Forum
»
WSJ: New documents bolster Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory
WSJ: New documents bolster Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory
- Results 1 to 24 of 24
-
Page 1 of 1
02-29-2024, 10:01 PM
-
#1
- gwg77
- Join Date: Oct 2017
- Location: United States
- Posts: 20,591
- Subscribers: 20
- Rep Power: 1104359
-
-
WSJ: New documents bolster Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory
In the four years since the SARS-CoV-2 virus was unleashed on the world, data have steadily accumulated supporting the hypothesis that it emerged from a laboratory. The latest information, released last month, makes a formidable case that the virus is the product of laboratory synthesis, not of nature.
This startling fact will probably take some time to sink into the national consciousness, given the mainstream media’s sustained inability to report the issue objectively. Editors have failed to think beyond the extreme politicization that requires liberals to oppose the lab-leak hypothesis. Science journalists are too beholden to their sources to suspect that virologists would lie to them about the extent of their profession’s responsibility for a catastrophic pandemic.
Here are some salient facts that haven’t been clearly reported to readers of the mainstream press:
In March 2018 a team of American and Chinese virologists applied to the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, known as Darpa, seeking a $14 million grant to manipulate viruses related to SARS-CoV-1, the bat virus that caused a minor epidemic in 2002. Their goal was to identify bat viruses in Asia with the highest potential for jumping to people and to immunize bats so they wouldn’t infect soldiers in the region.
The proposal for Project DEFUSE specified that the viruses’ infectivity would be enhanced by inserting into them a genetic element known as a furin cleavage site. Depending on the starting viruses, this protocol could have produced SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, which has a distinctive furin cleavage site.
In 2022 three biologists, Valentin Bruttel, Alex Washburne and Antonius VanDongen, guessed that if SARS-CoV-2 had been generated in a lab by a standard method, it would have been assembled from six sections of lab-synthesized DNA with the help of a biological agent called BsmBI. On analyzing the virus’s structure, they found evidence for the seams between sections and other distinctive marks of the assembly process.
Their paper was derided as “kindergarten molecular biology” by the virologists who are favorites of the mainstream press for their opposition to the lab-leak hypothesis. But a batch of documents reveal new details about the DEFUSE proposal and confirm that the three authors were on target.Emily Kopp of U.S. Right to Know obtained the documents through a Freedom of Information Act request from the Interior Department, having noticed that a researcher at the U.S. Geological Survey was a member of the DEFUSE team.
The new documents, which are background planning papers and drafts for the DEFUSE proposal, call for assembling SARS-like viruses from six sections of DNA, and include a cost estimate for purchase of the BsmBI restriction enzyme—exactly as the three authors had inferred. This clearly strengthens, perhaps conclusively, their contention that the virus is synthetic. Richard H. Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University, says it raises “to the level of a smoking gun” the genetic evidence that the virus was manufactured.
Other strong indicators of the virus’s laboratory birth include the furin cleavage site, possessed by none of the other more than 1,500 members of its viral family with which in nature it might swap genetic material. The codons—“words” used by the genetic code to specify the units of proteins—that define the cleavage site are those preferred by humans, not coronaviruses, pointing to their likely origin in a lab kit. And whereas most viruses require repeated tries to switch from an animal host to people, SARS-CoV-2 infected humans out of the box, as if it had been preadapted while growing in the humanized mice called for in the DEFUSE protocol.
The authors of the proposal were a team led by Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York, Shi Zhengli of the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina.Although Mr. Baric is the leading expert on the technology, Mr. Daszak intended for much or most of the work to be done in Ms. Shi’s laboratory, despite giving a different impression to Darpa. He writes in the recently discovered documents that “I do want to stress the US side of this proposal so that DARPA are comfortable with our team. Once we get the funds, we can then allocate who does what exact work, and I believe that a lot of these assays can be done in Wuhan.”
Ms. Shi did most of her work with SARS-type viruses in the minimal-containment condition known as BSL2, whereas Mr. Baric, who regarded the viruses as seriously dangerous, worked in a more secure lab known as BSL3. Mr. Daszak noted that the lower-security labs would save money: “The BSL-2 nature of work on SARSr-CoVs makes our system highly cost-effective relative to other bat-virus systems.” Mr. Baric replied to this comment that the viruses might be grown under BSL2 safety conditions in China, but “US researchers will likely freak out.”
Mr. Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance last year asserted that the DEFUSE project was never implemented: “The proposal was not funded and the work was never done, therefore it cannot have played a role in the origin of COVID-19.” But science is a competitive business. After Darpa turned down the DEFUSE proposal in February 2019, the researchers in Wuhan might have secured Chinese government funding and gone ahead by themselves. Viruses made according to the DEFUSE protocol could have been available by the time Covid-19 broke out, sometime between August and November 2019. This would account for the otherwise unexplained timing of the pandemic along with its place of origin. (Mr. Daszak, Mr. Baric and Ms. Shi didn’t respond to emails seeking comment. Chinese officials have demanded that the U.S. “stop defaming China” by raising the possibility of a lab leak.)
One piece is missing from the puzzle—the identity of the parent viruses from which SARS-CoV-2 was derived. The Chinese authorities have rigorously suppressed all information about the viruses being kept in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. But the documentary and scientific evidence already assembled seems sufficient to understand the genesis of the pandemic that killed millions.
Mr. Wade is a former science editor of the New York Times.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/where-d...hesis-78be1c39This startling fact will probably take some time to sink into the national consciousness, given the mainstream media’s sustained inability to report the issue objectively. Editors have failed to think beyond the extreme politicization that requires liberals to oppose the lab-leak hypothesis. Science journalists are too beholden to their sources to suspect that virologists would lie to them about the extent of their profession’s responsibility for a catastrophic pandemic.
Here are some salient facts that haven’t been clearly reported to readers of the mainstream press:
In March 2018 a team of American and Chinese virologists applied to the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, known as Darpa, seeking a $14 million grant to manipulate viruses related to SARS-CoV-1, the bat virus that caused a minor epidemic in 2002. Their goal was to identify bat viruses in Asia with the highest potential for jumping to people and to immunize bats so they wouldn’t infect soldiers in the region.
The proposal for Project DEFUSE specified that the viruses’ infectivity would be enhanced by inserting into them a genetic element known as a furin cleavage site. Depending on the starting viruses, this protocol could have produced SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, which has a distinctive furin cleavage site.
In 2022 three biologists, Valentin Bruttel, Alex Washburne and Antonius VanDongen, guessed that if SARS-CoV-2 had been generated in a lab by a standard method, it would have been assembled from six sections of lab-synthesized DNA with the help of a biological agent called BsmBI. On analyzing the virus’s structure, they found evidence for the seams between sections and other distinctive marks of the assembly process.
Their paper was derided as “kindergarten molecular biology” by the virologists who are favorites of the mainstream press for their opposition to the lab-leak hypothesis. But a batch of documents reveal new details about the DEFUSE proposal and confirm that the three authors were on target.Emily Kopp of U.S. Right to Know obtained the documents through a Freedom of Information Act request from the Interior Department, having noticed that a researcher at the U.S. Geological Survey was a member of the DEFUSE team.
The new documents, which are background planning papers and drafts for the DEFUSE proposal, call for assembling SARS-like viruses from six sections of DNA, and include a cost estimate for purchase of the BsmBI restriction enzyme—exactly as the three authors had inferred. This clearly strengthens, perhaps conclusively, their contention that the virus is synthetic. Richard H. Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University, says it raises “to the level of a smoking gun” the genetic evidence that the virus was manufactured.
Other strong indicators of the virus’s laboratory birth include the furin cleavage site, possessed by none of the other more than 1,500 members of its viral family with which in nature it might swap genetic material. The codons—“words” used by the genetic code to specify the units of proteins—that define the cleavage site are those preferred by humans, not coronaviruses, pointing to their likely origin in a lab kit. And whereas most viruses require repeated tries to switch from an animal host to people, SARS-CoV-2 infected humans out of the box, as if it had been preadapted while growing in the humanized mice called for in the DEFUSE protocol.
The authors of the proposal were a team led by Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York, Shi Zhengli of the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina.Although Mr. Baric is the leading expert on the technology, Mr. Daszak intended for much or most of the work to be done in Ms. Shi’s laboratory, despite giving a different impression to Darpa. He writes in the recently discovered documents that “I do want to stress the US side of this proposal so that DARPA are comfortable with our team. Once we get the funds, we can then allocate who does what exact work, and I believe that a lot of these assays can be done in Wuhan.”
Ms. Shi did most of her work with SARS-type viruses in the minimal-containment condition known as BSL2, whereas Mr. Baric, who regarded the viruses as seriously dangerous, worked in a more secure lab known as BSL3. Mr. Daszak noted that the lower-security labs would save money: “The BSL-2 nature of work on SARSr-CoVs makes our system highly cost-effective relative to other bat-virus systems.” Mr. Baric replied to this comment that the viruses might be grown under BSL2 safety conditions in China, but “US researchers will likely freak out.”
Mr. Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance last year asserted that the DEFUSE project was never implemented: “The proposal was not funded and the work was never done, therefore it cannot have played a role in the origin of COVID-19.” But science is a competitive business. After Darpa turned down the DEFUSE proposal in February 2019, the researchers in Wuhan might have secured Chinese government funding and gone ahead by themselves. Viruses made according to the DEFUSE protocol could have been available by the time Covid-19 broke out, sometime between August and November 2019. This would account for the otherwise unexplained timing of the pandemic along with its place of origin. (Mr. Daszak, Mr. Baric and Ms. Shi didn’t respond to emails seeking comment. Chinese officials have demanded that the U.S. “stop defaming China” by raising the possibility of a lab leak.)
One piece is missing from the puzzle—the identity of the parent viruses from which SARS-CoV-2 was derived. The Chinese authorities have rigorously suppressed all information about the viruses being kept in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. But the documentary and scientific evidence already assembled seems sufficient to understand the genesis of the pandemic that killed millions.
Mr. Wade is a former science editor of the New York Times.
Latest FOIA'd USRTK documents:
https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads...s_Redacted.pdf
02-29-2024, 10:08 PM
-
#2
- dabbmw2002
- Trolling the trolls.....
-
- dabbmw2002
- Trolling the trolls.....
- Join Date: Jan 2007
- Location: Maryland, United States
- Posts: 73,334
- Rep Power: 713784
-
-
Post deleted by user
Original Ruckus
02-29-2024, 10:17 PM
-
#3
02-29-2024, 11:27 PM
-
#4
- Bodhy
- Paddling to New Zealand
-
- Bodhy
- Paddling to New Zealand
- Join Date: Mar 2020
- Posts: 17,326
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
Chit's behind a paywall, at least for me. But....
And rereading OP, there is nothing new here except for this claim about this restriction enzyme site. Perhaps there is a reason why this paper was derided as kindergarten biology, because Sars-COV-2 doesn't have the restriction sites for the enzymes thatdon'tleave a noticeable mark.
We can make a case against manipulation entirely without looking at which restriction sites and enzymes may or may not have been used. This was already done back in 2020!
Plus all the other evidence we can mount against intentional design, that the Chicken Nugget Crew havenotdealt with.
Ebright? LOL. Baric's ghost editing method? LOL.
4 chicken nuggets for this thread:
In the four years since the SARS-CoV-2 virus was unleashed on the world, datahave[<--- LOL ] steadily accumulated supporting the hypothesis that it emerged from a laboratory.
No it hasn't, lol.And rereading OP, there is nothing new here except for this claim about this restriction enzyme site. Perhaps there is a reason why this paper was derided as kindergarten biology, because Sars-COV-2 doesn't have the restriction sites for the enzymes thatdon'tleave a noticeable mark.
We can make a case against manipulation entirely without looking at which restriction sites and enzymes may or may not have been used. This was already done back in 2020!
Plus all the other evidence we can mount against intentional design, that the Chicken Nugget Crew havenotdealt with.
Ebright? LOL. Baric's ghost editing method? LOL.
4 chicken nuggets for this thread:
Back off, Warchild.
Seriously.
03-01-2024, 06:08 AM
-
#5
- gwg77
- Join Date: Oct 2017
- Location: United States
- Posts: 20,591
- Subscribers: 20
- Rep Power: 1104359
-
-
Originally Posted By Bodhy⏩
^Assburgers falls for it every single time. Lmao.Chit's behind a paywall, at least for me. But....
No it hasn't, lol.
And rereading OP, there is nothing new here except for this claim about this restriction enzyme site. Perhaps there is a reason why this paper was derided as kindergarten biology, because Sars-COV-2 doesn't have the restriction sites for the enzymes thatdon'tleave a noticeable mark.
We can make a case against manipulation entirely without looking at which restriction sites and enzymes may or may not have been used. This was already done back in 2020!
Plus all the other evidence we can mount against intentional design, that the Chicken Nugget Crew havenotdealt with.
Ebright? LOL. Baric's ghost editing method? LOL.
4 chicken nuggets for this thread:
No it hasn't, lol.
And rereading OP, there is nothing new here except for this claim about this restriction enzyme site. Perhaps there is a reason why this paper was derided as kindergarten biology, because Sars-COV-2 doesn't have the restriction sites for the enzymes thatdon'tleave a noticeable mark.
We can make a case against manipulation entirely without looking at which restriction sites and enzymes may or may not have been used. This was already done back in 2020!
Plus all the other evidence we can mount against intentional design, that the Chicken Nugget Crew havenotdealt with.
Ebright? LOL. Baric's ghost editing method? LOL.
4 chicken nuggets for this thread:
I rate this post 5/5 shіt sticks and a bowl of vomit
03-01-2024, 06:17 AM
-
#6
- jtaylor2010
- Join Date: Mar 2010
- Location: United States
- Posts: 33,186
- Rep Power: 441972
-
-
Lmao at how close-minded some people are on this topic just because they were programmed with a certain narrative and refuse to change it.
Early on I thought it was likely of natural origin, but as more evidence and circumstance was exposed I quickly realized that lableak was the more likely explanation. See….it isn’t hard to change your mind if you keep it open. But some people have painted themselves into a corner and been so adamant about it that they’ve made it practically impossible to be open to other data. When you spend years using retarded phrases like “chicken nugget brigade” you can’t really walk it back unless you’re extremely confident in yourself and open-minded…..but then again those types of people wouldn’t have painted themselves into that corner in the first place.
Early on I thought it was likely of natural origin, but as more evidence and circumstance was exposed I quickly realized that lableak was the more likely explanation. See….it isn’t hard to change your mind if you keep it open. But some people have painted themselves into a corner and been so adamant about it that they’ve made it practically impossible to be open to other data. When you spend years using retarded phrases like “chicken nugget brigade” you can’t really walk it back unless you’re extremely confident in yourself and open-minded…..but then again those types of people wouldn’t have painted themselves into that corner in the first place.
03-01-2024, 06:26 AM
-
#7
- TCmaxxing
- Registered User
-
- TCmaxxing
- Registered User
- Join Date: Aug 2022
- Age: 56
- Posts: 5,806
- Rep Power: 29036
-
-
Originally Posted By dabbmw2002⏩
https://www.reddit.com/r/FauciForPrison/Sounds like dangerous misimformation.
03-01-2024, 06:26 AM
-
#8
- Bodhy
- Paddling to New Zealand
-
- Bodhy
- Paddling to New Zealand
- Join Date: Mar 2020
- Posts: 17,326
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
Originally Posted By jtaylor2010⏩
The chicken nugget brigade was not coined as an ad hominem or to denigrate or shout down someone for holding a certain opinion. That would be childish and intellectually dishonest of me.Lmao at how close-minded some people are on this topic just because they were programmed with a certain narrative and refuse to change it.
Early on I thought it was likely of natural origin, but as more evidence and circumstance was exposed I quickly realized that lableak was the more likely explanation. See….it isn’t hard to change your mind if you keep it open. But some people have painted themselves into a corner and been so adamant about it that they’ve made it practically impossible to be open to other data. When you spend years using retarded phrases like “chicken nugget brigade” you can’t really walk it back unless you’re extremely confident in yourself and open-minded…..but then again those types of people wouldn’t have painted themselves into that corner in the first place.
Early on I thought it was likely of natural origin, but as more evidence and circumstance was exposed I quickly realized that lableak was the more likely explanation. See….it isn’t hard to change your mind if you keep it open. But some people have painted themselves into a corner and been so adamant about it that they’ve made it practically impossible to be open to other data. When you spend years using retarded phrases like “chicken nugget brigade” you can’t really walk it back unless you’re extremely confident in yourself and open-minded…..but then again those types of people wouldn’t have painted themselves into that corner in the first place.
It was coined to highlight the dishonesty and wilful scientific ignorance of those who spew anti-vaxx horsechit and conspiracy theories. The chicken nugget honorific is bestowed to one because they are not actually investigating the scientific evidence and reaching a scientific conclusion. They are believing in their pet theory and with massive amounts of confirmation bias, grasping onto any evidence, no matter how feeble, to inch their way towards their desired conclusion.
It's the inversion of proper scientific process which earns you a nugget patch. Conclusion ---> Evidence, rather than Evidence ---> Conclusion. I follow the former and always will and don't care what the conclusion is, as long as the evidence supports it.
Like really, WTF would I care if it came from a lab? Lab leaks happen before. I'm not Chinese, have no vested interest in China. The only thing that makes me partisan towards a conclusion is that it will inform the preventative measures we need to take to prevent another pandemic.
Disregarding the fact scientists were warning us for years that a pandemic was on the way in the exact way it ended up happening, because of chit like climate change making it much more likely, you believe in evil conspiracies because it gives you an excuse to be angry at someone.
Bit hard to be angry at Mother Nature.
Back off, Warchild.
Seriously.
03-01-2024, 06:40 AM
-
#10
03-01-2024, 06:55 AM
-
#11
- jtaylor2010
- Join Date: Mar 2010
- Location: United States
- Posts: 33,186
- Rep Power: 441972
-
-
Originally Posted By Bodhy⏩
Lold at “ Conclusion ---> Evidence, rather than Evidence ---> Conclusion. I follow the former and always will and don't care what the conclusion is, as long as the evidence supports it.”The chicken nugget brigade was not coined as an ad hominem or to denigrate or shout down someone for holding a certain opinion. That would be childish and intellectually dishonest of me.
It was coined to highlight the dishonesty and wilful scientific ignorance of those who spew anti-vaxx horsechit and conspiracy theories. The chicken nugget honorific is bestowed to one because they are not actually investigating the scientific evidence and reaching a scientific conclusion. They are believing in their pet theory and with massive amounts of confirmation bias, grasping onto any evidence, no matter how feeble, to inch their way towards their desired conclusion.
It's the inversion of proper scientific process which earns you a nugget patch. Conclusion ---> Evidence, rather than Evidence ---> Conclusion. I follow the former and always will and don't care what the conclusion is, as long as the evidence supports it.
Like really, WTF would I care if it came from a lab? Lab leaks happen before. I'm not Chinese, have no vested interest in China. The only thing that makes me partisan towards a conclusion is that it will inform the preventative measures we need to take to prevent another pandemic.
Disregarding the fact scientists were warning us for years that a pandemic was on the way in the exact way it ended up happening, because of chit like climate change making it much more likely, you believe in evil conspiracies because it gives you an excuse to be angry at someone.
Bit hard to be angry at Mother Nature.
It was coined to highlight the dishonesty and wilful scientific ignorance of those who spew anti-vaxx horsechit and conspiracy theories. The chicken nugget honorific is bestowed to one because they are not actually investigating the scientific evidence and reaching a scientific conclusion. They are believing in their pet theory and with massive amounts of confirmation bias, grasping onto any evidence, no matter how feeble, to inch their way towards their desired conclusion.
It's the inversion of proper scientific process which earns you a nugget patch. Conclusion ---> Evidence, rather than Evidence ---> Conclusion. I follow the former and always will and don't care what the conclusion is, as long as the evidence supports it.
Like really, WTF would I care if it came from a lab? Lab leaks happen before. I'm not Chinese, have no vested interest in China. The only thing that makes me partisan towards a conclusion is that it will inform the preventative measures we need to take to prevent another pandemic.
Disregarding the fact scientists were warning us for years that a pandemic was on the way in the exact way it ended up happening, because of chit like climate change making it much more likely, you believe in evil conspiracies because it gives you an excuse to be angry at someone.
Bit hard to be angry at Mother Nature.
No you don’t. You made up your mind at the beginning and have stuck with it despite lots of evidence showing that you are wrong. Again, you just refuse to admit you were wrong because of how vocal you have been. It’s actually a great brainwashing tool that has been used in the past, but now people do it to themselves. Every time you adamantly and publicly proclaim a view you make it harder for yourself you be open to new evidence. And every time you criticize someone for a view you make it practically impossible to honestly consider that the view may have some validity. You have dug your hole and now it’s too deep for you to climb out of. You should have just taken my approach of “it looks like this but I’m not sure, we’ll see what the evidence and circumstances indicate over time”. And then over time I’ve decided that the virus coming out of the lab was much more likely, and that’s based on tons of evidence from people way smarter than anyone here along with the actions and attempts to censor those views and the motives to do so. But again, doesn’t matter to you because you already dug your hole and can’t get out of it so no use in discussing it. Just wanted to point the absurd level of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance in the section of the post I quoted. Lmfao at thinking you’re open-minded on this topic.
03-01-2024, 07:01 AM
-
#12
- Bodhy
- Paddling to New Zealand
-
- Bodhy
- Paddling to New Zealand
- Join Date: Mar 2020
- Posts: 17,326
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
Originally Posted By jtaylor2010⏩
There was no solid evidence showing we were wrong. It was just a bunch of bluster and But their emails!, and nothing in the way of scientific experiment which would support the lab leak. The only people ignoring a pile of science were the lab leakers.Lold at “ Conclusion ---> Evidence, rather than Evidence ---> Conclusion. I follow the former and always will and don't care what the conclusion is, as long as the evidence supports it.”
No you don’t. You made up your mind at the beginning and have stuck with it despite lots of evidence showing that you are wrong. Again, you just refuse to admit you were wrong because of how vocal you have been. It’s actually a great brainwashing tool that has been used in the past, but now people do it to themselves. Every time you adamantly and publicly proclaim a view you make it harder for yourself you be open to new evidence. And every time you criticize someone for a view you make it practically impossible to honestly consider that the view may have some validity. You have dug your hole and now it’s too deep for you to climb out of. You should have just taken my approach of “it looks like this but I’m not sure, we’ll see what the evidence and circumstances indicate over time”. And then over time I’ve decided that the virus coming out of the lab was much more likely, and that’s based on tons of evidence from people way smarter than anyone here along with the actions and attempts to censor those views and the motives to do so. But again, doesn’t matter to you because you already dug your hole and can’t get out of it so no use in discussing it. Just wanted to point the absurd level of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance in the section of the post I quoted. Lmfao at thinking you’re open-minded on this topic.
No you don’t. You made up your mind at the beginning and have stuck with it despite lots of evidence showing that you are wrong. Again, you just refuse to admit you were wrong because of how vocal you have been. It’s actually a great brainwashing tool that has been used in the past, but now people do it to themselves. Every time you adamantly and publicly proclaim a view you make it harder for yourself you be open to new evidence. And every time you criticize someone for a view you make it practically impossible to honestly consider that the view may have some validity. You have dug your hole and now it’s too deep for you to climb out of. You should have just taken my approach of “it looks like this but I’m not sure, we’ll see what the evidence and circumstances indicate over time”. And then over time I’ve decided that the virus coming out of the lab was much more likely, and that’s based on tons of evidence from people way smarter than anyone here along with the actions and attempts to censor those views and the motives to do so. But again, doesn’t matter to you because you already dug your hole and can’t get out of it so no use in discussing it. Just wanted to point the absurd level of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance in the section of the post I quoted. Lmfao at thinking you’re open-minded on this topic.
This issue of restriction enzymes and intentional design was discussed at length back in 2020. All of us on natural origins side have scientific credentials. We didn't shy away from any science.
Back off, Warchild.
Seriously.
03-01-2024, 07:24 AM
-
#13
03-01-2024, 08:19 AM
-
#14
- miscinbro
- Registered User
-
- miscinbro
- Registered User
- Join Date: Mar 2016
- Age: 43
- Posts: 22,420
- Rep Power: 46435
-
-
Wherever it came from China tried to cover it up and control it in their own country while letting it spread around the globe. They should be punished by the world, but apparently none of our leaders have the balls for that.
03-01-2024, 10:35 AM
-
#15
- BuckNakedinBama
- hell yeah brother
-
- BuckNakedinBama
- hell yeah brother
- Join Date: Aug 2011
- Posts: 19,855
- Rep Power: 142836
-
-
Originally Posted By miscinbro⏩
We funded the research in that lab. We gonna punish ourselves?Wherever it came from China tried to cover it up and control it in their own country while letting it spread around the globe. They should be punished by the world, but apparently none of our leaders have the balls for that.
-
03-01-2024, 10:36 AM
-
#16
- twovalvekid
- N3rd Op3rator
-
- twovalvekid
- N3rd Op3rator
- Join Date: Sep 2013
- Location: Saratoga Springs, New York, United States
- Posts: 36,172
- Rep Power: 436322
-
-
Welp. Guess the WSJ youtube page will be shut down here shortly.
MFC
Misc Cologne Crew | **BBC** | Aventus Friday Crew
RIP YGST
03-01-2024, 10:42 AM
-
#17
03-01-2024, 10:49 AM
-
#18
- miscinbro
- Registered User
-
- miscinbro
- Registered User
- Join Date: Mar 2016
- Age: 43
- Posts: 22,420
- Rep Power: 46435
-
-
Originally Posted By BuckNakedinBama⏩
It’s not the research, it’s the lies and China giving the whole world the finger that’s the issue.We funded the research in that lab. We gonna punish ourselves?
03-01-2024, 11:21 AM
-
#19
- Dave22reborn
- Cold Hearted SOB
-
- Dave22reborn
- Cold Hearted SOB
- Join Date: Jan 2005
- Location: Ill.
- Posts: 120,479
- Rep Power: 316531
-
-
Just because it originated near a lab, in Wuhan, doesn't mean it came from a lab!!!
03-01-2024, 12:40 PM
-
#20
- BuckNakedinBama
- hell yeah brother
-
- BuckNakedinBama
- hell yeah brother
- Join Date: Aug 2011
- Posts: 19,855
- Rep Power: 142836
-
-
Originally Posted By miscinbro⏩
Right, but it's research we paid for. If we don't want the whole world to be mad at us for it we should STFU.It’s not the research, it’s the lies and China giving the whole world the finger that’s the issue.
-
03-01-2024, 12:51 PM
-
#21
- gwg77
- Join Date: Oct 2017
- Location: United States
- Posts: 20,591
- Subscribers: 20
- Rep Power: 1104359
-
-
Originally Posted By miscinbro⏩
NIH and Fauci have been covering up too. Back in early Feb 2020 Fauci and NIH Director Francis Collins chose natural origins to protect "science and international harmony," despite many scientists still being on the fence at the time. They chose that narrative to run with. That was the beginning of the cover up from our end.Wherever it came from China tried to cover it up and control it in their own country while letting it spread around the globe. They should be punished by the world, but apparently none of our leaders have the balls for that.
Doesn't mean we necessarily funded the program in Wuhan that caused this. Wuhan could have ran off and did this on their own. But, our scientists (Ralph Baric) taught Dr. Shi most of what she knows about these experiments. There is definitely some culpability on our end.
This is where their coverup began, on Feb 2, 2020:
03-01-2024, 12:54 PM
-
#22
- miscinbro
- Registered User
-
- miscinbro
- Registered User
- Join Date: Mar 2016
- Age: 43
- Posts: 22,420
- Rep Power: 46435
-
-
Originally Posted By gwg77⏩
The culpability is America acting like a bitch to China, the Saudis, and Israel.NIH and Fauci have been covering up too. Back in early Feb 2020 Fauci and NIH Director Francis Collins chose natural origins to protect "science and international harmony," despite many scientists still being on the fence at the time. They chose that narrative to run with. That was the beginning of the cover up from our end.
Doesn't mean we necessarily funded the program in Wuhan that caused this. Wuhan could have ran off and did this on their own. But, our scientists (Ralph Baric) talk Dr. Shi most of what she knows about these experiments. There is definitely some culpability on our end.
This is where their coverup began, on Feb 2, 2020:
Doesn't mean we necessarily funded the program in Wuhan that caused this. Wuhan could have ran off and did this on their own. But, our scientists (Ralph Baric) talk Dr. Shi most of what she knows about these experiments. There is definitely some culpability on our end.
This is where their coverup began, on Feb 2, 2020:
03-01-2024, 01:05 PM
-
#23
- gwg77
- Join Date: Oct 2017
- Location: United States
- Posts: 20,591
- Subscribers: 20
- Rep Power: 1104359
-
-
Originally Posted By miscinbro⏩
It goes beyond that. Why did they act like a bitch to China? Because they offshored all their risky experiments to China during our GOF moratorium. Definitely more culpability than just acting like a bitch and not pressing China.The culpability is America acting like a bitch to China, the Saudis, and Israel.
03-01-2024, 02:19 PM
-
#24
- frankdtank20
- Registered User
-
- frankdtank20
- Registered User
- Join Date: Nov 2020
- Posts: 27,464
- Rep Power: 171374
-
-
Originally Posted By jtaylor2010⏩
He's fully in the depths of sunken cost fallacy by being wrong for 4 years and defending the preposterous natural origin distraction. He's put in too many dozens of hours defending the stupidity to be open, and especially given his personality type there's zero chance he's capable of changing his mind. There's not even weak evidence that points toward natural origin, but retards gonna retard.Lold at “ Conclusion ---> Evidence, rather than Evidence ---> Conclusion. I follow the former and always will and don't care what the conclusion is, as long as the evidence supports it.”
No you don’t. You made up your mind at the beginning and have stuck with it despite lots of evidence showing that you are wrong. Again, you just refuse to admit you were wrong because of how vocal you have been. It’s actually a great brainwashing tool that has been used in the past, but now people do it to themselves. Every time you adamantly and publicly proclaim a view you make it harder for yourself you be open to new evidence. And every time you criticize someone for a view you make it practically impossible to honestly consider that the view may have some validity. You have dug your hole and now it’s too deep for you to climb out of. You should have just taken my approach of “it looks like this but I’m not sure, we’ll see what the evidence and circumstances indicate over time”. And then over time I’ve decided that the virus coming out of the lab was much more likely, and that’s based on tons of evidence from people way smarter than anyone here along with the actions and attempts to censor those views and the motives to do so. But again, doesn’t matter to you because you already dug your hole and can’t get out of it so no use in discussing it. Just wanted to point the absurd level of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance in the section of the post I quoted. Lmfao at thinking you’re open-minded on this topic.
No you don’t. You made up your mind at the beginning and have stuck with it despite lots of evidence showing that you are wrong. Again, you just refuse to admit you were wrong because of how vocal you have been. It’s actually a great brainwashing tool that has been used in the past, but now people do it to themselves. Every time you adamantly and publicly proclaim a view you make it harder for yourself you be open to new evidence. And every time you criticize someone for a view you make it practically impossible to honestly consider that the view may have some validity. You have dug your hole and now it’s too deep for you to climb out of. You should have just taken my approach of “it looks like this but I’m not sure, we’ll see what the evidence and circumstances indicate over time”. And then over time I’ve decided that the virus coming out of the lab was much more likely, and that’s based on tons of evidence from people way smarter than anyone here along with the actions and attempts to censor those views and the motives to do so. But again, doesn’t matter to you because you already dug your hole and can’t get out of it so no use in discussing it. Just wanted to point the absurd level of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance in the section of the post I quoted. Lmfao at thinking you’re open-minded on this topic.
Yeah Buddyyy! Light weight! Light weight baby!!!!
Bookmarks
-
- Digg
-
- del.icio.us
-
- StumbleUpon
-
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts