International Two Peer-Reviewed Studies: Covid Originated in Wuhan Huanan Market

[Natural Order]

Literally the sixth post in this thread.

Allow me:

"They've known for some time that bats carry reservoirs of potentially quite serious viruses, including variations of coronavirus.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-55998157

The science suggests the true source (not just the source of the infection of humans) could have absolutely nothing to do with China."

I know everything has to be black and white to simple-minded dot joiners, but come on, bro...

You're adding nothing new to the conversation, could you kindly step out for a while and stop spamming the thread? Everything you've raised has been covered by other, more intelligent posters.

Your thread titles literally says COVID originated in Wuhan, lol. You're so lost now you don't even know what to do.

 

[MicroBrew]

The articles I've read use the word "likely" to state the Market was the source.

Isn't it possible that someone from the Lab or a delivery person who was at the lab spread the virus in the market or to someone who went to the market?

Remaining agnostic on the origin but as previously leaning more towards the lab leak, because of how non transparent and obstructionist the Chinese gov. has been.

 

[Siver!]

Your thread titles literally says COVID originated in Wuhan, lol. You're so lost now you don't even know what to do.

Oh God you are so crushingly stupid...

1) That's the likely outcome of the two peer-reviewed studies.
2) The likely cause, according to said studies, was inter-species infection. Whether the infection came directly from a bat DOESN'T MATTER, because a bat could have infected an animal that was sold in the market, before THAT animal infected a human.
3) The reason bats are being discussed is because of the known, proven, factual reservoirs of very similar Coronaviruses that exist within bats.

Please stop posting... every time you hit 'Post Reply' the world loses a little.

 

[Natural Order]

Oh God you are so crushingly stupid...

1) That's the likely outcome of the two peer-reviewed studies.
2) The likely cause, according to said studies, was inter-species infection. Whether the infection came directly from a bat DOESN'T MATTER, because a bat could have infected an animal that was sold in the market, before THAT animal infected a human.
3) The reason bats are being discussed is because of the known, proven, factual reservoirs of very similar Coronaviruses that exist within bats.

Please stop posting... every time you hit 'Post Reply' the world loses a little.

All while American interests are studying gain of function on said viruses a few streets over. Imagine being this stupid.

 

[Siver!]

It is pneumonia, lol. Talk about not knowing a damn thing about what has been going on.

https://www.webmd.com/lung/covid-and-pneumonia#1

I haven't battered somebody this badly in months.

Ugh...

FFS <Lmaoo>

Going on ignore, buddy. You're now arguing that a virus that causes an outcome IS the outcome... FFS <45>

"Car crash causes blood loss. Car crash is blood loss! It wasn't the car crash that killed him, it was blood loss!"

Don't expect further replies.

 

[Natural Order]

Ugh...

FFS <Lmaoo>

Going on ignore, buddy. You're now arguing that a virus that causes an outcome IS the outcome... FFS <45>

"Car crash causes blood loss. Car crash is blood loss! It wasn't the car crash that killed him, it was blood loss!"

Don't expect further replies.

No worries mate, I can smell your IQ from here.

 

[Siver!]

The articles I've read use the word "likely" to state the Market was the source.

Isn't it possible that someone from the Lab or a delivery person who was at the lab spread the virus in the market or to someone who went to the market?

Remaining agnostic on the origin but as previously leaning more towards the lab leak, because of how non transparent and obstructionist the Chinese gov. has been.

Possible? Sure.

But the science was always somewhat distant from and continues moving further and further away from the lab leak hypothesis.

Thanks for not being unintelligible

 

[Blayt7hh]

I don’t buy into conspiracy theories but on this one.. yeah I think that shit came out of the lab.

 

[Natural Order]

These studies were literally funded by Fauci, the guy who took gain of function overseas to this location when a moratorium was in place.

LOL, what planet am I on?

 

[scoopj]

Right? Departments interested in the subject matter funded research into the subject matter?

I don't think this means what you think it means ...

Says the moron who thought Covid started by people eating bats. Keep cherry-picking the posts you reply to.

 

[Siver!]

Says the moron who thought Covid started by people eating bats. Keep cherry-picking the posts you reply to.

Nobody in the world with half a brain denies cross-species transmission of viruses.

You gonna try to be the first, bro?

 

[scoopj]

Nobody in the world with half a brain denies cross-species transmission of viruses.

You gonna try to be the first, bro?

You said Covid started from people eating bats bought from a wet market. The theory you’re pushing that the Chinese even discounted is that an intermediary was bought at the wet market. That intermediary (e.g. a pangolin, civet, not a bat) was infected by a bat and transmitted the virus to a human. It honestly sounds like you just started reading about this. Some of us have been following it since the beginning.

And about the funding, if you don’t think the NIAID has a conflict of interest that only reinforces the fact that you’ve not been paying attention.

 

[Siver!]

You said Covid started from people eating bats bought from a wet market.

Actually, I never said 'Covid started from people eating bats'.

I discussed the topic, and pushed the article from the BBC, arguing in it's favour. The article traces the outbreak to the wet market, and no mistake, lab or no lab.

I argued against conspiracy theories, I even said I don't believe it came from a lab (I never said it definitively CANNOT have come from a lab), but I never said it came from eating bats.

These things always devolve when someone jumps in and starts assuming that people took certain positions and made certain statements. It just becomes a nonsense of semantics and implications.

Next time, just stick to what's actually said, and not what you want someone to have said. It's not a good look.

 

[scoopj]

Actually, I never said 'Covid started from people eating bats'.

I discussed the topic, and pushed the article from the BBC, arguing in it's favour. The article traces the outbreak to the wet market, and no mistake, lab or no lab.

I argued against conspiracy theories, I even said I don't believe it came from a lab (I never said it definitively CANNOT have come from a lab), but I never said it came from eating bats.

These things always devolve when someone jumps in and starts assuming that people took certain positions and made certain statements. It just becomes a nonsense of semantics and implications.

Next time, just stick to what's actually said, and not what you want someone to have said. It's not a good look.

Post #85 that I quoted. Here it is again:

“People eating bats and contracting a virus isn't a conspiracy.

A conspiracy theory generally requires a conspiracy.

People have to conspire. Eating food isn't conspiring. Becoming ill isn't conspiratorial. Do you know this word, conspiracy?”

 

[Siver!]

Post #85 that I quoted. Here it is again:

“People eating bats and contracting a virus isn't a conspiracy.

A conspiracy theory generally requires a conspiracy.

People have to conspire. Eating food isn't conspiring. Becoming ill isn't conspiratorial. Do you know this word, conspiracy?”

Reading comprehension:

I'm explaining that people contracting a virus from a bat cannot be a conspiracy.

This is an attack on the idea that the wet market narrative is a conspiracy, which clearly, it wouldn't have been.

If English is your second language, as I suspect, then I'll definitely let you off.

 

[scoopj]

Reading comprehension:

I'm explaining that people contracting a virus from a bat cannot be a conspiracy.

This is an attack on the idea that the wet market narrative is a conspiracy, which clearly, it wouldn't have been.

If English is your second language, as I suspect, then I'll definitely let you off.

Oh I see. You’re one of those. Afraid to admit when you’re wrong. I’ll leave you be.

 

[Siver!]

Oh I see. You’re one of those. Afraid to admit when you’re wrong. I’ll leave you be.

Not at all!

But you can't pretend a logical illustration is a statement of fact.

Guy 1: McGregor punching Ali Abdelaziz isn't a kick

Guy 2: MCGREGOR DIDN'T PUNCH ALI ABDELAZIZ

It doesn't work, guy, and there's no point pretending it does.

 

[emefer]

I don’t know man. Had the fox on the other day and they said China is gonna get my dna and make a bio weapon specifically designed for me.

 

[Greco_Wiz]

The articles I've read use the word "likely" to state the Market was the source.

Isn't it possible that someone from the Lab or a delivery person who was at the lab spread the virus in the market or to someone who went to the market?

Remaining agnostic on the origin but as previously leaning more towards the lab leak, because of how non transparent and obstructionist the Chinese gov. has been.

I suggest reading the actual paper. The authors are not basing their conclusions solely on the spatial analysis of cases. An infected individual from a lab who happened to visit the market wouldn’t explain the associations of environmental samples or the two independent spillover events weeks apart (source 38 is a great but long and dense read).

 

[fedoriswar37]

You would have to bury your own head so far up your own ass to believe that this virus originated on the doorstep of a biolab studying bat corknavirus' and had absolutely nothing to do with it. That's a heck of an imagination.