ADVERTISEMENT

Two new studies on Covid origin

BelemNole

BelemNole

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
39,552
85,088
113
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Phenomenally Frantastic, Menace Sockeyes, LetsGoHawks83 and 3 others
The former CDC Director would disagree.

The fact that earliest infections are clustered around the Wuhan Market is laughable. Aren't those early infections also clustered around the Wuhan lab? The Lab is 8 miles from the wet market. Where do Wuhan Lab workers shop? First Study Funding -
Funding: This project has been funded in whole or in part with Federal funds from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, under Contract No. 75N93021C00015 (MW). JIL acknowledges support from the NIH (5T32AI007244-38). SAG acknowledges support from the NIH (F32AI152341). JEP acknowledges support from the NIH (T15LM011271). JOW acknowledges support from NIH (AI135992 and AI136056). DLR acknowledges support of the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12014/12) and the Wellcome Trust (220977/Z/20/Z). MAS, PL and AR acknowledge the support of the Wellcome Trust (Collaborators Award 206298/Z/17/Z – ARTIC network), the European Research Council (grant agreement no. 725422 – ReservoirDOCS) and NIH grant R01AI153044. ALR is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research as part of the Coronavirus Variants Rapid Response Network (CoVaRR-Net; CIHR FRN#175622) and acknowledges that VIDO receives operational funding from the Canada Foundation for Innovation – Major Science Initiatives Fund and from the Government of Saskatchewan through Innovation Saskatchewan and the Ministry of Agriculture. MK receives funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 874735 (VEO, Versatile Emerging infectious disease Observatory). RFG is supported by the NIH (R01AI132223, R01AI132244, U19AI142790, U54CA260581, U54HG007480, OT2HL158260), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation, the Wellcome Trust Foundation, Gilead Sciences, and the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership Programme. ECH is supported by an Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship (FL170100022). KGA is supported by the NIH (U19AI135995, U01AI151812, and UL1TR002550).

The genetic study is sketchy as well. It relies on timing of the jump to humans, but offers no transition animal reservoir to explain the jump. One would think that evidence would be apparent when looking at a relatively closed environment like a wet market. The genetic study tries to explain away "rare" genetic sequences as possible lab contamination. Um, maybe that lab 'contamination' was due to gain of function as outlined in the EcoHealth Alliance grant application.
Second study funding -
Funding: This project has been funded in whole or in part with Federal funds from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services, under Contract No. 75N93021C00015 (MW). JEP acknowledges support from the NIH (T15LM011271). NM acknowledges support from the National Science Foundation (NSF) (NSF-2028040). JIL acknowledges support from the NIH (5T32AI007244-38). JOW acknowledges support from the NIH (R01AI135992 and R01AI136056). RFG is supported by the NIH (R01AI132223, R01AI132244, U19AI142790, U54CA260581, U54HG007480, OT2HL158260), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation, the Wellcome Trust Foundation, Gilead Sciences, and the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership Programme. MAS and AR acknowledge the support of the Wellcome Trust (Collaborators Award 206298/Z/17/Z – ARTIC network), the European Research Council (grant agreement no. 725422 – ReservoirDOCS) and the NIH (R01AI153044). KGA is supported by the NIH (U19AI135995, U01AI151812, and UL1TR002550). ECH is funded by an Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship (FL170100022). JL, HP, and MSP acknowledge support from the National Research Foundation of Korea, funded by the Ministry of Science and Information and Communication Technologies, Republic of Korea (NRF-2017M3A9E4061995 and NRF-2019R1A2C2084206). TIV acknowledges support from the Branco Weiss Fellowship. We thank AMD for the donation of critical hardware and support resources from its HPC Fund that made this work possible. This work was supported (in part) by the Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity (ELC) for Infectious Diseases Cooperative Agreement (Grant Number: ELC DETECT (6NU50CK000517-01-07) funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of CDC or the Department of Health and Human Services.

I wonder why some people are so invested in trying to protect Fauci.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KFSuperStar, onlyTheObvious, DeangeloVickers and 3 others
Finance85 said:
The former CDC Director would disagree.

The fact that earliest infections are clustered around the Wuhan Market is laughable. Aren't those early infections also clustered around the Wuhan lab? The Lab is 8 miles from the wet market. Where do Wuhan Lab workers shop? First Study Funding -
Funding: This project has been funded in whole or in part with Federal funds from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, under Contract No. 75N93021C00015 (MW). JIL acknowledges support from the NIH (5T32AI007244-38). SAG acknowledges support from the NIH (F32AI152341). JEP acknowledges support from the NIH (T15LM011271). JOW acknowledges support from NIH (AI135992 and AI136056). DLR acknowledges support of the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12014/12) and the Wellcome Trust (220977/Z/20/Z). MAS, PL and AR acknowledge the support of the Wellcome Trust (Collaborators Award 206298/Z/17/Z – ARTIC network), the European Research Council (grant agreement no. 725422 – ReservoirDOCS) and NIH grant R01AI153044. ALR is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research as part of the Coronavirus Variants Rapid Response Network (CoVaRR-Net; CIHR FRN#175622) and acknowledges that VIDO receives operational funding from the Canada Foundation for Innovation – Major Science Initiatives Fund and from the Government of Saskatchewan through Innovation Saskatchewan and the Ministry of Agriculture. MK receives funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 874735 (VEO, Versatile Emerging infectious disease Observatory). RFG is supported by the NIH (R01AI132223, R01AI132244, U19AI142790, U54CA260581, U54HG007480, OT2HL158260), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation, the Wellcome Trust Foundation, Gilead Sciences, and the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership Programme. ECH is supported by an Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship (FL170100022). KGA is supported by the NIH (U19AI135995, U01AI151812, and UL1TR002550).

The genetic study is sketchy as well. It relies on timing of the jump to humans, but offers no transition animal reservoir to explain the jump. One would think that evidence would be apparent when looking at a relatively closed environment like a wet market. The genetic study tries to explain away "rare" genetic sequences as possible lab contamination. Um, maybe that lab 'contamination' was due to gain of function as outlined in the EcoHealth Alliance grant application.
Second study funding -
Funding: This project has been funded in whole or in part with Federal funds from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services, under Contract No. 75N93021C00015 (MW). JEP acknowledges support from the NIH (T15LM011271). NM acknowledges support from the National Science Foundation (NSF) (NSF-2028040). JIL acknowledges support from the NIH (5T32AI007244-38). JOW acknowledges support from the NIH (R01AI135992 and R01AI136056). RFG is supported by the NIH (R01AI132223, R01AI132244, U19AI142790, U54CA260581, U54HG007480, OT2HL158260), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation, the Wellcome Trust Foundation, Gilead Sciences, and the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership Programme. MAS and AR acknowledge the support of the Wellcome Trust (Collaborators Award 206298/Z/17/Z – ARTIC network), the European Research Council (grant agreement no. 725422 – ReservoirDOCS) and the NIH (R01AI153044). KGA is supported by the NIH (U19AI135995, U01AI151812, and UL1TR002550). ECH is funded by an Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship (FL170100022). JL, HP, and MSP acknowledge support from the National Research Foundation of Korea, funded by the Ministry of Science and Information and Communication Technologies, Republic of Korea (NRF-2017M3A9E4061995 and NRF-2019R1A2C2084206). TIV acknowledges support from the Branco Weiss Fellowship. We thank AMD for the donation of critical hardware and support resources from its HPC Fund that made this work possible. This work was supported (in part) by the Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity (ELC) for Infectious Diseases Cooperative Agreement (Grant Number: ELC DETECT (6NU50CK000517-01-07) funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of CDC or the Department of Health and Human Services.

I wonder why some people are so invested in trying to protect Fauci.
Click to expand...
I understand that some of you will always believe what your natural biases demand you believe. It's human nature.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: nelly02, Phenomenally Frantastic, IaHawk44 and 9 others
Finance85 said:
The former CDC Director would disagree.

The fact that earliest infections are clustered around the Wuhan Market is laughable.
Click to expand...

Why is it "laughable"? That's what the data show.

_126057136_mediaitem126057135.jpg




 
  • Like
Reactions: Phenomenally Frantastic and BelemNole
BelemNole said:
I understand that some of you will always believe what your natural biases demand you believe. It's human nature.
Click to expand...
My natural bias is to look at facts. The EcoHealth Alliance Grant Application, along with the change in definition of 'gain of function' research is undeniable fact. Those things don't require any theory, or attempts to link correlation to causation. There's also the fact there's never been a transition animal reservoir identified. There's also the fact, as stated in the second study, there's a gap in the genetic sequence that can't be explained.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whatsup13579er and Hawkman34
srams21 said:
Wow. I always thought you were a level headed poster and not deep into unproven conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...
Unproven conspiracy theory? Hardly. There's plenty of email evidence of coercion by Fauci and Collins to try and suppress the lab leak theory. They enlisted Peter Daszak to stomp the lab leak theory. This was just after Kristian Andersen's email to Fauci about an unexplained sequence that "looks engineered".

There are over 3000 pages of Fauci e-mails on this topic. Many of those e-mails are attempts to repress information coming from researchers outside the NIAID.

You don't have to believe me though. I didn't create the emails.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whatsup13579er and Big Hawk D-Port
Finance85 said:
My natural bias is to look at facts. The EcoHealth Alliance Grant Application, along with the change in definition of 'gain of function' research is undeniable fact. Those things don't require any theory, or attempts to link correlation to causation. There's also the fact there's never been a transition animal reservoir identified. There's also the fact, as stated in the second study, there's a gap in the genetic sequence that can't be explained.
Click to expand...
Your entire theory is based on a geographic coincidence. "The lab was close." That's it. That's all you have. It wasn't the center of the outbreak, but it was nearby. And you don't trust Chinese. And Fauci. But yeah, you're all about the science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fsu1jreed, Bearhawk0505 and GES4
Forget geographically interpreting the data,.. At this point why would we even accept the raw data presented here as accurate?
 
Finance85 said:
Unproven conspiracy theory? Hardly. There's plenty of email evidence of coercion by Fauci and Collins to try and suppress the lab leak theory.
Click to expand...
Is there, now?

Meanwhile, those "facts" you claim to base your opinions on don't support this, and do in fact support the wet market origins.
 
BelemNole said:
Your entire theory is based on a geographic coincidence. "The market was close." That's it. That's all you have.
Click to expand...
How is your entire theory not based on geographic coincidence?

Were they doing shit like this at the wet market too?

What do you think this experiment is trying to do:

3.3 Virus characterization: 3.3.a Construction of chimeric SARSr-CoV viruses: Infectious clones with the S gene of novel SARSr-CoVs and the SARSr-CoV WIV1 genome backbone using the reverse genetic system developed in our previous R01 (24). The correct infectious BAC clones will be screened by BAC DNA digestion with appropriate restriction enzyme or PCR amplification. The chimeric viruses will be rescued in Vero cells and then verified by sequence analyses. Our research group is well versed in coronavirus reverse genetics.
...
3.3.c Humanized mouse infection experiments: Briefly, in BSL3, n=5 10- to 20-week old hACE2 transgenic mice will be intranasally inoculated with 1 x 104 PFU of wildtype WIV-1 or chimeric bat SARSr-CoVs with different spike proteins, then monitored daily for weight loss, morbidity, and clinical signs of disease.
 
The most persuasive take that I've read from experts whom I trust, was that a lab leak should not be ruled out and should be considered/investigated, but that the greater evidence still fell on the market origin.

I read that six months ago, so I'm not surprised that there's more pointing toward market. We could be years away from knowing for sure, if we ever do, but there is zero reason to just take the Chinese word on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OrlandNole, SA_Hawk, artradley and 2 others
The way the virus acted, transmitted, and responds is more reflective of one that's been manipulated.

****ing medical engineering bats!
 
seminole97 said:
How is your entire theory not based on geographic coincidence?

Were they doing shit like this at the wet market too?

What do you think this experiment is trying to do:

3.3 Virus characterization: 3.3.a Construction of chimeric SARSr-CoV viruses: Infectious clones with the S gene of novel SARSr-CoVs and the SARSr-CoV WIV1 genome backbone using the reverse genetic system developed in our previous R01 (24). The correct infectious BAC clones will be screened by BAC DNA digestion with appropriate restriction enzyme or PCR amplification. The chimeric viruses will be rescued in Vero cells and then verified by sequence analyses. Our research group is well versed in coronavirus reverse genetics.
...
3.3.c Humanized mouse infection experiments: Briefly, in BSL3, n=5 10- to 20-week old hACE2 transgenic mice will be intranasally inoculated with 1 x 104 PFU of wildtype WIV-1 or chimeric bat SARSr-CoVs with different spike proteins, then monitored daily for weight loss, morbidity, and clinical signs of disease.
Click to expand...
Now post how you think this is related to the Covid strains that emerged.

Be specific.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fsu1jreed and BelemNole
BelemNole said:
Your entire theory is based on a geographic coincidence. "The lab was close." That's it. That's all you have. It wasn't the center of the outbreak, but it was nearby. And you don't trust Chinese. And Fauci. But yeah, you're all about the science.
Click to expand...
His entire theory is based on a geographic coincidence? If he was saying that it originated from a bike store in the area, THAT would be a theory based entirely on geographic coincidence. The fact that the lab had samples of, and experimented with, deadly viruses similar to what caused the pandemic might play a little bit into his theory. In fact, you could really say that the wet market theory is based more on geographical coincidence than you could the lab theory.
 
l.todd said:
In fact, you could really say that the wet market theory is based more on geographical coincidence than you could the lab theory.
Click to expand...
Not really, with the density of cases around it.

Had the lab been the central vector, you'd expect more cases at other wet markets nearby; but there aren't cases centered on those.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole
l.todd said:
His entire theory is based on a geographic coincidence? If he was saying that it originated from a bike store in the area, THAT would be a theory based entirely on geographic coincidence. The fact that the lab had samples of, and experimented with, deadly viruses similar to what caused the pandemic might play a little bit into his theory. In fact, you could really say that the wet market theory is based more on geographical coincidence than you could the lab theory.
Click to expand...
The lab studied coronaviruses there because....that's a part of china where there are known to be....coronaviruses.

Again, if the lab were the source why did these two studies ( by authors where we suspicious of the lab by their own admission) find it more likely to be the market?
 
  • Like
Reactions: fsu1jreed
BelemNole said:
The lab studied coronaviruses there because....that's a part of china where there are known to be....coronaviruses.

Again, if the lab were the source why did these two studies ( by authors where we suspicious of the lab by their own admission) find it more likely to be the market?
Click to expand...
I didn't say the lab was the source. I said to dismiss the lab leak theory as just based on geographical coincidence is not correct.
 
Finance85 said:
Unproven conspiracy theory? Hardly. There's plenty of email evidence of coercion by Fauci and Collins to try and suppress the lab leak theory. They enlisted Peter Daszak to stomp the lab leak theory. This was just after Kristian Andersen's email to Fauci about an unexplained sequence that "looks engineered".

There are over 3000 pages of Fauci e-mails on this topic. Many of those e-mails are attempts to repress information coming from researchers outside the NIAID.

You don't have to believe me though. I didn't create the emails.
Click to expand...
Finance It doesn't matter if they tried to squash the story, shouldn't it be looking for the truth and where this started. It sure looks like It most likely started at the Wet Market, unless you can prove it was employees first that received it but then you would have thought the breakout would have occurred at the Lab and around the Lab. We don't see that here. Enjoy your conspiracy story though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fsu1jreed and BelemNole
Joes Place said:
Not really, with the density of cases around it.

Had the lab been the central vector, you'd expect more cases at other wet markets nearby; but there aren't cases centered on those.
Click to expand...
The density of cases around it is exactly what makes it a theory based on geographical coincidence. The fact that live animals that are known vectors are slaughtered there makes it more than a geographical coincidence.
 
Unless China was puposefully releasing a bio-weapon into the world that also attacked their own people I'm not sure why this matters

Scientists should probably try to figure it out for possible future prevention but certainly doesn't seem like a topic worth debating Likely nothing we can do as voters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nu2u, Jerome Silberman and alaskanseminole
Hoosierhawkeye said:
Unless China was puposefully releasing a bio-weapon into the world that also attacked their own people I'm not sure why this matters

Scientists should probably try to figure it out for possible future prevention but certainly doesn't seem like a topic worth debating Likely nothing we can do as voters.
Click to expand...
The question has never been deliberate release, it has been that transmission occurred in the lab and then spread in China. Ultimately absent of knowing who patient 0 is it is incredibly difficult to pinpoint the exact origination, but the wet market does look like the common denominator.
 
bunsen82 said:
The question has never been deliberate release, it has been that transmission occurred in the lab and then spread in China. Ultimately absent of knowing who patient 0 is it is incredibly difficult to pinpoint the exact origination, but the wet market does look like the common denominator.
Click to expand...

Seems a pointless topic to debate on. Even if the scientists could establish where it came from with with certainty, I'm not sure they can do much to prevent it from happening again.

China's gonna do what china wants to do. And it's not like we are going to go to war with them over lab safety issues or meat market safety issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jerome Silberman and alaskanseminole
bunsen82 said:
The question has never been deliberate release, it has been that transmission occurred in the lab and then spread in China. Ultimately absent of knowing who patient 0 is it is incredibly difficult to pinpoint the exact origination, but the wet market does look like the common denominator.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the "deliberate leak" is a strawman as ridiculous as "no collusion."
 
I can't read through it right now, but is there any discussion on how the data for the "spatial and environmental analysis" mapping using social media posts was collected? And furthermore, who collected and distributed it?
 
Hoosierhawkeye said:
Seems a pointless topic to debate on. Even if the scientists could establish where it came from with with certainty, I'm not sure they can do much to prevent it from happening again.

China's gonna do what china wants to do. And it's not like we are going to go to war with them over lab safety issues or meat market safety issues.
Click to expand...
Seems pointless when you challenge the opinion of a couple studies . . . Ok I agree with you it is pointless to debate and question the most likely origination of the disease.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cigaretteman

Opinion Other than Trump, virtually no one was doing better four years ago

Replies
8
Views
203
Off Topic
DooBi
DooBi
cigaretteman

Tax records reveal the lucrative world of covid misinformation

Replies
15
Views
307
Off Topic
PBhawkeye
PBhawkeye
Funky Bunch

Iran is getting ready to attach us?

Replies
42
Views
1K
Off Topic
Moral
Moral
Sharky1203

“We Need a Covid Commission” – Bill Maher Says Fauci and Democrats Refuse to Admit They Got It Wrong

Replies
185
Views
3K
Off Topic
Sharky1203
Sharky1203
cigaretteman

Florida surgeon general defies science as school tries to contain measles outbreak

Replies
26
Views
413
Off Topic
speak34
speak34
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back