Just a simple Yes or No will suffice.

So you're saying all the scientists are lying and in on a conspiracy?

And just to drive it home further, you disagree with a proposed scientific hypothesis and the evidence presented. So what publications do you have to put forth to suggest those papers are flawed or fraudulent?

That you have nothing is pretty telling isn't it? If someone did this for any other hypothesis, you'd dismiss them as a crackpot. Yet here, we are to take this fringe argument seriously because some members of the public wish it were so.

Here's what I suggest. Get some evidence. Publish it. Then people will take your hypothesis seriously. Until then, it's moot.

And now, this is the part where I gloat and tell you to kill yourself, insect.

Also, to respond to what the email said, I can see why they wanted to put down this stupid conspiracy theory. I mean look at you.

Wincel, we know you're subhuman, but you're actually sitting here trying to defy not only common sense, but actual words that have been written and published.


You truly are a fuсking idiot.


I hope that helps.

The papers have been published and discussed here ad nauseum. Read them. My point is there are no papers to the contrary. And that's because, as is typical with you fascists, you do not propose an alternative hypothesis with evidence. You simply attempt to attack the consensus.

Words published where? Certainly not in any scientific journal. Do you have anything SCIENTIFIC for me to read? Nope.

Anyway, you've confirmed you're just another conspiracy theorist. All the scientists are in on it and lying. Trust me bro. Sure buddy.

You're asking me if they lied. You can't tell they lied?

You truly are a fuсking idiot.


I hope that helps.

Wincel just mad af he's been wrong for 3 years. He thought they had natural origins in the bag.

In reality, they don't have shіt and they have been conspiring and lying to the public to cover up a potential lab leak.

Just LOL @ Trust the Science™

There's still a woodchipper with his name on it.

I requested even 1 paper to offer any support to your hypothesis, which is against scientific consensus.There's still me jacking off over your lifeless corpse.

You lost the argument. You ask if they lied. It's in writing. They lied. Now you're trying to strawman your way out.

There is no paper that supports either side of the argument.


Beat it, geek. You got played.

Oh really? So now you will pretend you haven't seen the papers?

I mean...it's referenced in the emails you read. You even mentioned it in your post. Bad faith.

There. I posted them for you. Do you have anything?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06043-2

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8715

Oh wait, are you trying to act like Proximal Origin is still a legitimate paper?

Are you fuсking serious?

You're actually dumber than I thought.


Wow.

[QUOTE=gwg77 post_id=1686795173]Oh wait, are you trying to act like Proximal Origin is still a legitimate paper?

Are you fuсking serious?

You're actually dumber than I thought.


Wow.





[img][/QUOTE]Oh really? So now instead of pretending the papers do not exist, you will pretend they are not legitimate. I see. Have you published the critique?

Bad faith.

There. I posted them for you. Do you have anything?

[URL=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9[/URL]

[URL=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06043-2]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06043-2[/URL]

[URL=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8715]https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8715[/URL]

If any of the papers are flawed or fraudulent, please present the publication where the criticism has been made.

You know how this looks for you right? Let me present my hypothesis. I think you're a crackpot and a conspiracy theorist. I think you have no scientific evidence. You think by acting a certain way or using certain tactics, you will succeed in changing the consensus. You will not. Present evidence. Ultimately, I hope this behavior ends in the deaths of you and all who make such spurious accusations. But we will just have to see.

You seem to think I said the natural origins hypothesis is "proved". Perhaps you should work on reading comprehension before killing yourself?

Let's see what Kristian Andersen has to say about his own paper.

Proximal was published on March 17, 2020.

This is his message from April 16, 2020.

Aside from him stating that he cannot rule out lab incident after he published the paper (fraudulent), please see the last paragraph where he says his argument (in Proximal) was based on presence of O-linked glycans - but now they could likely play a different role. Oh, and FCS could have been inserted by Gibson assembly.








Absolutely fuсking BROOTAL.

So I posted 3 papers with supporting evidence of natural origins. I'd like to see a paper supporting the lab leak hypothesis.

Again, present a single paper published in a scientific peer reviewed journal showing what evidence you have for a lab leak.


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06043-2

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8715

If any of the papers are flawed or fraudulent, please present the publication where the criticism has been made.

You know how this looks for you right? Let me present my hypothesis. I think you're a crackpot and a conspiracy theorist. I think you have no scientific evidence. You think by acting a certain way or using certain tactics, you will succeed in changing the consensus. You will not. Present evidence. Ultimately, I hope this behavior ends in the deaths of you and all who make such spurious accusations. But we will just have to see.

Wincel is having a bad time when the paper his is trying to use as evidence has been doubted by its own author.


AGAIN:


Let's see what Kristian Andersen has to say about his own paper.

Proximal was published on March 17, 2020.

This is his message from April 16, 2020.

Aside from him stating that he cannot rule out lab incident after he published the paper (fraudulent), please see the last paragraph where he says his argument (in Proximal) was based on presence of O-linked glycans - but now they could likely play a different role. Oh, and FCS could have been inserted by Gibson assembly.








Absolutely fuсking BROOTAL.

You keep spacing your post to try to bury this. At no point does the author refute or criticize his own paper. That also isn't a scientific critique. I reiterate what I said above.

And your strategy continues to be to attack rather than present evidence to support your competing view. Presumably, you have none. And that is because you are a crackpot.

You keep spacing your post to try to bury this. At no point does the author refute or criticize his own paper. That also isn't a scientific critique. I reiterate what I said above.

And your strategy continues to be to attack rather than present evidence to support your competing view. Presumably, you have none. And that is because you are a crackpot. You are deeply mentally ill.

You got REKT wincel. Have a nice day!!

I suggest watching the hearing in its entirety. He explains this misconception, among others. Possible does not mean plausible or probable. And it is stated explicitly in proximal origins that lab scenarios cannot be ruled out 100%.

“Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here.”

“It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus.”

“In theory, it is possible that SARS-CoV-2 acquired RBD mutations (Fig. 1a) during adaptation to passage in cell culture, as has been observed in studies of SARS-CoV11.”

I now want you to read again the email you just posted. It is perfectly consistent with the language used in proximal origins.
The email is him describing possible explanations even if unlikely, i.e. not sufficient to 100% rule out certain lab leak scenarios.

And since that time the genome has been studied more extensively and it shows signs that are not consistent with molecular cloning techniques like Gibson assembly.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2211107119

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2214427119

At some point you need to give up. Lab leakers have thrown about fifty pieces of **** against the wall and none have stuck. Sarscov2 emerged naturally.

Welcome

Dude, why are you scared that it was made in a lab?

It's like a billion times more likely the virus was created in a lab than from natural origins.

If that even the debate?

Created in a lab =/= leaked or escaped from a lab.

Oh, I imagine there's plenty of negs incoming

If it came from their lab, or their wet markets that they refuse to shutdown, it's still their fault.

Bullshіt Reliance. Did you forget this part? Heexplicitly statesit is not a lab construct or purposefully manipulated virus.

"Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus."


On this quote in the serial passaging section:

“In theory, it is possible that SARS-CoV-2 acquired RBD mutations (Fig. 1a) during adaptation to passage in cell culture, as has been observed in studies of SARS-CoV11.”

He goes on to say:

"The finding of SARS-CoV-like coronaviruses from pangolins with nearly identical RBDs, however, provides a much stronger and more parsimonious explanation of how SARS-CoV-2 acquired these via recombination or mutation19.

The acquisition of both the polybasic cleavage site and predicted O-linked glycans also argues against culture-based scenarios."



Let's not forget how Kristian Andersen called anyone a conspiracy theorist if they believed in lab leak on twitter. How many times did he delete his twitter account the past 3 years? Dude spent the last 3 years calling anyone a conspiracy theorist. Get the fuсk outta here.









And don't forget Francis Collins:

I thought we were talking about the origins. Natual vs man-made. No?

if it was natural origins that escaped from the lab, it doesn't matter because it wouldn't have been able to infect humans.

It was able to infect humans because it was modified in the lab and then escaped.



Just lol at anyone that things it evolved naturally with HIV spike proteins.

Again, second paragraph in, heexplicitly shuts down any lab scenarios.







^^Those words cannot be any more clear.