not news to anyone except extreme liberals, but that is unrelated to this discussion, unless your only goal is political and has to be a strawman argument So what is your problem? I thought the article was quite fair. It didn't prove the wet market theory and was open about that but you have no proof of the lab leak theory. I thought these two parts were farily persuasive “It's not a ‘smoking raccoon dog,’ but it is pretty indicative that in exactly the same part of the market that our other analyses suggested we would find the animals, now we found them in that exact spot—with the virus and without, importantly, much human [DNA present],” and “This is not conclusive evidence that an animal was infected, but it's very consistent with that,” Crits-Christoph says. If the market were not the place where SARS-CoV-2 crossed from animals into people but instead the site of a superspreader event caused by people who were already infected, “you'd have to ask, Why there?” Crits-Christoph says. “If humans brought it there, why did they bring it to the place in Wuhan with the most stalls selling wild animals?” Your last sentence it too stupid for comment. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 7 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: And? Despite the recent testimony cited above, it’s always been clear that discussions of a lab leak have been looked down on, to the point of a NYT journalist calling people racists for believing it. If you prefer to align yourself with the natural origin story, have at it. I will keep an open mind but lean towards common sense on the matter. I am not tribal on the matter and am offended that people try to force me into one tribe or the other. I don't like the silencing of the lab leak theory early on but nothing has been proven one way or the other. Your mind doesn't seem as "open" as you claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDHillFan Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Scraps said: I am not tribal on the matter and am offended that people try to force me into one tribe or the other. I don't like the silencing of the lab leak theory early on but nothing has been proven one way or the other. Your mind doesn't seem as "open" as you claim. You seemed bothered by the information that redhawk consistently leaves out of his “4 out of 6 agencies” comments. Bothered to the point that you wanted to chime in. One of the other agencies assesses with “moderate confidence” that it was a lab leak. Sorry it took so long to answer your question. I thought it was rhetorical but it turns out you had no idea. What are your thoughts on why they tried to silence the lab leak theory? What was to be gained by it? Edited June 19 by JDHillFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 Forget it. Trump said it came from a lab so they automatically discount it. It's really nothing more than that because there is zero evidence it occurred naturally. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 3 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: You seemed bothered by the information that redhawk consistently leaves out of his “4 out of 6 agencies” comments. Bothered to the point that you wanted to chime in. One of the other agencies assesses with “moderate confidence” that it was a lab leak. Sorry it took so long to answer your question. I thought it was rhetorical but it turns out you had no idea. What are your thoughts on why they tried to silence the lab leak theory? What was to be gained by it? My guess would be that the head of that lab claimed to have reviewed the genetic sequences of the samples they had and nothing matched the SARS Cov-2. They believed her and thought continuing to beat that dead horse would be racist. That is just a guess on my part. Just now, Doc said: Forget it. Trump said it came from a lab so they automatically discount it. It's really nothing more than that because there is zero evidence it occurred naturally. About as much evidence as it came for the lab. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 2 minutes ago, Scraps said: About as much evidence as it came for the lab. No, there is a lab in Wuhan that not only studies these viruses, it also does gain-of-function experiments on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 Just now, Doc said: No, there is a lab in Wuhan that not only studies these viruses, it also does gain-of-function experiments on it. And there is a Wet Market that had a lot of virus and zoonotic spillovers of coronaviruses has happened in the past. Can you define "gain-of-function"? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDHillFan Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 5 minutes ago, Scraps said: My guess would be that the head of that lab claimed to have reviewed the genetic sequences of the samples they had and nothing matched the SARS Cov-2. They believed her and thought continuing to beat that dead horse would be racist. That is just a guess on my part. About as much evidence as it came for the lab. Maybe you are right. Are you a “just trust the experts” sort? I would like to be, but then someone like you reminds me that it’s possible the experts came together and said “let’s go with the wet market theory and suppress any dissent on the origins of the virus wreaking havoc on the world so we don’t seem racist”. Good god man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 47 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: When did anyone insinuate he parachuted into the CIA? He knew they were running SARs test in Wuhan and still played up the wet market without mentioning the lab. If you can show me one person, even Alex Jones, who insinuated he parachuted in to the CIA I will stop believing you are gullible. As for the 4 of 6 agencies, can you show me there thoughts recently? It’s called hyperbole. The 4:/6 intelligence agencies are not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 1 minute ago, Scraps said: And there is a Wet Market that had a lot of virus and zoonotic spillovers of coronaviruses has happened in the past. Can you define "gain-of-function"? And the lab had lax safety standards which the US was aware of. And China hindered outside inspectors. Yes, altering the DNA to give something a new ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 Just now, JDHillFan said: Maybe you are right. Are you a “just trust the experts” sort? I would like to be, but then someone like you reminds me that it’s possible the experts came together and said “let’s go with the wet market theory and suppress any dissent on the origins of the virus wreaking havoc on the world so we don’t seem racist”. Good god man. I don't simply "trust the experts". I listen to the experts who actually have studies to support their positions and then read those studies to try to see if I agree. on a related issue with SARS Cov-2, I've generally found the pro-vax side will provide links to studies and their analysis is backed by the study. The anti-vax side rarely provides links to studies and the studies they do provide are either poor quality or don't say what they think they say. Of course that is different than the origin of the virus. I don't know what to think about the origin. On the one hand, there is information like the Scientific American piece I shared. On the other hand, I always ask myself, of all the wet markets in China where a spillover might occur, why this market in this city that has this lab? Still, there is a non-zero chance to the spillover happening in that market and if you can't acknowledge that, perhaps you are too partisan. 1 minute ago, Doc said: And the lab had lax safety standards which the US was aware of. And China hindered outside inspectors. Yes, altering the DNA to give something a new ability. SARS Cov-2 doesn't have DNA. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Scraps said: SARS Cov-2 doesn't have DNA. My bad. In the case of Wuhan virus, RNA. Edited June 19 by Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 2 minutes ago, Scraps said: SARS Cov-2 doesn't have DNA. Yes, that mDNA vaccine will kill you! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDHillFan Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 6 minutes ago, Scraps said: I don't simply "trust the experts". I listen to the experts who actually have studies to support their positions and then read those studies to try to see if I agree. on a related issue with SARS Cov-2, I've generally found the pro-vax side will provide links to studies and their analysis is backed by the study. The anti-vax side rarely provides links to studies and the studies they do provide are either poor quality or don't say what they think they say. Of course that is different than the origin of the virus. I don't know what to think about the origin. On the one hand, there is information like the Scientific American piece I shared. On the other hand, I always ask myself, of all the wet markets in China where a spillover might occur, why this market in this city that has this lab? Still, there is a non-zero chance to the spillover happening in that market and if you can't acknowledge that, perhaps you are too partisan. SARS Cov-2 doesn't have DNA. And when the experts suppress dissent in the name of science and not wanting to be seen as racist, how do you weigh that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlando Buffalo Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 45 minutes ago, Scraps said: So what is your problem? I thought the article was quite fair. It didn't prove the wet market theory and was open about that but you have no proof of the lab leak theory. I thought these two parts were farily persuasive “It's not a ‘smoking raccoon dog,’ but it is pretty indicative that in exactly the same part of the market that our other analyses suggested we would find the animals, now we found them in that exact spot—with the virus and without, importantly, much human [DNA present],” and “This is not conclusive evidence that an animal was infected, but it's very consistent with that,” Crits-Christoph says. If the market were not the place where SARS-CoV-2 crossed from animals into people but instead the site of a superspreader event caused by people who were already infected, “you'd have to ask, Why there?” Crits-Christoph says. “If humans brought it there, why did they bring it to the place in Wuhan with the most stalls selling wild animals?” Your last sentence it too stupid for comment. The second question I already answered- in a market like that people are in close proximity to each other, therefore whoever had it would be much more likely to spread while in close quarters than when spread out. Basic science which this report seems to miss. Secondly what DNA was the virus found in? Assuming they found it in some blood or other bodily fluid, which animals blood was it in? Saying not human but not specifically stating what kind is a way to get away with sloppy work. Lastly the only confirmation of it being from the lab would have to come from the Chinese government and they would never admit to a mistake in the leak or intentionally setting it loose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 1 minute ago, JDHillFan said: And when the experts suppress dissent in the name of science and not wanting to be seen as racist, how do you weigh that? I was opposed to suppression of the lab leak theory. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: The second question I already answered- in a market like that people are in close proximity to each other, therefore whoever had it would be much more likely to spread while in close quarters than when spread out. Basic science which this report seems to miss. Secondly what DNA was the virus found in? Assuming they found it in some blood or other bodily fluid, which animals blood was it in? Saying not human but not specifically stating what kind is a way to get away with sloppy work. Lastly the only confirmation of it being from the lab would have to come from the Chinese government and they would never admit to a mistake in the leak or intentionally setting it loose. The article listed the DNA of several mammals and specifically the racoon dog, which is quite susceptible to SARS Cov-2. It said it found high concentrations of the virus in the same location as high concentrations of the racoon dog DNA and low concentrations of human DNA. Why would humans have brought it to that particular are of that particular market? Why not restaurants, bars, temples, grocery stores, malls... Why that particular area of that particular market? Edited June 19 by Scraps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts