3 ms·

What specific evidence lends credence to the “overwhelming scientific consensus” you claim? There’s still no known natural precursor and the only thing we see

What specific evidence lends credence to the “overwhelming scientific consensus” you claim? There’s still no known natural precursor and the only thing we see with a similar Furin cleavage site (which greatly enhanced the virality) doesn’t look like the backbone of the virus. The only US intelligence agency which assessed the situation with moderate confidence was the one who concluded that it was a lab leak. The natural origin conclusion only received low confidence. Never mind that multiple virologists stated in emails that it looked engineered — until a private call with Fauci, when they recanted, and wouldn’t you know, got millions in grants shortly after. You seem to be ignoring the actual scientific data, the work of intelligence agencies, and the documented human aspects which impacted this. But yeah, keep throwing that abuse out there to shame others because they don’t recite the headlines as good as you. Edit: People who ignore you led with scientific facts and expert analysis to focus on the documented conspiracy — then try to call your whole post “conspiratorial nonsense” are funny. Are they self-aware enough to realize they were fishing for a pretense to ignore you?

lucubratory 3y ago
>Never mind that multiple virologists stated in emails that it looked engineered — until a private call with Fauci, when they recanted, and wouldn’t you know, got millions in grants shortly after. Are you self-aware enough to know that this paragraph gives the game away that your whole comment is conspiratorial nonsense, or does it feel normal to you to theorise that some US public health official who got caught up in partisan US politics is personally intimidating scientists into agreeing with scientific consensus, and rewarding them with grants for doing so?
- fallingknife 3y ago
  Scientists have been caught red handed lying about lab leak https://www.natesilver.net/p/journalists-should-be-skeptical-of https://www.natesilver.net/p/journalists-should-be-skeptical...
lamontcg 3y ago
The PRRAR furin cleavage sequence wasn't a previously known furin cleavage pattern and its unlikely that human scientists would have tried to insert that particular pattern into the genome of a virus. We also now know of natural viruses which are very close to SARS-CoV-2 and only missing the FCS, but at the same time there has been zero evidence that WIV was ever working with SARS-CoV-2-like viruses when their focus was on SARS-CoV-1 like viruses. And the natural spillover event is the leading theory in the intelligence community, from the ODNI report: > The National Intelligence Council and four other IC agencies assess that the initial human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was caused by natural exposure to an infected animal that carried SARS-CoV-2 or a close progenitor, a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2. > The Department of Energy and the Federal Bureau of Investigation assess that a laboratory-associated incident was the most likely cause of the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2, although for different reasons. > The Central Intelligence Agency and another agency remain unable to determine the precise origin of the COVID-19 pandemic, as both hypotheses rely on significant assumptions or face challenges with conflicting reporting. > Almost all IC agencies assess that SARS-CoV-2 was not genetically engineered. Most agencies assess that SARS-CoV-2 was not laboratory-adapted; some are unable to make a determination. All IC agencies assess that SARS-CoV-2 was not developed as a biological weapon. The natural spillover theory is the leading theory 5-to-3 compared to other theories and only DoE and the FBI think that the lab leak was more likely. Genetic engineering is not a well-supported theory. And I don't know what evidence DoE or FBI could have that CIA/NSA doesn't that leads them to the conclusion that it was a lab leak. > People who ignore you led with scientific facts and expert analysis to focus on the documented conspiracy — then try to call your whole post “conspiratorial nonsense” are funny. You haven't presented any scientific facts. And then you pivoted into conspiracy theories about scientists. Yeah, there was a scientist early on who looked at the FCS and got startled by it and thought it was a smoking gun, and then after considering the scientific evidence he changed his mind. Assuming and stating as a fact that he changed his mind due to financial pressure, without any evidence, is exactly conspiratorial thinking.
- zmgsabst 3y ago
  > We also now know of natural viruses which are very close to SARS-CoV-2 and only missing the FCS, but at the same time there has been zero evidence that WIV was ever working with SARS-CoV-2-like viruses WIV collected the viruses from 800mi away which are the known closest relative — but missing the Furin cleavage site. > only DoE and the FBI think that the lab leak was more likely […] I don't know what evidence DoE or FBI could have that CIA/NSA doesn't that leads them to the conclusion that it was a lab leak DoE specializes in things like bioterrorism, via one of their analysis labs. FBI similarly. Neither CIA nor NSA do, who specialize in HUMINT and SIGINT respectively. > natural spillover theory is the leading theory 5-to-3 And as I mentioned before, the only one to asses with moderate rather than low confidence is in that group of 3. When assessing such matters, we need to consider not just the number of analyses, but their relative confidence in their conclusions. > Assuming and stating as a fact that he changed his mind due to financial pressure, without any evidence, is exactly conspiratorial thinking. There was more than one — and they changed their opinion after a phone call, not based on later evidence. Feel free to present the evidence you believe changed his mind. > Assuming and stating as a fact that he changed his mind due to financial pressure, without any evidence, is exactly conspiratorial thinking. Except that we do have evidence in the timing of him being contacted by an implicated official and later receiving grants from a related organization. Dismissing evidence of collusion as “conspiratorial” because you don’t like the conclusions is bad faith.

lucubratory 3y ago

>Never mind that multiple virologists stated in emails that it looked engineered — until a private call with Fauci, when they recanted, and wouldn’t you know, got millions in grants shortly after. Are you self-aware enough to know that this paragraph gives the game away that your whole comment is conspiratorial nonsense, or does it feel normal to you to theorise that some US public health official who got caught up in partisan US politics is personally intimidating scientists into agreeing with scientific consensus, and rewarding them with grants for doing so?

fallingknife 3y ago
Scientists have been caught red handed lying about lab leak https://www.natesilver.net/p/journalists-should-be-skeptical-of https://www.natesilver.net/p/journalists-should-be-skeptical...

lamontcg 3y ago

The PRRAR furin cleavage sequence wasn't a previously known furin cleavage pattern and its unlikely that human scientists would have tried to insert that particular pattern into the genome of a virus. We also now know of natural viruses which are very close to SARS-CoV-2 and only missing the FCS, but at the same time there has been zero evidence that WIV was ever working with SARS-CoV-2-like viruses when their focus was on SARS-CoV-1 like viruses. And the natural spillover event is the leading theory in the intelligence community, from the ODNI report: > The National Intelligence Council and four other IC agencies assess that the initial human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was caused by natural exposure to an infected animal that carried SARS-CoV-2 or a close progenitor, a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2. > The Department of Energy and the Federal Bureau of Investigation assess that a laboratory-associated incident was the most likely cause of the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2, although for different reasons. > The Central Intelligence Agency and another agency remain unable to determine the precise origin of the COVID-19 pandemic, as both hypotheses rely on significant assumptions or face challenges with conflicting reporting. > Almost all IC agencies assess that SARS-CoV-2 was not genetically engineered. Most agencies assess that SARS-CoV-2 was not laboratory-adapted; some are unable to make a determination. All IC agencies assess that SARS-CoV-2 was not developed as a biological weapon. The natural spillover theory is the leading theory 5-to-3 compared to other theories and only DoE and the FBI think that the lab leak was more likely. Genetic engineering is not a well-supported theory. And I don't know what evidence DoE or FBI could have that CIA/NSA doesn't that leads them to the conclusion that it was a lab leak. > People who ignore you led with scientific facts and expert analysis to focus on the documented conspiracy — then try to call your whole post “conspiratorial nonsense” are funny. You haven't presented any scientific facts. And then you pivoted into conspiracy theories about scientists. Yeah, there was a scientist early on who looked at the FCS and got startled by it and thought it was a smoking gun, and then after considering the scientific evidence he changed his mind. Assuming and stating as a fact that he changed his mind due to financial pressure, without any evidence, is exactly conspiratorial thinking.

zmgsabst 3y ago
> We also now know of natural viruses which are very close to SARS-CoV-2 and only missing the FCS, but at the same time there has been zero evidence that WIV was ever working with SARS-CoV-2-like viruses WIV collected the viruses from 800mi away which are the known closest relative — but missing the Furin cleavage site. > only DoE and the FBI think that the lab leak was more likely […] I don't know what evidence DoE or FBI could have that CIA/NSA doesn't that leads them to the conclusion that it was a lab leak DoE specializes in things like bioterrorism, via one of their analysis labs. FBI similarly. Neither CIA nor NSA do, who specialize in HUMINT and SIGINT respectively. > natural spillover theory is the leading theory 5-to-3 And as I mentioned before, the only one to asses with moderate rather than low confidence is in that group of 3. When assessing such matters, we need to consider not just the number of analyses, but their relative confidence in their conclusions. > Assuming and stating as a fact that he changed his mind due to financial pressure, without any evidence, is exactly conspiratorial thinking. There was more than one — and they changed their opinion after a phone call, not based on later evidence. Feel free to present the evidence you believe changed his mind. > Assuming and stating as a fact that he changed his mind due to financial pressure, without any evidence, is exactly conspiratorial thinking. Except that we do have evidence in the timing of him being contacted by an implicated official and later receiving grants from a related organization. Dismissing evidence of collusion as “conspiratorial” because you don’t like the conclusions is bad faith.