Breaking News: Trump says he has seen evidence virus came from Wuhan Lab

[dissectingaorticaneurysm]

But they have a lab right there in Wuhan that studies virus like this. Why is it less likely it was a researcher who fucked up as opposed to a fisherman or um... bat hunter?

Its not necessarily that it was CREATED in a lab.

Right, so it's a virus of natural origin that was being studied in a virology lab with strict controls and you think it's more likely to have come out of there than farms with unsanitary conditions?

The Guardian just published a good summary of this theory addressing each of its main points here:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...w-about-origins-trump-chinese-lab-coronavirus

Early in the outbreak, two strains appear to have been in circulation at roughly at the same time – strain A and strain B – with a C variant later developing from strain B.

But in a surprise finding, the version with the closest genetic similarity to bat coronavirus was not the one most prevalent early on in the central Chinese city of Wuhan but instead associated with a scattering of early cases in the southern Guangdong province.

Between 24 December 2019 and 17 January 2020, Forster explains, just three out of 23 cases in Wuhan were type A, while the rest were type B. In patients in Guangdong province, however, five out of nine were found to have type A of the virus.
​

A closer examination of the virus calls into question whether it originates in Wuhan at all.

 

[Andy Capp]

As far as conspiracy theories go, the idea that covid19 escaped from a research lab seems less stupid than a lot of others things people believe in, but it still seems much less likely.

Yeah, that about sums it up for me too.

 

[vapor&dust]

Western mainstream media is a propaganda outlet for CCP

They also bought the "calling it the China Virus is racist" CCP talking point instantly. Shameful

Exactly and it's why I would support shutting down certain media that are nothing more than extensions of the CCP.

 

[vapor&dust]

China has such a good health care system! Murdering patients and incinerating their bodies is the best care. The best. That is what we want for the West!

You skipped a step. Before they are incinerated their organs are cut out to sell.

 

[TheGreatA]

So in the absence of proof, surely you look to the most plausible scenario based on the indications that you do have, or at the very least, withhold from making unfounded accusations that have major implications?

If we follow that logic then we would certainly have to acknowledge that the H1N1 virus having spread due to a lab outbreak, is the most plausible scenario. And if that were to be the case, that a major virus outbreak occurred due to a laboratory incident, in countries that are notoriously immoral about their medical and scientific practises, as well as secretive and willing to cover up any wrong-doings, then why would one act so dismissive about that scenario potentially repeating itself?

Well, to be clear, you can't prove a negative, so you won't be able to prove it didn't escape from there, but mathematical modeling and various other things may eventually prove that it did. If those things came back negative it would strongly suggest it did not escape a lab but that is not proof. Can't do a thing about that. But what even suggests that might be the cause of this outbreak when it's an unnecessary link in the causal chain?

It could be argued that the virus requiring the Wuhan wet markets to spread is also an "unnecessary link in the causal chain", yet until recently it was the most often repeated and commonly held opinion about the virus's origin. Recent evidence indicates that this "theory" may have simply been wrong, as evidence has been presented about the virus not even having originated in Wuhan, so once again, the "commonly held opinion" has not necessarily dictated where the truth lies, to the discomfort of all the world's fence-sitters and moderate-minded men. As of now, we simply don't quite know where the truth lies. We do know, however, where the "socially acceptable borders of the truth" lies.

What makes the people who suggest that the virus originated in a lab a bunch of tinfoil hat nutjobs compared, to the people who paraded around the idea that the virus originated in a Wuhan wet market? The fact that one opinion was held to be less "harmful" and more socially acceptable than the other? Less harmful to China's interests perhaps, as far as presenting itself as a honest and trustworthy global operator?

 

[TheGreatA]

True or not... Let China get pissed off. They've been lying to the world the entire time and playing the WHO like a fiddle to do their bidding.

Didn't China already to try to blame Europe for the spread of COV?

According to some Chinese officials, the US military spread the virus into China.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/13/asia/china-coronavirus-us-lijian-zhao-intl-hnk/index.html

It's just a matter of Trump returning the favour.

 

[The Audience]

If we follow that logic then we would certainly have to acknowledge that the H1N1 virus having spread due to a lab outbreak, is the most plausible scenario. And if that were to be the case, that a major virus outbreak occurred due to a laboratory incident, in countries that are notoriously immoral about their medical and scientific practises, as well as secretive and willing to cover up any wrong-doings, then why would one act so dismissive about that scenario potentially repeating itself?

Based on what though? I linked a discussion of the debate over that outbreak, where it was concluded that that outbreak was most likely to have occured due to the vaccine trials that were being undertaken in the outbreak areas at the time. Note that despite the numerous lab escapes which actually have occured (these are undeniable) none of them -including the sars escape, have led to a pandemic, whereas the ones that we know emerged in nature, have. The alleged secretive/immoral nature of a country, can only provide a circumstantial weight of proof to support the theory of a lab escape, and is surely less relevent in the face of more credible scientific indications that point elsewhere.

 

[The Audience]

Thank you for the article. Now despite my username, I rarely don the tinfoil hat. I'll be honest, I am still not 100% sure what to believe regarding the genesis of this virus. This article makes a compelling case of the virus mutating naturally in nature--which is believable. The second scenario mentioned where the virus lies dormant within humans for perhaps many years before being able to cause disease I feel is plausible as well.

However, the language In fact, any bioengineer trying to design a coronavirus that threatened human health probably would never have chosen this particular conformation for a spike protein opens up a little wiggle room for debate.

1. Perhaps a suboptimally bioengineered virus is the most brilliant one. There is inherent subterfuge. High transmission rate, relatively low fatality rate, long incubation times.... sounds like a hack job in the lab, right?
2. I felt this NIH article took a strange point of view compared to the usually very sterile articles I have read before. It got me thinking--might it be career suicide to be the one who says this virus has evidence of being bioengineered? That would be plainly pointing the finger at China, who has demonstrated a great deal of clout.

Thank you for the article, although I think, speaking for myself, it may have muddied the waters even more.

This is an excerpt from a short article discrediting the claims that the virus was created in a lab; i think its a quite clear and succinct explanation, that might help you to decide:

"Currently, there are speculations, rumours and conspiracy theories that SARS-CoV-2 is of laboratory origin. Some people have alleged that the human SARS-CoV-2 was leaked directly from a laboratory in Wuhan where a bat CoV (RaTG13) was recently reported, which shared 96% homology with the SARS-CoV-2 [4]. However, as we know, the human SARS-CoV and intermediate host palm civet SARS-like CoV shared 99.8% homology, with a total of 202 single-nucleotide (nt) variations (SNVs) identified across the genome [6]. Given that there are greater than 1,100 nt differences between the human SARS- CoV-2 and the bat RaTG13-CoV [4], which are distributed throughout the genome in a naturally occurring pattern following the evolutionary characteristics typical of CoVs, it is highly unlikely that RaTG13 CoV is the immediate source of SARS- CoV-2. The absence of a logical targeted pattern in the new viral sequences and a close relative in a wildlife species (bats) are the most revealing signs that SARS-CoV-2 evolved by natural evolution. "

 

[TheGreatA]

Based on what though? I linked a discussion of the debate over that outbreak, where it was concluded that that outbreak was most likely to have occured due to the vaccine trials that were being undertaken in the outbreak areas at the time. Note that despite the numerous lab escapes which actually have occured (these are undeniable) none of them -including the sars escape, have led to a pandemic, whereas the ones that we know emerged in nature, have. The alleged secretive/immoral nature of a country, can only provide a circumstantial weight of proof to support the theory of a lab escape, and is surely less relevent in the face of more credible scientific indications that point elsewhere.

Even if the outbreak was the result of a failed vaccine trial, I fail to see why this shouldn't be considered a "laboratory accident".

If a laboratory produces a vaccine that is too potent and introduces a new strain of virus, or in this case, re-introduces an old one, to the environment, I'd personally count that as a "lab accident".

In any case, whether it was due to a lab accident of some other kind, or a failed vaccine trial, the point stands, the virus's spread occurred due to "unnatural" conditions.

 

[Oceanmachine]

I am shocked those in the west are so quick to defend china over Trump. Like or dislike him he is one of the wests and has its interests in mind. China wants the collapse of the US and defacto enslavement of its adversaries.

 

[milkmandanl]

Is it too far fetched to believe the UK, US and other western countries have worse death rates than China?
I am fucking positive their official figures are out, but the virus doesn't plough through healthy and or skinny people anywhere in the world I can find.

What do we know about the virus?
It preys on elderly and sick people, especially elderly overweight people

Obesity
China : 5-6%
UK : % of people Obese of 60 and over is over 35%
US : anywhere between 39.8% & 44%(gets even higher for African Americans), and they're bearing the brunt of deaths as far as i can tell?
Diabetes
China : cannot find any data
UK : 4 million
US : 34.2 million

I'm going to throw out an unpopular opinion here.
The US, UK, Spain and France have a lot of overweight elderly people who are sick. This virus thrives in this environment and does it work.

did you just provide motive for China to release this? They could have released it intentionally knowing it would have less effect to their citizens while hitting western nations (their enemy) hard...they could then say “who would release a deadly virus on their on citizens”...add to it that it has a high % infection rate, high % asymptotic carriers and a kills the same at risk people that the flu does....not as far fetched today as it was in February...

 

[MicroBrew]

Well, to be clear, you can't prove a negative, so you won't be able to prove it didn't escape from there, but mathematical modeling and various other things may eventually prove that it did. If those things came back negative it would strongly suggest it did not escape a lab but that is not proof. Can't do a thing about that. But what even suggests that might be the cause of this outbreak when it's an unnecessary link in the causal chain?

Whether the virus came out of an infected pangolin at the lab or an infected pangolin at the market, how would one be able to tell the difference?

 

[ineverpost]

"I have evidence this came from China but if you want to see the resolution of the cliffhanger you will need to reelect me in 2020 or the show is canceled"

 

[MicroBrew]

So there is a back and forth blame game going on, which makes it even more important to be guided by the evidence.

And the evidence right now is inconclusive on whether this came from the market or the lab. So there is no reason to rubbish the possibility it came from the lab, just as there is no reason to rubbish the possibility it came from the market.

Ofcourse there is also the scenario it may have been an infected lab employee or outside contractor who got infected at the lab and then visited the market.

 

[Orgasmo]

And the evidence right now is inconclusive on whether this came from the market or the lab. So there is no reason to rubbish the possibility it came from the lab, just as there is no reason to rubbish the possibility it came from the market.

Ofcourse there is also the scenario it may have been an infected lab employee or outside contractor who got infected at the lab and then visited the market.

Market was the site of the first mass infection, but it wasn't the source. First known patient in Wuhan was unrelated to the wildlife market. Even the Chinese authorities and their researchers confirmed this.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/202...-not-be-source-novel-virus-spreading-globally

So the likely chain of transmission is patient zero -> market -> hospital staff -> hospital patients -> general public

 

[A Lurker]

Only a lefti moron would doubt the chinese commie scum spread this purposefully.

Naturally occurred due to filthy chinese culturally accepted wet markets or grown in a lab is the only question, that's 50/50 given it inpet filthy commies were dealing with.

Two filthy; also inept

 

[Crom Cruach]

This is an excerpt from a short article discrediting the claims that the virus was created in a lab; i think its a quite clear and succinct explanation, that might help you to decide:

"Currently, there are speculations, rumours and conspiracy theories that SARS-CoV-2 is of laboratory origin. Some people have alleged that the human SARS-CoV-2 was leaked directly from a laboratory in Wuhan where a bat CoV (RaTG13) was recently reported, which shared 96% homology with the SARS-CoV-2 [4]. However, as we know, the human SARS-CoV and intermediate host palm civet SARS-like CoV shared 99.8% homology, with a total of 202 single-nucleotide (nt) variations (SNVs) identified across the genome [6]. Given that there are greater than 1,100 nt differences between the human SARS- CoV-2 and the bat RaTG13-CoV [4], which are distributed throughout the genome in a naturally occurring pattern following the evolutionary characteristics typical of CoVs, it is highly unlikely that RaTG13 CoV is the immediate source of SARS- CoV-2. The absence of a logical targeted pattern in the new viral sequences and a close relative in a wildlife species (bats) are the most revealing signs that SARS-CoV-2 evolved by natural evolution. "

Interesting that the people arguing that the virus did not come from a lab link out to scientific papers to support their argument.

Then it's just glossed over by conspiracy theorists.
"Well it seems reasonable to me that it came form a lab, therefore it did come from a lab."
or
"muh president, muh furriners, herp, derp"

 

[The Audience]

Even if the outbreak was the result of a failed vaccine trial, I fail to see why this shouldn't be considered a "laboratory accident".

If a laboratory produces a vaccine that is too potent and introduces a new strain of virus, or in this case, re-introduces an old one, to the environment, I'd personally count that as a "lab accident".

In any case, whether it was due to a lab accident of some other kind, or a failed vaccine trial, the point stands, the virus's spread occurred due to "unnatural" conditions.

Ok, well i guess our definitions of lab accident just dont align. Even to concede for a moment to your assertion that h1n1 was a lab accident, this is just historical evidence that lab escapes occur -which is not in contention. However, i would say that this again is just circumstantial evidence in support of the notion that sars2 was also a lab escape, and ultimately rests upon the fact that it cant yet be disproven.

 

[AtomicPanther]

When the leader of the free world speaks........

 

[The Audience]

And the evidence right now is inconclusive on whether this came from the market or the lab. So there is no reason to rubbish the possibility it came from the lab, just as there is no reason to rubbish the possibility it came from the market.

Ofcourse there is also the scenario it may have been an infected lab employee or outside contractor who got infected at the lab and then visited the market.

I dont think ive gone as far as to 'rubbish' those claims, in fact ive said elsewhere that i think that the lab escape theory should remain part of the discussion (but not the bioweapon theory), because until its disproven, its dishonest to exclude it. I would only impart people to judge the plausibility of either theory based on the evidence that supports it. As far as i can see, the evidence to support a lab escape is circumstantial in nature, whereas the view that i hold (that the virus emerged in nature, possibly actually near Guangdong), is supported by genetic and structural analysis of the virus.