- Joined
- Jan 15, 2009
- Messages
- 28,099
- Reaction score
- 25,010
LoL. Long Covid gets the business.
Last edited:
What? What are you even talking about. “The sample have been tested” I didn’t say the cave samples were sarsCOV2.You need to learn to critically evaluate evidence and claims — don’t just swallow them up because they sound convincing initially.
The samples have been tested and are negative for SARSCOV2
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2951-z
“Recently, we retested the samples with our validated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) against the SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleocapsid protein—which has greater than 90% amino acid sequence identity with bat SARSr-CoV Rp3—and confirmed that these patients were not infected by SARS-CoV-2.”
Secondly, RaTG13 doesn’t in anyway indicate the presence of sarscov2 nor the existence of the progenitor virus. No competent virologist would think otherwise. We’ve actually found bat coronaviruses with RBDs far closer to SARSCOV2.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04532-4
And the geographical coincidence between the WIV and the outbreak isn’t as unlikely as it seems. I’m happy to elaborate.
Alternatively, there is very compelling epidemiological and genetic evidence that sarscov2 progenitor did indeed jump into an intermediate host at the wet market, evolve and transmit in that host, and then transmit to humans which kicked off the pandemic.
It’s time to let the lab leak die. It was plausible and deserved consideration. The evidence has rejected it.
Also you posted a article which supports what I’m saying. Did you even read it?You need to learn to critically evaluate evidence and claims — don’t just swallow them up because they sound convincing initially.
The samples have been tested and are negative for SARSCOV2
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2951-z
“Recently, we retested the samples with our validated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) against the SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleocapsid protein—which has greater than 90% amino acid sequence identity with bat SARSr-CoV Rp3—and confirmed that these patients were not infected by SARS-CoV-2.”
Secondly, RaTG13 doesn’t in anyway indicate the presence of sarscov2 nor the existence of the progenitor virus. No competent virologist would think otherwise. We’ve actually found bat coronaviruses with RBDs far closer to SARSCOV2.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04532-4
And the geographical coincidence between the WIV and the outbreak isn’t as unlikely as it seems. I’m happy to elaborate.
Alternatively, there is very compelling epidemiological and genetic evidence that sarscov2 progenitor did indeed jump into an intermediate host at the wet market, evolve and transmit in that host, and then transmit to humans which kicked off the pandemic.
It’s time to let the lab leak die. It was plausible and deserved consideration. The evidence has rejected it.
Also you posted a article which supports what I’m saying. Did you even read it?
I agreed it wasn’t the causal agentI’ve indeed read it. I don’t think you understand your own argument. They demonstrated that SARSCOV2 was not the causal agent of disease in the patients who visited the mine. So exactly what is your point? That a different virus was brought back to the lab, and what, it was genetically engineered into sarscov2? Specifically what connection are you trying to make between the mine workers, sarscov2 and the WIV?
I agreed it wasn’t the causal agent
Got my flu shot!
That the samples from the cave which had 96% identity at the genome level was brought back to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. An institution with the largest database of bat coronaviruses(erased shortly after Covid broke out) and a history of gain of function research and lab leaks.You keep repeating what you’re not claiming. I’m more interested in what you are claiming.
Got my flu shot!
Have you scheduled your booster?
How brave of you.
Thanks for letting us all know..
Found this interesting: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/new...A150kVt?cvid=724949ac9eb14bf8a786fb5be4eeb071
Basically confirming some of what has been said here. Australia is experiencing a higher than normal death rates.
From the article:
"This came after Australia's latest mortality data released in November showed that there had been 128,797 deaths from Jan. 1 to Aug. 31, which was 17% higher than the historical average."
Usually death rates only differentiate a few percentage points, not 17%.
Bry
Didn’t we just talk about NOT responding to trolls?!
![]()
What's the world gonna be with +15% death and -15% birth?
Should be a spicy next decade.