The Potential Lab Origin of COVID-19

[Pontifex Maximus]

We're still going with "potential" instead of "all but certain, because Fauci said so"?

Sounds about right. Let me know when the Faucists stop kidding themselves. I'm sure I'm wrong, even though quad-vaccinated Joetato just pozzed for the second time. Safe AND Effective! Except not either, evidently.

[PointOfViewGun]

You don't need to be politically biased to rationally distrust unreliable sources when there are clear signs of conflict of interest as well as history of them being unreliable. Especially after we had leaks from such sources confirming their lack of authenticity and bad faith.
I doubt anyone at this point with straight face can even say that this wasn't lab leak.

There is no evidence to suggest that this was a lab leak. In any case, between a well-managed lab with multiple precautions and an exotic animal market with no precautions that have been warned for virus transitions for years it's easy to pick which one is the more likely culprit.

[sumskilz]

There is no evidence to suggest that this was a lab leak. In any case, between a well-managed lab with multiple precautions and an exotic animal market with no precautions that have been warned for virus transitions for years it's easy to pick which one is the more likely culprit.

The WIV is (or at least was) not “a well-managed lab” and there is plenty of “evidence to suggest that this was a lab leak”, including (but not limited to) the following:

• Since 2003, there have been six documented SARS disease outbreaks originating from research laboratories, including four in China.
• According to an April 14th 2020 article in the Washington Post, US Embassy staff who visited the WIV in 2018 “had grave safety concerns” about biosecurity there.
• US Embassy staff subsequently warned their superiors in Washington that the WIV had a “serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to safely operate this high-containment laboratory”.
• According to VOA News, a year before the outbreak, “a security review conducted by a Chinese national team found the lab did not meet national standards in five categories.”
• In 2019, Yuan Zhiming, biosecurity specialist at the WIV, cited the “challenges” of biosafety in China. According to Yuan, “several high-level BSLs have insufficient operational funds for routine yet vital processes” and “Currently, most laboratories lack specialized biosafety managers and engineers.”
• According to a US Intelligence report, in November of 2019, three workers from the WIV were hospitalized with symptoms consistent with COVID-19.
• Zheng-Li Shi, the head of bat coronavirus research at WIV, told Scientific American that she “had never expected this kind of thing to happen in Wuhan, in central China” and that her first thought was to wonder if the outbreak had come from her lab.
• In February 2020, Scientific American published pictures of Zheng-Li Shi handling bats without wearing safety equipment.
• The Wuhan Centers for Disease Prevention and Control also have a BSL-2 lab where bat coronaviruses have been kept, which happens to be just 250 meters away from the Huanan market.
• WIV researchers collected SARS-like coronaviruses from caves in Yunnan which included the closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2.
• WIV scientists were introducing bat coronaviruses into monkey cells, passaging them, and then testing their infectivity on mouse cells engineered to express human ACE2 receptors, which is exactly how SARS-CoV-2 infects human cells.
• WIV scientists were identifying bat viruses with ACE2 binding capabilities, creating chimeric coronaviruses out of them in the lab, which they reported could successfully infect human cell lines engineered to express ACE2. SARS-CoV-2 is a chimeric coronavirus which is highly adapted to infecting human ACE2 receptors.
• When SARS-CoV-2 was first documented, it was already highly adapted to infecting humans and not well-adapted to infecting any of the proposed source or intermediary species.
• According to a PBS NewsHour presentation, on January 1st 2020, the Chinese National Health Commission ordered the WIV not be disclose their COVID-19 data to the media. On January 3rd 2020, the WIV were ordered to destroy all their coronavirus samples or send them to a designated state depository.
• In January of 2020, the Wuhan lab published the RNA sequence for BatCoV RaTG13, a close relative of SARS-CoV-2, without mentioning that they had previously published part of the sequence before under a different name (BtCoV/4991), at odds with standard scientific practice.
• The WIV subsequently removed public access to their coronavirus database. The Chinese government has refused all international requests to examine it or any of the WIV’s records.
• The Chinese government has refused to allow international researchers access to the Mojiang mine where the WIV collected the closest relative to SARS-CoV-2 and several other bat coronaviruses after six miners contracted a SARS-like illness there.
• A masters thesis supervised by the head of the Chinese CDC, which documented the illness of the miners, states that the WIV had confirmed that the miners tested positive for some then unknown SARS-like coronavirus. When this came to light after the pandemic had begun, Zheng-li Shi denied it and claimed that the miners had died from a fungal infection.

I didn't really get into the genetic and evolutionary reasons to suspect a lab leak, which I've covered somewhat earlier in the thread and that are fairly complex to explain to anyone without a background in a related field (or at least without a wife in a related field). It's worth noting again that, with the exception of one individual, all the high-profile virologists actively arguing against the lab leak hypothesis have major conflicts of interest and/or have been documented to have privately admitted to favoring the lab leak hypothesis.

That said, it is correct to say that there is no solid evidence for the lab leak hypothesis and that under normal circumstances a zoonotic transfer would be the default assumption.

[PointOfViewGun]

That said, it is correct to say that there is no solid evidence for the lab leak hypothesis and that under normal circumstances a zoonotic transfer would be the default assumption.

Nor there is any evidence, solid or weak, tied to the idea that virus was leaked from the lab. General concerns, speculations, people's own biased thoughts, etc. do not make up any kind of evidence.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Doctah Fauci admitted to it undah oath, but I guess that's not good enough. Maybe Doctah Faucis recent lies in the media regarding his supposedly not recommending lockdowns has you confused. Doctah Fauci is a pathological liar and deep state stooge after all.

[PointOfViewGun]

Fauci never said it was a lab leak.

[Septentrionalis]

do not make up any kind of evidence.

You are essentially saying that unless there is sufficient and irrefutable evidence to establish culpability beyond any reasonable doubt, there is no kind of evidence. That is not how most people understand evidence.

If the cookie jar is off the shelf and placed on a table, its lid is open, you are standing right next to it with your mouth full and crumbs on your lips and looking guilty, I have a good reason to believe that you just helped yourself to one of my cookies, even though I did not actually see you take it from the jar. In your interpretation, you are just as unlikely to have taken a cookie as a random farmer in Zimbabwe because none of the facts described is any kind of evidence.

[PointOfViewGun]

You are essentially saying that unless there is sufficient and irrefutable evidence to establish culpability beyond any reasonable doubt, there is no kind of evidence. That is not how most people understand evidence.

If the cookie jar is off the shelf and placed on a table, its lid is open, you are standing right next to it with your mouth full and crumbs on your lips and looking guilty, I have a good reason to believe that you just helped yourself to one of my cookies, even though I did not actually see you take it from the jar. In your interpretation, you are just as unlikely to have taken a cookie as a random farmer in Zimbabwe because none of the facts described is any kind of evidence.

That's not what I'm saying at all. To use your analogy, we have a cookie jar broken below a shelf on the ground in an area that experience constant earthquakes. Someone saying that a person could have dropped that jar and that thats how it could be broken is no evidence of it being dropped by a person. In this analogy or in the case of the lab theory we do not have the kind of connection (someone with cookie crumbs on his lips) that you described. None of the points sumskilz listed comes close to that.

[Lord Thesaurian]

That's not what I'm saying at all. To use your analogy, we have a cookie jar broken below a shelf on the ground in an area that experience constant earthquakes. Someone saying that a person could have dropped that jar and that thats how it could be broken is no evidence of it being dropped by a person. In this analogy or in the case of the lab theory we do not have the kind of connection (someone with cookie crumbs on his lips) that you described. None of the points sumskilz listed comes close to that.

More like there’s a broken cookie jar that no one knew about until everyone already had glass shards in their feet. Up to that point the key person involved, who has a documented history of breaking jars, lied and swore up and down there was no broken jar and in fact no cookies either, and proceeded to censor and jail anyone who said otherwise or warned about the risks of having a cookie jar on the edge of a shelf, until the glass had spread everywhere and they could no longer deny it. They then proceeded to double down and claim anyone who wants to investigate how the jar was broken is racist against them and block anyone from accessing key data about it. And to top it all off, some of the people with glass in their feet actually defend them with moronic, repetitive drivel about how there’s no evidence they broke the jar and people should stop asking about it. So yeah, lots of circumstantial evidence they might be the one who broke the jar, as outlined in the previous post.

[PointOfViewGun]

More like there’s a broken cookie jar that no one knew about until everyone already had glass shards in their feet. Up to that point the key person involved, who has a documented history of breaking jars, lied and swore up and down there was no broken jar and in fact no cookies either, and proceeded to censor and jail anyone who said otherwise or warned about the risks of having a cookie jar on the edge of a shelf, until the glass had spread everywhere and they could no longer deny it. They then proceeded to double down and claim anyone who wants to investigate how the jar was broken is racist against them and block anyone from accessing key data about it. And to top it all off, some of the people with glass in their feet actually defend them with moronic, repetitive drivel about how there’s no evidence they broke the jar and people should stop asking about it. So yeah, lots of circumstantial evidence they might be the one who broke the jar, as outlined in the previous post.

Yet, people did knew about the jar's existence. In fact, multiple people warned about how it could fall over.

Wet markets--a continuing source of severe acute respiratory syndrome and influenza?

Yi Guan and colleagues (Science 2003; 302: 276-78) recently reported the isolation of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus (CoV) from Himalayan palm civets (Paguna larvata) in wet markets in Shenzen, southern China. These researchers also found serological evidence of infection in raccoon dogs (Nyctereutes procuyoinboides). Serological evidence for SARS CoV in human beings working in these markets, taken together with the earliest cases of SARS in restaurant workers, supports the contention of a potential zoonotic origin for SARS. WHERE NEXT? Will SARS reappear? This question confronts public-health officials worldwide, particularly infectious disease personnel in those regions of the world most affected by the disease and the economic burden of SARS, including China, Taiwan, and Canada. Will the virus re-emerge from wet markets or from laboratories working with SARS CoV, or are asymptomatic infections ongoing in human beings? Similar questions can be asked about a pandemic of influenza that is probably imminent. Knowledge of the ecology of influenza in wet markets can be used as an early-warning system to detect the reappearance of SARS or pandemic influenza.

Infectious diseases emerging from Chinese wet-markets: zoonotic origins of severe respiratory viral infections

In Chinese wet-markets, unique epicenters for transmission of potential viral pathogens, new genes may be acquired or existing genes modified through various mechanisms such as genetic reassortment, recombination and mutation. The wet-markets, at closer proximity to humans, with high viral burden or strains of higher transmission efficiency, facilitate transmission of the viruses to humans.

China, with one-quarter of the world's population, 16 of the 20 most polluted cities of the world and a huge diversity of animals closely associated with the human population, is one of the countries with the greatest potential for the emergence and spread of infectious diseases, such as SARS and avian influenza.

SARS Found in Chinese Bats

The original SARS outbreak, which killed more than 700 people around the world and sickened over 8000 in the winter of 2002-2003, was traced to weasel-like animals called masked palm civets being sold at live animal markets in southern China (ScienceNOW, 23 May 2003). Researchers suspected that civets were just a conduit and not the real reservoir for the SARS virus because it was not found in civets on farms or in the wild.

Your premise has no basis.

[sumskilz]

Yet, people did knew about the jar's existence. In fact, multiple people warned about how it could fall over.

Wet markets--a continuing source of severe acute respiratory syndrome and influenza?


Infectious diseases emerging from Chinese wet-markets: zoonotic origins of severe respiratory viral infections


SARS Found in Chinese Bats


Your premise has no basis.

From the first article you posted:

Wet markets are not the only risk for re-emergence of SARS. At the time of writing this review there have been two re-emergent cases of SARS, both from laboratory infections... WHO must continue its efforts to promote scientific responsibility for both SARS and influenza viruses. Laboratory regulations globally are inconsistent. We now live in a global village, so universal guidelines need to be adopted. The situation with H2N2 influenza is a case in point. Although H2N2 influenza has not circulated in human beings since 1968 and everyone under the age of 36 years is susceptible, the H2N2 virus is widely distributed in laboratories and is still used in some laboratories. The re-emergence of H1N1 influenza, in 1977, that continues to circulate in human beings is another unresolved case. This H1N1 virus remained genetically conserved for 27 years. The most likely explanation is that the virus came from a frozen source and a laboratory seems the most probable culprit.

And that was back in 2004, SARS has been leaked from laboratories an additional four times since then.

[Lord Thesaurian]

It’s a shame we’ll never know what happened, because even if there is any hard evidence left, the Politburo will never permit a real investigation.

[PointOfViewGun]

From the first article you posted:
And that was back in 2004, SARS has been leaked from laboratories an additional four times since then.

So? No one argued that its not possible for a virus to leak or that a virus never leaked from a lab.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Fauci never said it was a lab leak.

Doctah Fauci also said there was nevah any gain of function research. Turns out that was a lie.

[PointOfViewGun]

Doctah Fauci also said there was nevah any gain of function research. Turns out that was a lie.

Given how you are jumping to a different point I guess you know that Fauci never said it was a lab leak as well. OK. It's equally false though. You're likely referring to the NIH letter that talked about providing grant for a particular experiment in Wuhan. What Fauci said didn't turn out to be a lie as the letter did not talk of gain of function research. Next?

[Pontifex Maximus]

Fauci also lied about the vaccine. He told us you wouldnt get the virus if you got the jab. What other lies do you insist defending Fauci over? Your arguments are increasingly Faucist in nature, and against the science. You have hilariously even acknowledged the evidence of the thing you claim never happened without me ever needing to bring it up.

[PointOfViewGun]

Fauci also lied about the vaccine. He told us you wouldnt get the virus if you got the jab. What other lies do you insist defending Fauci over? Your arguments are increasingly Faucist in nature, and against the science. You have hilariously even acknowledged the evidence of the thing you claim never happened without me ever needing to bring it up.

And we're off to unreferenced and false point three. Fauci never said that either. Lying to cover up a lie as you are doing is not a good argument.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Here's the montage of all your leftoid idols lying.

[PointOfViewGun]

Here's the montage of all your leftoid idols lying.

Let's actually turn this into an educational opportunity. The bit about Fauci in that video is from May 17, 2021. What did he really say?

Transcript: All In with Chris Hayes, 5/17/21

Number two, they`re really, really good against variants. I mean, the predominant variant in our country is the 117, the one that originated the U.K., it protects very well against that. And the other thing is that, and this relates to the New York Yankees situation, is that we`re learning now with recent studies, that even if you do get a breakthrough infection, when you`re vaccinated, the chances of you are transmitting it to someone else is exceedingly low.

So, low likelihood of transmission, low likelihood of getting infected. When you do get infected, the chances are, you`re going to be without symptoms. And because of that, that was the accumulating scientific data that prompted the CDC to make that recommendation, that when people are vaccinated, they can feel safe that they are not going to get infected, whether they`re outdoors or indoors. That`s the bottom line of that to get people to appreciate you get vaccinated and you`re really quite safe from getting infected.

There will always be breakthrough infections, but given the denominator of people who are vaccinated, that`s a very, very rare event. So, the bottom line trust is good news. And in many respects, it really is a big, you know, endorsement for why people should be getting vaccinated.

Not exactly the kind of sound bite that's useful now, is it? It doesn't help any more that he got the virus a full year after he made that comment at a time with completely different variants.

I know. I know. It's more fun to base your opinion on stupid YouTube videos that have no regard for context or intelligence really.

[Pontifex Maximus]

"no, no what he actually said was..."

Meanwhile supposedly four times vaxed Joetato has tested poz for seven consecutive days in a row.