4 ms·

Here's the best collection of evidence that accidental release from WIV should be viewed as a plausible vector: https://project-evidence.github.io/ https://proj

Here's the best collection of evidence that accidental release from WIV should be viewed as a plausible vector: https://project-evidence.github.io/ https://project-evidence.github.io/ Nothing in here can reasonably be classified as a conspiracy theory. The US intelligence agencies haven't said anything to my knowledge about accidental release. They said it didn't appear to be an engineered virus (true) and that there was no evidence that it did come from the lab (true). But what that misses, is that there's a ton of circumstantial evidence that exactly this class of disease was being studied (bat coronaviruses, research on animal to human transmission, including forced mutation to encourage this) a few hundred yards from the wet market in question, and this lab had explicitly been called out for sloppy handling of dangerous biological materials. (and to be clear, this isn't some dark secret research -- it's public albeit controversial research on preventing pandemics, funded by the NIH.)

empath75 7y ago
To be clear I do not believe it was engineered or designed or otherwise was part of biological weapons research. I think that it’s possible that it was a tragic accident, though. In terms of culpability, I don’t see how it’s any worse for China than the wet market theory. Either way, it’s a lapse in public health safety protocols.
- chvid 7y ago
  You can tell from the way the Chinese authorities reacted in the beginning that they did not know what they were dealing with. Had it been a lab accident their reaction would have been quite different. Also as I understand it. Bats acts as a repository for corona virus but the virus has to mutate in order to infect a human, so it infects another animal, where the mutated strain grow, before it reaches a human.
  - tigershark 7y ago
    Exactly, and it seems that the intermediate host is the palm civet as far as I remember.
  - empath75 7y ago
    It’s possible this virus might have escaped before they got around to studying it. Given how contagious it is, it might have gone straight from a bat they collected to a technician to the city.
tigershark 7y ago
That is not evidence if it has been debunked in several scientific papers. This is one of them with the analysis of the virus genoma: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/22221751.2020.1733440 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/22221751.2020.1...
- bpodgursky 7y ago
  You have not even slightly tried to read or understand what I posted. This is (weak) evidence that the virus was not engineered. It says absolutely nothing about the possibility -- which I outlined clearly, and which is outlined clearly in the linked doc -- that this is a natural virus accidentally released from a lab.
  - tigershark 7y ago
    I read it. There are a bunch of papers that are presented as proof of how it was engineered spreading bullshit, plus some fact narrated in the typical conspiracy theorist modus operandi to convince people of something that is very, very unlikely.
    - bpodgursky 7y ago
      I'm sorry, but it's simply not possible to square your comments with the content as presented. Let me quote it directly, in case you missed it: > Studies proving the virus was not "engineered" do not prove the spillover event occured outside of a laboratory. We are not claiming the virus was engineered. They also do not prove that the spillover event did not involve an animal or organism sourced from one of these labs. > To start with, we will once again state that we are not claiming SARS-CoV-2 has been engineered. > Editors’ note, March 2020: We are aware that this story is being used as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus. I'd like to engage on this, but it's pretty clear you aren't discussing this in good faith, or even reading the content you're talking about, so I'm going to have to step out.
- 7y ago

empath75 7y ago

To be clear I do not believe it was engineered or designed or otherwise was part of biological weapons research. I think that it’s possible that it was a tragic accident, though. In terms of culpability, I don’t see how it’s any worse for China than the wet market theory. Either way, it’s a lapse in public health safety protocols.

chvid 7y ago
You can tell from the way the Chinese authorities reacted in the beginning that they did not know what they were dealing with. Had it been a lab accident their reaction would have been quite different. Also as I understand it. Bats acts as a repository for corona virus but the virus has to mutate in order to infect a human, so it infects another animal, where the mutated strain grow, before it reaches a human.
- tigershark 7y ago
  Exactly, and it seems that the intermediate host is the palm civet as far as I remember.
- empath75 7y ago
  It’s possible this virus might have escaped before they got around to studying it. Given how contagious it is, it might have gone straight from a bat they collected to a technician to the city.

tigershark 7y ago

That is not evidence if it has been debunked in several scientific papers. This is one of them with the analysis of the virus genoma: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/22221751.2020.1733440 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/22221751.2020.1...

bpodgursky 7y ago
You have not even slightly tried to read or understand what I posted. This is (weak) evidence that the virus was not engineered. It says absolutely nothing about the possibility -- which I outlined clearly, and which is outlined clearly in the linked doc -- that this is a natural virus accidentally released from a lab.
- tigershark 7y ago
  I read it. There are a bunch of papers that are presented as proof of how it was engineered spreading bullshit, plus some fact narrated in the typical conspiracy theorist modus operandi to convince people of something that is very, very unlikely.
  - bpodgursky 7y ago
    I'm sorry, but it's simply not possible to square your comments with the content as presented. Let me quote it directly, in case you missed it: > Studies proving the virus was not "engineered" do not prove the spillover event occured outside of a laboratory. We are not claiming the virus was engineered. They also do not prove that the spillover event did not involve an animal or organism sourced from one of these labs. > To start with, we will once again state that we are not claiming SARS-CoV-2 has been engineered. > Editors’ note, March 2020: We are aware that this story is being used as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus. I'd like to engage on this, but it's pretty clear you aren't discussing this in good faith, or even reading the content you're talking about, so I'm going to have to step out.
7y ago