- Joined
- Dec 21, 2006
- Messages
- 4,996
- Reaction score
- 4,418
That’s exactly what I was thinking.Virus's can't walk that far. 100 yards for a virus is like 1000 miles for you and me. You know how tiny a virus is?
That’s exactly what I was thinking.Virus's can't walk that far. 100 yards for a virus is like 1000 miles for you and me. You know how tiny a virus is?
Nazi oligarchsWhite supremacists
CIA shifts assessment on Covid origins, saying lab leak likely caused outbreak
The agency said it has “low confidence” in its judgment and that it would continue evaluating new intelligence reporting.www.nbcnews.com
The Central Intelligence Agency on Saturday said it has shifted its previous assessments and has concluded that it’s likely the Covid-19 virus was leaked from a Chinese lab before it became a global pandemic but added that the agency had “low confidence” in its judgment.
I don’t know tbh. What’s the value of a report with very low confidence? It just stokes more conspiracies and problems. I hope we eventually get some solid evidence as to COVID’s origin.Why even release that now though?
Pics of bridge?Well no fucking shit... the odds that a once in a century pandemic happened to originate, just down the road from a class IV bio lab, that just happened to not only be studying, but also performing gain of function research on the exact type of virus that caused the pandemic... and a lab that had a history of previous lab leaks, seems to be a little unlikely are they not?
If anyone actually believes that it suddenly appeared somewhere other than that lab... I have a bridge to sell you.
This one... a little known bridge over a harbor:I don’t know tbh. What’s the value of a report with very low confidence? It just stokes more conspiracies and problems. I hope we eventually get some solid evidence as to COVID’s origin.
Pics of bridge?
I honestly don't understand what people don't understand about the "low confidence" caveat. It just means that of the two prevailing theories, they aren't by any means certain but believe the lab leak theory to be the most likely. On the one hand, they wouldn't bet the house on it, but on the other hand, if they were forced to bet, that's the bet they'd make.It means they have low confidence that it actually did come from a lab. We’ve had reports like these before, stated with low confidence. Hard to put much value on it.
Virus's can't walk that far. 100 yards for a virus is like 1000 miles for you and me. You know how tiny a virus is?
You should sell that bridge to domain experts who have published their findings in the most reputable journals available.Well no fucking shit... the odds that a once in a century pandemic happened to originate, just down the road from a class IV bio lab, that just happened to not only be studying, but also performing gain of function research on the exact type of virus that caused the pandemic... and a lab that had a history of previous lab leaks, seems to be a little unlikely are they not?
If anyone actually believes that it suddenly appeared somewhere other than that lab... I have a bridge to sell you.
Excuse my interjection, but I disagree with "a genome that looks exactly like what’d you expect from a virus created by natural recombination"You should sell that bridge to domain experts who have published their findings in the most reputable journals available.
It’s not down the road. The early cases cluster 10 miles away from the WIV, across the river at a market that was selling wild mammals susceptible to sars2. One of four such markets in a city of 11+ million people. And at that same market, the entirety of the early genetic diversity of the virus was sampled from animal cages.
A lab leak doesn’t explain any of the scientific evidence, including the epidemiology of early cases, two independent spillovers, or a genome that looks exactly like what’d you expect from a virus created by natural recombination.
What are the chances of random recombination events in nature mimicking previously published engineering twice?The authors did not cherry pick the two restriction enzymes. The restriction enzymes BsmBI and BsaI were chosen because these endonucleases were previously used by DARPA co-authors to engineer chimeric coronaviruses.
BsmBI: https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.0030005
BsaI: https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698&type=printable
International - Did COVID come from a Lab in China? US Energy Dept asserts it was a lab leak [megathread]
Fauci's a liar and criminally complicit in the GOF research and development of covid IN CHINA. He should be in jail. Put him in the Hillary Clinton Suite (Epstein cell)forums.sherdog.com
If you look at all restriction enzymes and all viruses, a small minority of viruses will randomly be digested into roughly evenly sized nucleotide fragments. Applying Occam's Razor again indicates that the Covid-19 belongs to the majority of engineered viruses rather than the small minority of natural viruses.
But that's not all. 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
"BsaI or BsmBI sites were introduced into the junctions of Es/Spike and Spike/Fs. Then any spike could be substituted into the genome of SARSr-CoV WIV1 through this strategy."
What are the chances of random recombination events in nature mimicking engineering twice?
It doesn’t. I explained your misconception you just didn’t understand it. Washburne’s (unpublished) paper is a joke and even most lab leakers find it comically unconvincing. It’s a textbook example of selection bias combined with insufficient sampling, which is why he intentionally didn’t adjust for multiple comparisons. I’d fail my students for something so egregious. To demonstrate what everyone else knew, this author extended the same model to a larger set of Betacoronaviruses and big shocker — there’s absolutely nothing special about those restriction sites in sars2. So to answer your question, the odds are pretty high. Well, unless you think all of those viruses in nature are genetically engineered as well.Excuse my interjection, but I disagree with "a genome that looks exactly like what’d you expect from a virus created by natural recombination"
I never got a response to this post:
What are the chances of random recombination events in nature mimicking previously published engineering twice?
It would actually be almost a million miles. That's how small a virus is.
This is like Sharpie Gate 2.0. Trump’s appointee takes control and releases this with a low level of confidence. Color me shocked. The politically deranged "See, we knew it all along, no matter what the scientists have claimed!".So they finally caught up with the rest of us.