Reply With Quote
How many ing times do I have to tell you I never thought or said it the Chinese released it on purpose. You need to start taking notes, your memory is terrible.
In the entire history of SARS virus an FCS has never been seen occurring in nature. SARS virus having this is certainly new. The better odds are not zoonotic, agree to disagree.
How many ing times do I have to tell you I never thought or said it the Chinese released it on purpose. You need to start taking notes, your memory is terrible.
We haven't seen HIV since the 70's/80's. That was 'new' then, including everything from it's genetic makeup to the way it infects to it's ability to rapidly mutate.
Gene mutations happen all the time in nature as well, as we all know very well, not just with COVID.
Again, it's not irrefutable proof it's zoonotic or not. China does deserve blame for being recalcitrant when investigating the origins of this.
I don’t know what you believe you fkn moron. You have changed your line of discourse from the beginning of all this.
Darrin was the one that said NO ONE has said it was purposely released and I immediately got the Fox article up.
YOU COMMENTED that the author was a virologist and a medical doctor implying it could be legit.
I commented she is a gadfly. Did you look that up?
TSA?
Why are labs in the US PURPOSEFULLY producing the cleavage site in viruses as I type this?
Why are we doing this?
TSA again: You have sequences in you that NO OTHER HUMAN ON EARTH HAS?
Were you produced in a lab? Besides the lab of planet Earth?
Im holding back on quite a lot so be patient. I’m trying to understand the giant holes in your knowledge.
I know you exhibited great joy when you finally realized genetic engineering was the same as another procedure so this is good for you.
Or not.
I have provided my response.
You on the other hand, have bent the knee, as you admit having only a conspiracy.
So off, you welsher.
Are you familiar with the DEFUSE proposal?
Here you go lying again, you just can't help yourself. My story never changed, I always said I thought it was a lab leak. Never once said I though it was done on purpose by the Chinese. Write that down in a notebook and get your facts straight.
I commented on the researcher on Fox because you asked why they would interview her and I quoted her credentials from the article you posted to simply provide information on why Fox might interview her. Never implied it could be legit, another lie from you.
Gain of function/loss of function research is done "to better
understand the transmission, infection, and pathogenesis of
viruses. Through such knowledge, scientists hope to
improve our understanding of human-pathogen interactions,
aid in assessments of potential pandemic pathogens, and
further public health preparedness." https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12021[/quote]
Time to take your meds.
Here you go.
"Does not rule out"
This is total bs and completely avoids PROBABILITY based on what we already know.
”We cannot completely rule out “
We can with high probability say TSA is the only person ever to have the 3.2 billion base pair order he now has.
”but I need my meds?” You are a disingenuous lying bas .
So YOU believe she is a respected Doctor? A Doctor, so she deserves a spot on Fox, this is clearly what you are implying.Why did Fox pick her for an interview?
“Yan was a respected doctor who specialized in virology and immunology at the Hong Kong School of Public Health before fleeing in April 2020 after she began looking into the growing number of cases coming out of mainland China that involved human-to-human transmission.”
You are truly re ed, and a liar.
Andat you just carrying on in this thread like you weren’t just exposed as a serial liar.
fkn liar. The respected doctor is a gadfly. Look it up again. I said so way back. But being a Fox News Bible guy…
Last edited by pgardn; 03-22-2023 at 02:46 PM.
So what does the gain of function/loss research say RIGHT NOW?
What is the consensus and why do you think the consensus IS NOT LAB ORIGIN? (or maybe you don’t because “not ruled out bull ”)
Again, have you looked at the timing of the outbreak IN CHINA and the research?
Lastly we have not looked in nearly enough animals and then finding the path will be difficult.
This is much more probable than a lab produced virus for the reasons I have already listed that you continue to be unable to fathom.
Last edited by pgardn; 03-22-2023 at 02:44 PM.
^
Def a useful idiot with fingers in ears and a blindfold on.
Like you would understand one way or the other concerning this topic.
Stick to “fk this and that” child.
Yeah yeah no one understands anything but you clearly...
Keep pretending Mr Knowitall.
I wasn't implying anything, I was just answering your question. Fox must have thought she was worthy of an interview. You get caught up in such stupid and you need to just let this go.
I am. It was a proposal rejected by DARPA. What does that has to do with the fact that:
1) The vast majority of human diseases are zoonotic.
2) We discover new viruses all the time, with new or different genetic makeups.
Let's try to stay on topic at least...
You got caught in the stupid dumbass.
This was FOR Darrin.
Let it go. You tell me to let it go?
FOX interviewed her BECAUSE she said it was PURPOSELY released. Don’t act like a re .
If this same doctor had said animal origin she would have never been on.
This whole thing is clearly because we don’t know the animal origin of a brand new disease YET, it’s from a Chinese lab.
It’s like we have never traced a virus back to an animal source for you. It’s much more probable, end of story.
I don't understand your first question. Please clear that up.
The public consensus is lab origin, democrats also are in the majority thinking that. I don't know the consensus of scientists/doctors...if you have a poll to share that would be great.
The timing of it being engineered at WIV and leaked fit perfectly. Two years before the outbreak Peter Daszak, Ralph Baric, and the Chinese bat lady sent a proposal to DARPA to conduct GOF that would insert the FCS in SARS like coronaviruses.
Here is the proposal to conduct the research at WIV.
https://www.do entcloud.org/do e...efuse-proposal
Just over one year ago, a TOP SECRET “biodefense” research proposal called Project DEFUSE was leaked to the public by DRASTIC. The proposal was originally submitted to DARPA [the DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY] on behalf of EcoHealth Alliance in March 2018.
The proposed research would take some 180 previously unreported SARS-like coronaviruses, insert human specific furin cleavage sites into them, and then pass these genetically engineered viruses through Human Airway Epithelium cell cultures to test their pathogenicity to humans.
Experts have called this research proposal “a blueprint” for creating SARS-CoV-2 in a lab.
Principal investigators listed in the Project DEFUSE proposal were Peter Daszak, President of EcoHealth Alliance, GOF-Meister Ralph Baric from the University of North Carolina, and the Bat Lady, Shi Zhengli, from the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology. Peter Daszak and DARPA have denied Project DEFUSE was ever carried out.
On October 6th, we learned that one of the reviewers of that Project DEFUSE proposal reported that the research was already underway when the proposal was submitted to DARPA in March 2018. Today I review what we know about Project DEFUSE and how that research may provide the missing link in the search for the origin of COVID-19.
https://straighttalkmd.libsyn.com/pr...in-of-covid-19
Sorry I know a whole bunch more about this stuff because I was trained for it.Yeah yeah no one understands anything but you clearly...
Keep pretending Mr Knowitall.
Typical Trumper statement.
Like I could come into your shop and make a much better tattoo than you?
I would not even know the instruments or what to do first.
The mantra of a Trumper is not to believe people when they don’t like the answers, even if the people know their stuff. Because these experts are always trying to fool the sheeple. For no good reason. I have absolutely no reason to like the Chinese government. In fact it’s the other way. I don’t like totalitarian basically one party systems like RUSSIA and China. Their people have very little freedom.
DARPA is not the only opportunity for funding. The outbreak started where WIV is located. This is completely on topic.
L.I.G.
You literally are nothing but assumptions huh? This is why I call you Mr Knowitall and not because you were "trained in it" PG.
Trumper this and Trumper that... STFU already with you crackpot assumptions Mr Knowitall.
The gain of function research on this virus says it’s very easy to render the virus incapable of being infectious and so far we have NOT FOUND A CLEAR ANIMAL PATH because this is a NEW virus and we have not tested nearly enough animals. Gain of function research is done to mainly used to study animal human pathways.
The PUBLIC consensus is that ghosts exist as well so go for it.
out
i will return
“The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2” is one of the most influential scientific articles in history.
In February 2020 — about a month before a pandemic had been declared — five top virologists huddled to examine aspects of a rapidly emerging coronavirus that seemed primed to infect human cells. In particular, a unique feature called the furin cleavage site caused concern, and even kept one virologist up all night. A few days later, the virologists concluded the virus had not been engineered. In March, their conclusions were published in Nature Medicine.
“We do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible,” the article read.
The article assured much of the media, Washington and the broader infectious disease community that there was no need to scrutinize the labs at the pandemic’s epicenter in Wuhan, China. The Wuhan Ins ute of Virology is well known for research on SARS-like coronaviruses, including gain-of-function research. Though a “correspondence” and not a formal paper, the article has been cited in the press 2, 127 times.
It took 15 months and Freedom of Information Act lawsuits to reveal that each of the five authors had expressed private concerns about engineering or the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology’s store of novel coronaviruses and work in relatively low biosafety levels.
Also troubling: A confidential teleconference had framed early drafts of the article. But several scientists on the call had undisclosed conflicts of interest.
Wellcome Trust Director Jeremy Farrar organized the teleconference at the request of National Ins ute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci.
NIAID had funded the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology — a fact Fauci had been alerted to by late January. Minutes after being alerted by one of the virologists to gain-of-function research underway in Wuhan, Fauci dispatched an aide to determine whether his ins ute had funded this work. Fauci was conferring with the National Security Council and the White House almost daily at that time, his schedule shows.
Also present on the call for “advice and leadership ” but not publicly credited: director of the National Ins utes of Health Francis Collins.
Two authors were later found to have collaborated with the Wuhan lab or its American partner, EcoHealth Alliance.
Christian Drosten, a prominent virologist who participated in the teleconference, was once listed as a participant in a “virus hunting” project co-led by EcoHealth Alliance.
Ron Fouchier, another virologist who shaped the article’s central ideas without credit, is synonymous with controversial viral engineering.
The authors of the “proximal origin” article are Scripps Research virologist Kristian Andersen, University of Sydney virologist Edward Holmes, Tulane School of Medicine virologist Robert Garry, University of Edinburgh virologist Andrew Rambaut and Columbia University virologist Ian Lipkin.
Another virologist was notably absent.
To Farrar, Holmes and Andersen, the work of another American virologist appeared to be “a how-to manual for building the Wuhan coronavirus in a laboratory.”
North Carolina University virologist Ralph Baric, a close collaborator of the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology, is a leading expert on coronaviruses and engineering techniques. His research had been at the center of the gain-of-function debate in the U.S. a few years earlier, sparking concerns it could generate “SARS 2.0.”
Several of his papers were discussed on the call, according to presentation slides obtained under FOIA.
But because of his ties to the Wuhan lab, he was left out of the discussion, according to Holmes.
“We decided not to invite Ralph Baric just because he was too close to the WIV. … He’s a great virologist. He’s guilty of nothing, I’ll tell you that right now. But we wanted to make it a proper investigation,” Holmes said in a December 2022 interview.
This timeline compiles numerous sources in an effort to covey the backstory of the enormously influential article. The timeline is likely to grow as more information emerges. All times have been approximated to Eastern Time.
Farrar said that “proximal origin” was motivated by the absence of an investigation by the WHO. However, emails show that Farrar simultaneously shepherded along the article and appealed to the WHO.
In reality, Farrar expressed a desire to leaders at the WHO to “get ahead of the science and the narrative of this.” Fauci agreed.
Four days after flagging aspects of the genome that appeared engineered, Andersen coauthored an early draft which stated that such a scenario would be “largely incompatible with the data.” After days of discussing the possibility of the furin cleavage site arising from serial passage in the lab — a method of making a virus more dangerous in the lab without engineering — the possibility was dismissed in the final report.
Farrar described the frenzy and panic preceding the publication of “proximal origin.”
“Just a few of us – Eddie, Kristian, Tony and I – were now privy to sensitive information that, if proved to be true, might set off a whole series of events that would be far bigger than any of us. It felt as if a storm was gathering,” he said.
The aim, Farrar told his colleagues at the time, was to “lay down a respected statement to frame whatever debate goes on – before that debate gets out of hand with potentially hugely damaging ramifications.”
The scientists’ familiarity with the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology’s work on novel coronaviruses calls into question a central premise of the paper — that SARS-CoV-2 could not have been engineered because it appeared to be novel.
Summary
January 27, 2020: Fauci learned he funds the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology.
January 29, 2020: Andersen discovered a paper describing gain-of-function techniques with coronaviruses involving the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology. Farrar asks to speak with Fauci.
January 31, 2020: Fauci and Andersen spoke privately. Four virologists, including three authors of the article — Andersen, Holmes and Garry — found the virus to be “inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”
February 1, 2020: Farrar organized a secret teleconference between the virologists and NIH. Separately, Fauci sought to learn more about which projects NIAID funded at the lab.
February 2, 2020: The virologists exchanged thoughts. Several leaned toward a lab origin. Garry said he cannot understand how SARS-CoV-2 could have emerged naturally after comparing it to RaTG13. The scientists express concerns about work with coronaviruses being done in Wuhan in BSL-2 conditions.”Wild west,” said Farrar. Farrar emphasized the importance of publishing something quickly to counteract “lurid” claims emerging about a lab origin.
February 4, 2020: A draft was circulated. Holmes, “60-40 lab,” said the draft “does not mention other anomalies as that will make us look like loons.” Andersen derided the idea of an engineered virus as “crackpot” and promoted the phrase “consistent with natural evolution” to scientists outside of the confab.
March 6, 2020: Andersen thanked Farrar, Collins and Fauci for their “advice and leadership.”
April 17, 2020: Fauci told reporters COVID-19 is “totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human,” citing the paper.
August 19, 2020: Collins and Fauci discussed the termination of an EcoHealth Alliance grant and the lab leak theory. Eight days later, a new grant is extended from NIAID to EcoHealth and Andersen’s lab.
June 20, 2021: Collins, Fauci, Andersen and Garry encouraged a researcher to rethink a preprint about early SARS-CoV-2 sequences that NIH improperly ed from its database. Andersen proposed deleting it from a preprint server.
July 31, 2022: New entries to an NIH database indicated a relationship between Holmes and the Wuhan Ins ute of Virology, including work on RaTG13.
https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/t...of-sars-cov-2/
What is the consensus from scientists/researchers/doctors?
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions
