5 ms·

If the root-cause was anything more than a zoonotic event then there will never be an independent and serious investigation on it. Personally there are so many

If the root-cause was anything more than a zoonotic event then there will never be an independent and serious investigation on it. Personally there are so many inconsistences with the timeline and location that I am much more inclined to believe the hypothesis of a "Gain-of-function" experiment that negligently escaped the lab, more so than a 'designed' virus or an unfortunate zoonotic event. I don't want to be controversial or go into arguments on facts versus 'circunstancial' evidence but I would like to point out that the last time I linked a url about this on reddit, my comments got silently shawdowbanned. I tried multiple variations and unless I obsfuscated the url the comment would always get shadowbanned. This is the link in question: https://project-evidence.github.io https://project-evidence.github.io

gridlockd 6y ago
People need to understand that this scenario is entirely plausible and could have happened even in the US and many research labs around the world. Gain-of-function experiments and engineered viruses are not the stuff of James Bond stories, they are ordinary scientific work. They aren't necessarily that dangerous, but even extremely dangerous pathogens have leaked from labs numerous times. The origin of the virus is unproven, yet somehow the "lab origin" story is a conspiracy theory while "zoonotic transfer through multiple hosts in an unlikely area (Wuhan)" is the dominant narrative. Either hypothesis has, at best, circumstantial evidence going for it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- DoingIsLearning 6y ago
  Indeed, irrespective of the obvious agenda and credentials of OP's link, I would still expect this to be a platform for us to explore and discuss these scenarios with critical argumentation, beyond any divisive political polarization or propaganda. edit: typo
- neuronic 6y ago
  The problem isn't even that it happened, since accidents and issues are an unfortunate part of research and life. It's the way some entities deal with it for political reasons that screws everything up and leads to huge public distrust and poisoning of discourse. The Coronavirus talk points are clear and to be adhered to. While I agree with the majority of the talk points (wear a mask etc.) I find it highly suspicious how some things evolved and changed over time. Before April 7th, apparently no research existed in the world which proved that even simple textile masks are highly efficient at reducing transmission of viruses like SARS-CoV-2 simply because they reduce droplets you spread. The virus needs droplets so its own size is irrelevant and the only leftover thing to check are fine aerosols which outside of artificial conditions rarely occur. Then suddenly, mask was everything as if somebody flipped a switch. People somewhere came together to flip the rhetoric which means that at some point, regarding the masks, it wasn't science-based but messages of control. Yea, maybe the mask supply was to be protected for medical personnel. Ok. But spreading the message that masks are not required is the wrong way to go about it. Case in point: > By contrast, surgical masks — those cheap, disposable, gauzy masks that often come in blue or green — are less uncomfortable. But Schaffner says the scientific evidence that "there might be a benefit for people in the community wearing [surgical] face masks is very, very meager. The general sense is perhaps, but they're certainly not an absolute protection." In other words, they do provide some benefit but they're far from foolproof. [1] This is NPR! It's January 29th, 2020 and they spread the message that simple disposable surgical masks have VERY VERY MEAGER BENEFIT. I can only say: what the fuck?! Why? This reads as if masks are not really helping so forget them anyways. As opposed to: there is significant reduction in transmission, even if not 100%, so wear them! But research has long since existed proving effectiveness of surgical masks spreading airborne pathogens [2, 2013!]. It was abundantly clear that they help. But WHO and media told us a different story. RKI in Germany lied as well until early April. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/01/29/800531753/face-masks-what-doctors-say-about-their-role-in-containing-coronavirus?t=1600164447562 https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/01/29/8005317... [2] https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1003205 https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/j...
  - gfodor 6y ago
    The mask thing is your opportunity to read about the Gel-Mann effect, and join us in the club who believe very little, if anything, coming from the media. Reminder: the people behind the articles you read are often 20 something ex-bloggers who have no real world experience and also often have an axe to grind.
threeseed 6y ago
I've worked in facilities management at a university with an infectious disease research program. As with all buildings there were system failures over the years. In one case air filtration failed and it required evacuation. In most countries these incidents would be public, reported in the media and people would move on. But in China it's almost a mandatory requirement that there is a cover-up since any form of 'bad press' is a potent source of destabilisation.
neuronic 6y ago
My post is just pure conjecture, but I don't have a good gut feeling regarding natural origins of the virus. And if there would be any other origins it would never be disclosed. This is ripe for conspiracies but something about this doesn't feel right. It should be a huge red flag that the main outbreak started in Wuhan near a well known virology lab but we are constantly fed rhetoric which assumes origin much earlier and at a vastly different location in Southern China, where the bat caves are and pangolins roam. Notably, those regions have not experienced an uptick in "weird lung disease" like Wuhan did before identifying SARS-CoV-2. The wet markets and all associated animal trade and TCM in general exist everywhere in China and Wuhan is one of thousands of large population cities. Nothing was special about Wuhan except one single thing: It all started across the street from a BSL lab when the conditions that led to the outbreak are available all across China, thousands of times.
DarthGhandi 6y ago
Have you maybe considered that your link is basically claiming a massive conspiracy? That's it's virtually the same stuff that Alex Jones and Infowars are pushing? > We are an anonymous group of researchers. We are not affiliated with any company, nation state, or organization. We are not receiving funding from any sources, public or private. So I'm going to straight up say that this site is politically motivated without a doubt. Here's some actual researchers from the West writing an open letter to the Lancet willing to put their actual names to their research saying it's natural in origin. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... I can find you similar sites with psuedoscientific analyses of 5G research papers too. Should I share them here?
- DoingIsLearning 6y ago
  I don't dismiss the possibility that I might be used as a propanganda pawn. However, I don't see how your claims refute mine. Scientists have published quite a lot of material by now on how at a _molecular_ level it seems like a 'natural' virus, as in not a engineered/designed virus, I fully accept the body of science on this. My argument is not that it is artificial but that it is a virus under study either for cataloguing purposes or used in a "gain-of-function" experiment, and that this virus _accidentally_ escaped the lab facilities where it should have been contained in. I would be interesting in discussing the circunstancial inconsistencies with the _seafood_ market zoonotic theory, for example: 1) The likely genetic source of SARS cov1 and cov2 is a species of bat in Yunnan province, thousands of miles away, two provinces away from Hubei (Wuhan). Ref: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5708621/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5708621/ 2) The outbreak allegedly started in December in Hubei province when the local bat population (which does not carry this SARS virus?) would be hibernating (?) 3) Only 66% of the initial 41 COVID patients had exposure to Huanan _seafood_ market. Ref: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... 4) A seafood market where you would have to have non-hibernating bats from Yunnan thousands of miles away from Wuhan(?) 5) The seafood market is 13Km away from Wuhan Institute of Virology where Yunnan bats were studied. And 1.4km away from Wuhan's Centre for Disease Prevention & Control (?) If I put my critical thinking hat on, this does not contradicting a "natural" source. However, it shows a very weak case for us to defend a multi-zoonotic event with a final jump occuring at seafood market, a stone throw away from a BSL lab.

gridlockd 6y ago

People need to understand that this scenario is entirely plausible and could have happened even in the US and many research labs around the world. Gain-of-function experiments and engineered viruses are not the stuff of James Bond stories, they are ordinary scientific work. They aren't necessarily that dangerous, but even extremely dangerous pathogens have leaked from labs numerous times. The origin of the virus is unproven, yet somehow the "lab origin" story is a conspiracy theory while "zoonotic transfer through multiple hosts in an unlikely area (Wuhan)" is the dominant narrative. Either hypothesis has, at best, circumstantial evidence going for it.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
DoingIsLearning 6y ago
Indeed, irrespective of the obvious agenda and credentials of OP's link, I would still expect this to be a platform for us to explore and discuss these scenarios with critical argumentation, beyond any divisive political polarization or propaganda. edit: typo
neuronic 6y ago
The problem isn't even that it happened, since accidents and issues are an unfortunate part of research and life. It's the way some entities deal with it for political reasons that screws everything up and leads to huge public distrust and poisoning of discourse. The Coronavirus talk points are clear and to be adhered to. While I agree with the majority of the talk points (wear a mask etc.) I find it highly suspicious how some things evolved and changed over time. Before April 7th, apparently no research existed in the world which proved that even simple textile masks are highly efficient at reducing transmission of viruses like SARS-CoV-2 simply because they reduce droplets you spread. The virus needs droplets so its own size is irrelevant and the only leftover thing to check are fine aerosols which outside of artificial conditions rarely occur. Then suddenly, mask was everything as if somebody flipped a switch. People somewhere came together to flip the rhetoric which means that at some point, regarding the masks, it wasn't science-based but messages of control. Yea, maybe the mask supply was to be protected for medical personnel. Ok. But spreading the message that masks are not required is the wrong way to go about it. Case in point: > By contrast, surgical masks — those cheap, disposable, gauzy masks that often come in blue or green — are less uncomfortable. But Schaffner says the scientific evidence that "there might be a benefit for people in the community wearing [surgical] face masks is very, very meager. The general sense is perhaps, but they're certainly not an absolute protection." In other words, they do provide some benefit but they're far from foolproof. [1] This is NPR! It's January 29th, 2020 and they spread the message that simple disposable surgical masks have VERY VERY MEAGER BENEFIT. I can only say: what the fuck?! Why? This reads as if masks are not really helping so forget them anyways. As opposed to: there is significant reduction in transmission, even if not 100%, so wear them! But research has long since existed proving effectiveness of surgical masks spreading airborne pathogens [2, 2013!]. It was abundantly clear that they help. But WHO and media told us a different story. RKI in Germany lied as well until early April. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/01/29/800531753/face-masks-what-doctors-say-about-their-role-in-containing-coronavirus?t=1600164447562 https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/01/29/8005317... [2] https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1003205 https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/j...
- gfodor 6y ago
  The mask thing is your opportunity to read about the Gel-Mann effect, and join us in the club who believe very little, if anything, coming from the media. Reminder: the people behind the articles you read are often 20 something ex-bloggers who have no real world experience and also often have an axe to grind.

threeseed 6y ago

I've worked in facilities management at a university with an infectious disease research program. As with all buildings there were system failures over the years. In one case air filtration failed and it required evacuation. In most countries these incidents would be public, reported in the media and people would move on. But in China it's almost a mandatory requirement that there is a cover-up since any form of 'bad press' is a potent source of destabilisation.

neuronic 6y ago

My post is just pure conjecture, but I don't have a good gut feeling regarding natural origins of the virus. And if there would be any other origins it would never be disclosed. This is ripe for conspiracies but something about this doesn't feel right. It should be a huge red flag that the main outbreak started in Wuhan near a well known virology lab but we are constantly fed rhetoric which assumes origin much earlier and at a vastly different location in Southern China, where the bat caves are and pangolins roam. Notably, those regions have not experienced an uptick in "weird lung disease" like Wuhan did before identifying SARS-CoV-2. The wet markets and all associated animal trade and TCM in general exist everywhere in China and Wuhan is one of thousands of large population cities. Nothing was special about Wuhan except one single thing: It all started across the street from a BSL lab when the conditions that led to the outbreak are available all across China, thousands of times.

DarthGhandi 6y ago

Have you maybe considered that your link is basically claiming a massive conspiracy? That's it's virtually the same stuff that Alex Jones and Infowars are pushing? > We are an anonymous group of researchers. We are not affiliated with any company, nation state, or organization. We are not receiving funding from any sources, public or private. So I'm going to straight up say that this site is politically motivated without a doubt. Here's some actual researchers from the West writing an open letter to the Lancet willing to put their actual names to their research saying it's natural in origin. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... I can find you similar sites with psuedoscientific analyses of 5G research papers too. Should I share them here?

DoingIsLearning 6y ago
I don't dismiss the possibility that I might be used as a propanganda pawn. However, I don't see how your claims refute mine. Scientists have published quite a lot of material by now on how at a _molecular_ level it seems like a 'natural' virus, as in not a engineered/designed virus, I fully accept the body of science on this. My argument is not that it is artificial but that it is a virus under study either for cataloguing purposes or used in a "gain-of-function" experiment, and that this virus _accidentally_ escaped the lab facilities where it should have been contained in. I would be interesting in discussing the circunstancial inconsistencies with the _seafood_ market zoonotic theory, for example: 1) The likely genetic source of SARS cov1 and cov2 is a species of bat in Yunnan province, thousands of miles away, two provinces away from Hubei (Wuhan). Ref: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5708621/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5708621/ 2) The outbreak allegedly started in December in Hubei province when the local bat population (which does not carry this SARS virus?) would be hibernating (?) 3) Only 66% of the initial 41 COVID patients had exposure to Huanan _seafood_ market. Ref: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... 4) A seafood market where you would have to have non-hibernating bats from Yunnan thousands of miles away from Wuhan(?) 5) The seafood market is 13Km away from Wuhan Institute of Virology where Yunnan bats were studied. And 1.4km away from Wuhan's Centre for Disease Prevention & Control (?) If I put my critical thinking hat on, this does not contradicting a "natural" source. However, it shows a very weak case for us to defend a multi-zoonotic event with a final jump occuring at seafood market, a stone throw away from a BSL lab.