3 ms·

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 partic

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.
- lamontcg 3y ago
  > WIV collected the viruses from 800mi away which are the known closest relative — but missing the Furin cleavage site. RaTG13 is not the known closest relative any more and the spike is considerably different and probably doesn't bind to human ACE2. There's also no known evidence that they ever had 'live' RaTG13 or any other SARS-CoV-2-like virus in the lab. > 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. And it seems whatever evidence they have isn't sufficient to convince any of the other intelligence agencies, and they haven't disclosed what that evidence is. So because one intelligence agency says "trust me bro" while the others are unconvinced that makes the one with the strongest opinion clearly the correct one. That isn't a good way to judge truth. > 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. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/14/science/covid-lab-leak-fauci-kristian-andersen.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/14/science/covid-lab-leak-fa... "I cautioned in that same email that we would need to look at the question much more closely and that our opinions could change within a few days based on new data and analyses — which they did." "The features in SARS-CoV-2 that initially suggested possible engineering were identified in related coronaviruses, meaning that features that initially looked unusual to us weren’t." "Many of these analyses were completed in a matter of days, while we worked around the clock, which allowed us to reject our preliminary hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 might have been engineered, while other “lab”-based scenarios were still on the table." "Yet more extensive analyses, significant additional data and thorough investigations to compare genomic diversity more broadly across coronaviruses led to the peer-reviewed study published in Nature Medicine. For example, we looked at data from coronaviruses found in other species, such as bats and pangolins, which demonstrated that the features that first appeared unique to SARS-CoV-2 were in fact found in other, related viruses." "Overall, this is a textbook example of the scientific method where a preliminary hypothesis is rejected in favor of a competing hypothesis after more data become available and analyses are completed." > later receiving grants from a related organization "Virologist accepts grants to continue research" is not exactly a ground-breaking headline.

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.

lamontcg 3y ago
> WIV collected the viruses from 800mi away which are the known closest relative — but missing the Furin cleavage site. RaTG13 is not the known closest relative any more and the spike is considerably different and probably doesn't bind to human ACE2. There's also no known evidence that they ever had 'live' RaTG13 or any other SARS-CoV-2-like virus in the lab. > 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. And it seems whatever evidence they have isn't sufficient to convince any of the other intelligence agencies, and they haven't disclosed what that evidence is. So because one intelligence agency says "trust me bro" while the others are unconvinced that makes the one with the strongest opinion clearly the correct one. That isn't a good way to judge truth. > 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. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/14/science/covid-lab-leak-fauci-kristian-andersen.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/14/science/covid-lab-leak-fa... "I cautioned in that same email that we would need to look at the question much more closely and that our opinions could change within a few days based on new data and analyses — which they did." "The features in SARS-CoV-2 that initially suggested possible engineering were identified in related coronaviruses, meaning that features that initially looked unusual to us weren’t." "Many of these analyses were completed in a matter of days, while we worked around the clock, which allowed us to reject our preliminary hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 might have been engineered, while other “lab”-based scenarios were still on the table." "Yet more extensive analyses, significant additional data and thorough investigations to compare genomic diversity more broadly across coronaviruses led to the peer-reviewed study published in Nature Medicine. For example, we looked at data from coronaviruses found in other species, such as bats and pangolins, which demonstrated that the features that first appeared unique to SARS-CoV-2 were in fact found in other, related viruses." "Overall, this is a textbook example of the scientific method where a preliminary hypothesis is rejected in favor of a competing hypothesis after more data become available and analyses are completed." > later receiving grants from a related organization "Virologist accepts grants to continue research" is not exactly a ground-breaking headline.