Opinion CIA Now Believes Covid-19 Came From Lab Leak

[Natural Order]

Just LOL @ the cope in here.....everybody knows it was from FUCKING AROUND WITH VIRUSES PULLED IN FROM NATURE. This is what GAIN OF FUNCTION research is and EXACTLY WHY IT WAS FUCKING WARNED AGAINST FOR DECADES.

Wake up you clowns.

 

[Natural Order]

There are literal zombies in this thread, neurologically paralyzed from fear and an inability to cope with what is going on....

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7096887/

 

[Scerpi]

It is helpful if you quote what you think is the most relevant part of the article.

It looks like a rehash of Greco_Wiz's arguments that if any coronavirus is found with a furin cleavage site (FCS) then a SARS virus could acquire a FCS by recombination without specifying the sources with (donor) and without (recipient) of the FCS that would be participating in this recombination. The paper then goes on, in an entirely lacking-in-self-awareness-fashion, to accuse the lab-origin proponents of engaging in speculation. The article doesn't commit to what specifically recombined with what because then it would open itself to an assessment of likelihood of recombination event based on the genetic-relatedness of the participants. At least Greco_Wiz's cited Treacherous Ancestry article acknowledged that the recombination would constitute a unique in history event:

Spoiler

The main reason why the short FCS sequence in SARS-CoV-2 (12 nucleotide insertion) has been hotly discussed is because it stood out like a sore thumb in side-by-side sequence comparisons to known coronaviruses in early 2020. (Since then, scientists have found plenty of naturally occurring FCS in the wider CoV sub-family, but not in the sarbecovirus sub-genus specifically)

Just because something is rare or even unique among currently known sarbecovirus members is however not good evidence for artificial introduction given the high sequence diversity at S1/S2 (see below).

Similarly, it is not sufficient to state that BsamBI/BsaI sites are variable in coronavirus. Is the author suggesting a mechansim other than recombination for new BsamBI/BsaI sites? As you must account for the appearance of the FCS so you must account for the appearance of new BsamBI/BsaI sites. As I have stated previously:

Spoiler

Not only is it evidenced by the even distribution of restriction sites that the nucleotide sequence of Covid-19 was edited to add restriction sites, but two BsaI cut sites in Covid-19 are found in the same location as previously mentioned engineered cut sites, published in 2017: https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698&type=printable

Two Bsal cut sites are in the same location in Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2) and in the published lab engineering study. If you think they occured naturally in Covid-19 then you have to explain exactly how they got there.

lol... Here, read this entire research paper that he thinks makes a grand pronouncement. When over the last 4 years we haven't seen the entire medical and media community be completely compromised for political and financial reasons.

Facts
- Fauci, through Peter Daszak, funded gain of function research in Wuhan, despite the ban on it put by Obama.
- Covid emerged immediately adjacent the most prominent Coronavirus lab in the world.
- China scrubbed all evidence of any research related to Covid

 

[RoastBeast]

Lol @ the CIA being a reputable source.

I mean the virus originated in the same city that was cooking up the exact same types of viruses to "protect us" from them. Think about how big the planet is, how few labs are out there that are cooking up super viruses and where the damn pandemic started. Do we really need a governmental agency or a scientist to confirm the origin of the virus here?

It's like people lost the ability to use their own brains when the internet and social media became the place to get all their information from.

 

[MacGregor]

 

[THEfightsAREfixed]

CIA is kind of meh seems like, more of a DGSE guy these days

 

[Dalarna3]

Obvious from early on. What are the odds that a new virus appears blocks away from a virology lab and it's unrelated?

 

[Greco_Wiz]

What’s funny is the federal agencies that believe it leaked from a lab aren’t even consistent with each other. The DOE report contends that it most likely leaked from the Chinese CDC while the CIA says the WIV. Completely different facilities 25 km away from each other. If that doesn’t tell you that these agencies are clueless and have absolutely no evidence for their assessments, then I don’t know what will.

 

[Lycandroid]

what incentive do you guys have to keep pushing the obvious bs of the natural origin theory ?

 

[jeremyemilio]

Well, I’d point out the reverse: what frustrates me is the conservative Right who have had a high degree of certainty in this being a lab leak from the beginning, before there was any actual evidence to back that up. We have studies that were done in which the science seems to point to a natural origin—we don’t know for sure of course. I don’t think it does a ton of good in general to release reports on controversial topics when the issuer in question has low confidence in the result.

We saw this before, last year. Senate republicans issued a report backing the lab leak theory, again with low confidence. This report contained no new evidence, and cited circumstantial evidence instead. The timing seemed a bit suspect to me, designed to undercut a report by actual scientists who did actual genomic testing and found the data backed the natural origin hypothesis.

As for me, I really don’t have any skin in the game either way, I’d just like to know the truth. I’m not Team Natural Origin or Team Lab Leak, I am Team Conclusions Should Be Based on Actual Evidence.

Btw, I wanted to mention that you directed a very good post to me awhile back, and I meant to respond then forgot and lost sight of the notification of what thread we were in. Your posts are always well thought out and I appreciate them, so my apologies for not responding.

Yeah, I'm with you on having no sort of preference or real leaning toward either origin theory. And I don't disagree with you that these reports often have a pretty clear political edge to them. Not to mention that the right talked all sorts of insanity throughout the Covid crisis, from population control conspiracies to vaccinations being a vehicle for placing tracking chips in everyone. But the left really did shut down certain discourses pretty arbitrarily and, when they had the power to do so, through extremely illiberal means. So while I'm not in the "See? It was a lab leak all along, and this vindicates my coverup and conspiracy theory" camp, I am pretty firmly in the "See? Things are often complicated and uncertain, and that's why we don't shut down speech" camp.

(I appreciate your commentary on my posting. I do my best to try to have the sorts of conversations in here that I might have in real life, recognizing that we're all just human beings doing our best to make sense of the world. But I did have to step away for a bit a while back because I found myself slipping more and more into the "parry thrust" pattern of engagement, when ideally I just want to have conversations, hear what other people are thinking, and share what I'm thinking.)

 

[Streeter]

This been known for years. Did folks really think it came from the wet market still......... when there's literally the biggest coronavirus lab in world studying gain of funstion right there?

 

[LangfordBarrow]

It is helpful if you quote what you think is the most relevant part of the article.

It looks like a rehash of Greco_Wiz's arguments that if any coronavirus is found with a furin cleavage site (FCS) then a SARS virus could acquire a FCS by recombination without specifying the sources with (donor) and without (recipient) of the FCS that would be participating in this recombination. The paper then goes on, in an entirely lacking-in-self-awareness-fashion, to accuse the lab-origin proponents of engaging in speculation. The article doesn't commit to what specifically recombined with what because then it would open itself to an assessment of likelihood of recombination event based on the genetic-relatedness of the participants. At least Greco_Wiz's cited Treacherous Ancestry article acknowledged that the recombination would constitute a unique in history event:

Spoiler

The main reason why the short FCS sequence in SARS-CoV-2 (12 nucleotide insertion) has been hotly discussed is because it stood out like a sore thumb in side-by-side sequence comparisons to known coronaviruses in early 2020. (Since then, scientists have found plenty of naturally occurring FCS in the wider CoV sub-family, but not in the sarbecovirus sub-genus specifically)

Just because something is rare or even unique among currently known sarbecovirus members is however not good evidence for artificial introduction given the high sequence diversity at S1/S2 (see below).

Similarly, it is not sufficient to state that BsamBI/BsaI sites are variable in coronavirus. Is the author suggesting a mechansim other than recombination for new BsamBI/BsaI sites? As you must account for the appearance of the FCS so you must account for the appearance of new BsamBI/BsaI sites. As I have stated previously:

Spoiler

Not only is it evidenced by the even distribution of restriction sites that the nucleotide sequence of Covid-19 was edited to add restriction sites, but two BsaI cut sites in Covid-19 are found in the same location as previously mentioned engineered cut sites, published in 2017: https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698&type=printable

Two Bsal cut sites are in the same location in Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2) and in the published lab engineering study. If you think they occured naturally in Covid-19 then you have to explain exactly how they got there.

As I stated I'm a layman and virology isn't an interest of mine. I'm not going to spend time dissecting a research paper as that's something suited to professionals.

Just taking it at face value that those sites match an engineered virus isn't it also possible for it to have occured naturally? What the odds are, or that we'd be able to locate it, I'm sure I have no idea but it doesn't seem you do either.

I have an open mind on how Covid-19 came about, I'm not saying it couldn't have been lab created since that could explain it's virulence, I just don't agree with the level of confidence that you have. That Trump’s appointee takes over the Agency and suddenly this report comes out seems completely politically motivated as even they state they have a low level confidence it can be proven.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Lol @ the CIA being a reputable source.

I mean the virus originated in the same city that was cooking up the exact same types of viruses to "protect us" from them. Think about how big the planet is, how few labs are out there that are cooking up super viruses and where the damn pandemic started. Do we really need a governmental agency or a scientist to confirm the origin of the virus here?

It's like people lost the ability to use their own brains when the internet and social media became the place to get all their information from.

When you assume you make an ASS out of U and ME. If you want to believe it's true because "Duh, obviously..." that's fine but doesn't it make you wonder that people wanting to prove that can only provide a low level of confidence?