There is no proof of either theory. End of story. You are another one that can't properly read an article or "study". Keep it up. Edit: Your study in RED states that it is not peer reviewed. JFC.
Last edited:
The real patient zero? Three Wuhan lab scientists genetically altering Covid were the FIRST to contract the virus, claims report
- Thread starter binsfeldcyhawk2
- Start date
LOL, I bet you were not good at hide and seek as a child, you probably just gave up when you didn't see anyone.
Where there is smoke, there usually is fire. There is plenty of smoke around the lab leak theory. Researchers are known for keeping excellent records. If it was a lab leak, it will be found eventually.
But like I said, It is a mix between natural origin and a lab leak. Covid was not completely created in a lab, but it was modified and leaked by researchers. This is my hypothesis.
And we should all believe YOUR HYPOTHESIS. Are you listening to yourself?
This virus could have come with a business card and an ID and you wouldn’t believe it. You’re all in on the talking points.
Evidence? Only if it comes from the DNC.
I have cited multiple research articles, I have laid out a very plausible theory. If you don't like my theory, use your brain and present a different one.
You don't understand that you haven't linked anything credible. Not even close. I have used my brain. We will never find out the truth. Are you are some type of expert in the medical field that I should listen to?
What does this have to do with either the Republican, or Democratic, party?
Be specific.
And a decade earlier.
So, was THAT "engineered" too?
Any idea how far bats migrate over a season?
Bats migrate hundreds of miles. Every year.
There are millions of viruses we haven't "detected" yet.
Which is my point.
There is ample evidence for the wet market hypothesis; until you pull up conclusive evidence that hypothesis is false, you do not have a better hypothesis.
You laid out a hypothesis.
If you don't understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, then you've really outkicked your coverage here.
The best evidence currently on the record and the best logic still favor the market scenario. But the lab leak scenario is still a possibility.
The OP article and similar reports are claiming that there is more evidence, not yet in the public record, that gives more credence to the lab leak scenario. IF/WHEN that evidence is released, we'll have a chance to judge for ourselves, and to hear people who actually know what they are talking about assess the merits of the new evidence.
To your point, saying that "there isn't sufficient evidence for anyone to come to a definitive conclusion" does NOT mean the probabilities are equal. Until we get new evidence, the market hypothesis still fits the known facts best. And if you take the time to watch the TWIV discussion I posted, the odds are that the market hypothesis will still be the most likely scenario after the ballyhooed reports come out.
That doesn't sound right. Did something get lost in translation? Are we perhaps confusing number of infected people in the population at some point in time with transmissibility? Because the R-naught numbers for this virus were fairly high to start (and got even worse with mutations).
Here's a pretty nifty graph from Wikipedia
Basic reproduction number - Wikipedia
You are assuming the virus is no where else except the mine, even if not discovered elsewhere . . . don't you think there is a strong possibility the virus could be in other locations, mines or caves??? If a cave or mine is an ideal place for this type of virus to grow or evolve, it would make sense it would be 96% similar to a virus found in another cave. I cannot say for certain but to exclude as a possibility is also rather concerning. I am not stating it couldn't be caused from the lab. However, don't you think the Clinic would have been the hot spot with their family members anyone else in contact with the employees being ground zero including somehow getting to the wet market, instead of just the wet market in your case. This would have included the hospital where the 3 supposedly got care from. So there have been a couple government agencies that have said it could have been a lab leak, no definitive answer. There have also been continued scientific reports stating that this was still likely a natural transmission and not a lab leak.
Read this article. The scientific community is leaning more strongly to a natural transmission and even have the likely stall, vendor and area where it occurred it in the wet market. You may want to rethink your hypothesis. Both the DOE stance is low confidence while FBI is moderate, while 4 other agencies still support a natural origin. Overall I think I would lean more towards the scientific side than any government agency.
Last edited:
I believe that turned out to be not very meaningful due to the incredibly low amount of virus + animal actually found.
Thanks. A nice, quick overview.
Worth noting that the scientist mentioned in this piece, Worobey, is also discussed in the long TWIV discussion I posted earlier.
Check his credentials here:
Michael Worobey | Ecology & Evolutionary Biology
Are we just making up things now? You are stating, that dna, hair, saliva and ect with the virus are not significant? Just to clarify, the only thing missing was having the specimens which had already been sold.
Some issues pertaining to what could actually be gleamed from the raccoon dog samples:
How the Media Botched the Raccoon Dog Theory of Covid-19
“I think it is very unclear how SARS-CoV-2 first entered humans.”
theintercept.com
Scientist Revisits Data on Raccoon Dogs and Covid, Stressing the Unknowns
After analyzing genetic data swabbed from a Wuhan market in early 2020, a virologist said it was unclear if animals for sale there had been infected.
You could very well be correct. I just don't trust anything coming from China. I have been to a few Chinese wet markets and it definitely wouldn't surprise me. However, neither would a lab leak.
So they both state the strongest sample was a cart that had primarily a raccoon dog sample with Covid. Now what is also not included in the article, is there were 5 separate swabs taken in that specific stall, with the strongest sample in that specific cart. The argument is a month later this may not be specifically significant as the virus may have jumped back into the dog. The researches state they do not have the specimen in question but the most likely conclusion is a species that is known to carry covid, was kept in a live stall at the market, that had even been identified as likely area for future transmissions of diseases, with pictures of the stall and carts and animals from the month in question. It is not a smoking gun, but it is much more smoke than any other hypothesis that wants to claim it came from the clinic.Some issues pertaining to what could actually be gleamed from the raccoon dog samples:
How the Media Botched the Raccoon Dog Theory of Covid-19
“I think it is very unclear how SARS-CoV-2 first entered humans.”
Scientist Revisits Data on Raccoon Dogs and Covid, Stressing the Unknowns
After analyzing genetic data swabbed from a Wuhan market in early 2020, a virologist said it was unclear if animals for sale there had been infected.www.nytimes.com
Bloom's research stated that the amount of Covid in the swab with the most Raccoon Dog dna was negligible:
“I think what they’re arguing could be true,” said Jesse Bloom, a virologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. “But I don’t think the quality of the data is sufficient to say that any of these scenarios are true with confidence.” He states there is no smoking gun . . . but the conclusion could very well be correct. Thanks Colonscopy
What do you think happened? Was it an accidental lab leak or natural emergence?
Bloom: Natural zoonosis is plausible because most pandemics start that way. For instance, four of the last five influenza pandemics started from natural zoonoses, while one (the 1977 influenza pandemic) was due to human error: either a misguided vaccine trial or a lab accident. In the case of coronaviruses, we know that in the past there have been other animal coronaviruses that have caused outbreaks in humans due to direct animal-to-human jumps. These include the original SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV. My first assumption when I heard about SARS-CoV-2 back in January of 2020 was that it most likely had jumped from a bat.
But there have also been lab accidents. For instance, in 2004 a number of people in Beijing were infected with SARS-CoV-1 due to a lab accident. The reason that a lab accident is a plausible explanation for the origins of SARS-CoV-2 is that one of the leading labs studying SARS-like coronaviruses is located in Wuhan, and researchers there are known to have collected many coronaviruses, although at this point there is no evidence that they had collected any virus sufficiently similar to SARS-CoV-2 to be its direct ancestor.
Last edited:
“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?”
You have quoted the one scientist who is stating that this isn't 100% certain for the origin because essentially you don't have the animal in question for the source. They have never found the source for ebola, but 99% agree that was not a man made event. You have a high amount of covid in an area that is housing wild animals that have also been know to carry Covid. As stated above the logical conclusion is this is a zoonosis event. Otherwise you need to show someone infected from the clinic were in those stalls to begin the superspreader event, or the clinic put an infected animal in that Wet market. The likelihood is still a zoonosis event, until more credible data comes out discounting that hypothesis.
I quoted this scientist because the subtopic of Raccoon Dog DNA samples from the wetmarket as evidence of a zoonotic event was being discussed. People jumped to conclusions on that one a bit and might not have seen the more recent (cited analysis) that calls into question the usefulness of this information.
Lots of scientists would contend that this isn't 100% certain. Most scientists claim we don't have enough information to definitively say, but would lean towards zoonotic origin.
5 samples in that stall is more confirmation. Yes as I have stated before and as you state it isn't 100% certain, but with the information available it highly trends towards that as the likely cause. Again if it was a lab leak, it would have to be shown, why the wet market became the epi center, rather than the the current set of facts that the wet market was the epicenter because it was a zoonosis event.
The issue is you have the OP and others in this thread who continue to parrot that the lab leak is the most likely outcome due to additional information and 2 agencies of 6 to 8 that have stated the outcome is likely a lab leak rather than a zoonosis event. I am more just trying to show the current facts we have in this case and the most likely cause.
Last edited:
Live susceptible animals were held in a stall where SARS-CoV-2 was later detected on a machine that processed animals in the market
We analyzed a leaked report from the Chinese CDC detailing the results of this environmental sampling. Virtually all of the findings in the report matched what was in the World Health Organization's report. But there was some extra information in the leaked report. For example, there was information not just on which stalls had virus in them — or had samples positive for SARS-CoV-2 — but also how many samples in a given stall yielded positive results.We found out that one stall actually had five positive samples — five surfaces in that stall had virus on them. And even better, in that particular stall, the samples were very animal-y. For example, scientists found virus on a feather/hair remover, a cart of the sort that we see in photographs that are used for transporting cages and, best of all, a metal cage in a back room.
I don't have time to go back and read the original report now. I guess I don't see how that proves much of anything. (scant amount of covid there)
The point of contention with Bloom's stuff would be the threshhold for what might be considered a very Raccoon Dog laden sample. (what qualifies as significant)
The samples with the most Raccoon Dog -- using his threshold for qualifying -- had negligible if any covid.
He only looked at the one sample, stating there was a low amount of covid on the animal DNA. Also he never said negligible. He stated it could be cross contamination, but is not veracity that the animal had covid. What he does not state is that that stall had a high amount of covid samples in it. His claim is that the samples do not prove a zoonosis event occurred there even though recognizing that it is not only a plausible hypothesis that it is very likely the most likely source. However being a scientist in his view he doesn't want to exclude any other possibilities, and that you have a legitimate potential source until you have more concrete evidence he doesn't want to definitively give a concrete answer as to the source of origin.
But I'm doing that. And I cited information that added on to what you were citing to begin with. So it was relevant to the question of whether or not the raccoon dog evidence was a smoking gun. (it turned out not to be after more research)
I'm pretty unsure on this topic.
I am fairly confident this was a zoonosis event. The current set of facts set forth as a zoonosis event. You have a wet market with live animals, some animals that have been known to carry covid. We since have samples showing that the highest number of covid samples were in a specific stall with live animals. We know the wet market was the epicenter. There is literally no connection currently to the lab, absolutely none. Until there is more relevant data explaining the current set of facts the conclusion is this is a zoonosis event. I am ok with being open minded, but there is not much here to be unsure on the topic about.
I have asked over and over for any evidence connecting the lab to the outbreak other than proximity. So far - zip. I’m more than open to a lab leak but when the evidence suggests a zoonotic event and there is nothing suggesting a lab leak other than Chinese secrecy (shocking, I know) and that the lab does research on coronaviruses…*shrug*
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
HawkCast Ep. 113 National Signing Day: Hawkeyes Sign the Class of 2025
- Latest: Eliot Clough