571–580 of 631 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not the poster you're responding to, but a start is to allow external investigation into the labs by a third party.
The only way that could resolve these questions is if evidence of lab involvement was found . Not finding such evidence has WithinReason saying "There is also no evidence that the epidemic had no lab involvement." one cannot prove that ghosts do not exist
I which they didn't start with 1). Because there is "a" wild life market in Wuhan which does sell wild bats from far away (and many other animals which can get/transmit covid).
Favorite theory links the two. Animals infected in lab were supposed to be disposed of, but instead sold at the market. It isn’t necessarily that far-fetched: if you are tasked with incinerating a rare animal that you know is going for cash in the nearby market, there is temptation to sell it instead of destroying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you mean “inclusive”? I’d assume the average covid truther would think of lab-origin and engineered as causal if not identical.
A lab can accidentally leak a virus that was gathered from the wild, such that all of that virus' attributes, like how infectious it is and all that, are of natural origin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spelling it out avoids unnecessary misunderstanding, thank you. Apparently "No reports are known to be available for SARS-CoV-2 test results from these mammals at the Huanan market" and "we do not have access to any live animal samples from relevant species" and "The animals on these farms (nearly 1 million) were rapidly released, sold, or killed in early 2020 … apparently without testing for SARS-CoV-2 … Live animal…
They could still find a recent common ancestor of the original strain in a bat species for example. COVID samples from the market could have come from a human spreader.
Would we hear bat species SARS-CoV-2 could have come from a human spreader :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could still find a recent common ancestor of the original strain in a bat species for example. COVID samples from the market could have come from a human spreader.
Would you accept that as evidence of "no lab involvement"? Would we hear bat species SARS-CoV-2 could have come from a human spreader :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Overall, the simplest explanation… "New studies say Wuhan market is the only ‘plausible’ source of COVID-19 pandemic" https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2022-07-26/new-studies... “I was quite convinced of the lab leak myself until we dove into this very carefully and looked at it much closer,” Andersen said. “Actually, the data points to this particular market.”
I read your link, and except for words, I see not explanation why the market hypothesis is more likely. Just "I thought that, and now I think this". The rest of the article says that the reports were deemed by the WHO to be "inconclusive". And what else do you expect? Conclusive evidence for the lab-leak hypothesis should be hyper-ultra-uber strong, because its consequences could potentially be requests for trillions…
"The USDA and the FDA … the risk is exceedingly low for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to humans via food and food packaging."
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/covid-19....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Irrelevant - our vaccines are also worthless by this point. They don't work against Omicron and there's no difference in infection or fatality rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated by now. There hasn't been for months. Or actually, infection rates are usually reported to be higher in the vaccinated group but by how much depends on age and number of doses. There was a difference at the beginning, although it's unc…
Such a controversial statement requires sources. A quick Google seems to disagree ( https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/united-states-rates-of-co... ), although I don't have the energy to dig into it more than that since I hardly have the burden of proof.
The devil is in the details. That's a graph of deaths that are COVID positive at or shortly before death. I said "fatality rates" without that qualification. Hopefully we both agree that vaccines are useless if they just change cause of death without reducing actual mortality rates.
It's usually better to use UK data than US. US/CDC data is rather useless and corrupted (e.g. they like to classify someone as unvaccinated if the hospital couldn't quickly find proof they are vaccinated, which isn't at all the same thing). No country has quality data and the UK's has its own problems, but in general the UK statistical releases provide more data and more accurate data. Same biology everywhere so that shouldn't be an issue.
https://bartram.substack.com/p/update-on-the-failure-of-the-...
"It appears that things have got somewhat worse since last week’s report, with the hospitalisation and death rates in the double vaccinated (not boosted) exceeding that seen in the unvaccinated for all aged over 70, and with a higher death rate in those aged over 60 as well. What’s more, there now appears to be practically no benefit of vaccination with two doses of vaccine for those aged under 60, in terms of the remaining protection against hospitalisation and death."
Another analysis on the UK data (lots of graphs etc)
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/all-cause-deaths-and-vacc...
Analyzing US data is harder. But you can see an attempt to control for various factors and get to the root of it here:
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/lying-with-statistics-us-...
Equality of outcome should not be a surprise because this is what happened in the Pfizer trial as well. Actually slightly more deaths in the vaccine arm than the placebo arm, in the end, so this should be our prior expectation. They argued this was not a problem because it was not statistically significant, which is not a logical way to use statistical significance.
W.R.T. infections, again US official data is released in corrupted/useless ways but there is some useful data from the private sector. It shows what I'm talking about:
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/us-covid-test-positivity-...
Same was seen in the UK. Negative 300% effectiveness in some age groups, at the point where the HSA stopped publishing data:
https://dailysceptic.org/archive/vaccine-effectiveness-hits-...
Other than the second tweet in the thread (which source is questionable, see edit below), no sources are provided. Does anyone have a list of sources for the claims in the remaining eight tweets? It's a compelling list of "facts" but without sources and an understanding of the science it's difficult to ascertain whether this is a genuinely strong argument by a "blue check mark" academic. Edit: This is the Nature edit…
>There is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus. Well, 2 things: 1. An animal could be the source of the virus which could be leaked from a lab. Even with the lab leak hypothesis an animal is part of the chain, just not the last step. 2. There is also no evidence that the epidemic had no lab involvement. COVID was never found in any animal from t…
If I understand correctly, for some reason you find "no lab involvement" for that "last step" implausible.
Why?
"In May, researchers reported that two coronaviruses in dogs recombined in Malaysia. The result was a hybrid that infected eight children."
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/14/science/bat-coronaviruses...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lab can accidentally leak a virus that was gathered from the wild, such that all of that virus' attributes, like how infectious it is and all that, are of natural origin.
I think you missed the point by a mile.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of these, to be honest I don't know enough to say one way or the other, but there is some irony in posing an argument for good faith discussion by posting a list of questions you've already determined only have one true answer.
Your speculation of the poster’s positions on said questions is not in good faith either. Even if your assumptions were correct, they’re entirely irrelevant as the questions stand on their own.