Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

New peer-reviewed study: Lab leak NOT a plausible hypothesis


zep73
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yeah.  It came from a market next door the a lab where they manipulate corona viruses :w00t:  Whatever you have to tell yourself.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Katniss  lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

Yeah.  It came from a market next door the a lab where they manipulate corona viruses :w00t:  Whatever you have to tell yourself.

I cannot say yes or no for certain but just revisit the "spanish flue" and it's origins, or the black plage and it's origins. Food that should not be consumed of animal origin or food that is made for animals or just infested animals roaming free...has killed more people than all the wars together.

Btw. Ever noticed that animal food is way appart from human food in stores? You think that there is no real reason? Also, when you buy animal food don't put it in the same bag as your grosseries. And keep your cats and dogs up todate with vaccines and health checks. I do it with mine since I had my first puppy back in 1984. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Yeah.  It came from a market next door the a lab where they manipulate corona viruses :w00t:  Whatever you have to tell yourself.

The second part of the study shows that the primary strains had animal origins:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8337

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

China was pretty much closed for any foreign or independent researchers to investigate the origin. It's pretty much a concern how a peer reviewed study was done and did it get peer reviewed by Chinese authorities so to speak. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, zep73 said:

The second part of the study shows that the primary strains had animal origins:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8337

That's fine.  Believe what you like.  For me, I know China is shoddy, poor quality control, corrupt and when a deadly corona virus pops up next to a lab in which they study and manipulate those viruses, well let's just say I believe where there is smoke there is fire.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kartikg said:

China was pretty much closed for any foreign or independent researchers to investigate the origin. It's pretty much a concern how a peer reviewed study was done and did it get peer reviewed by Chinese authorities so to speak. 

Or reviewed by scientists that accept funding from China.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, OverSword said:

That's fine.  Believe what you like.  For me, I know China is shoddy, poor quality control, corrupt and when a deadly corona virus pops up next to a lab in which they study and manipulate those viruses, well let's just say I believe where there is smoke there is fire.

I agree that the lab leak story is much more intriguing and brings disgrace to the hated CCP, so you have two reasons to prefer it over the more rational theory.

But you got to ask yourself some critical questions:

You have a location (Wuhan) with two possible sources: A highly controlled environment (the lab) and an uncontrolled environment (the wet market). Which is more likely?

Also you have multiple early infection cases tracing back to the wet market, and proof that the strains came from animals. I ask again, which is more likely?

You should also consider "the smoke", which is a conspiracy theory, and that kind of smoke is rarely genuine and from a fire.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, zep73 said:

I agree that the lab leak story is much more intriguing and brings disgrace to the hated CCP, so you have two reasons to prefer it over the more rational theory.

 

Not hated by me, just noted that their quality controls in general tend to be sub-par, and that corruption is part and parcel of how their systems work.  

8 minutes ago, zep73 said:

You have a location (Wuhan) with two possible sources: A highly controlled environment (the lab) and an uncontrolled environment (the wet market). Which is more likely?

 

Well the French team that worked with China building that lab and were supposed to help operate it wouldn't sign off on the lab when it was finished because they would sign off on equipment one day and the next that equipment would be replaced with inferior/cheaper equipment and factually viruses accidentally escaping from labs happens more than you know, they just don't usually cause a global crisis https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/3/20/18260669/deadly-pathogens-escape-lab-smallpox-bird-flu

16 minutes ago, zep73 said:

Also you have multiple early infection cases tracing back to the wet market, and proof that the strains came from animals. I ask again, which is more likely?

You should also consider "the smoke", which is a conspiracy theory, and that kind of smoke is rarely genuine and from a fire.

That proves they used materials from other animals to mutate the virus in the lab to a guy like me.  You'll never convince me of this ridiculous wet market theory.  It escaped from a lab and I don't doubt that at all ever.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, OverSword said:

It escaped from a lab and I don't doubt that at all ever.

Suit yourself. I see no harm in that particular CT.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a complete surprise!!!!!!

 

 

NOT.

 

This news is going to ruin a lot of conspiracy theory addicts day. 

I've posted this before. The only actual foreign scientist at the Wuhan facility during the discovery of Covid.

Nobody really cares about people on the ground when radio talk show hosts and the like hype these stories up.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/world/asia/australian-scientist-the-sole-foreign-researcher-at-the-wuhan-lab-speaks-out-20210628-p584sv.html

 

She says half-truths and distorted information have obscured an accurate accounting of the lab’s functions and activities, which were more routine than how they’ve been portrayed in the media.

“It’s not that it was boring, but it was a regular lab that worked in the same way as any other high-containment lab,” Anderson says. “What people are saying is just not how it is.

 

But hey. You know how it is. Why listen to someone who was actually there when you can tune in and hear some talk show hosts BS their butt of and inject hysteria? Got to be outraged and accusing or there's no fun in it hey. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, kartikg said:

China was pretty much closed for any foreign or independent researchers to investigate the origin. It's pretty much a concern how a peer reviewed study was done and did it get peer reviewed by Chinese authorities so to speak. 

There was an Aussie scientist there at the time. Danielle Anderson.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

There was an Aussie scientist there at the time. Danielle Anderson.

This one?

Dr Danielle Anderson (unimelb.edu.au)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, OverSword said:

Not hated by me, just noted that their quality controls in general tend to be sub-par, and that corruption is part and parcel of how their systems work.  

Well the French team that worked with China building that lab and were supposed to help operate it wouldn't sign off on the lab when it was finished because they would sign off on equipment one day and the next that equipment would be replaced with inferior/cheaper equipment and factually viruses accidentally escaping from labs happens more than you know, they just don't usually cause a global crisis https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/3/20/18260669/deadly-pathogens-escape-lab-smallpox-bird-flu

That proves they used materials from other animals to mutate the virus in the lab to a guy like me.  You'll never convince me of this ridiculous wet market theory.  It escaped from a lab and I don't doubt that at all ever.

Thank you for showing how close minded you are to the evidence. But that was already well known.

Have you ever considered the facts instead of a head in the sand stance?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone with a closed mind, a spewer of CT misinformation, a scoffer who avoids the evidence even bother to read that articles in the OP?

It's interesting that there are two researchers who thought that the lab leak was a viable hypothesis changed their minds based on the evidence. Funny how actual evidence is used by those that can think and evaluate situations.

There is important evidence such as this:

New studies say Wuhan market is the only 'plausible' source of COVID-19 pandemic - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)

Quote

The second study looked at the genomic sequence of the virus in the pandemic’s early days. Researchers identified two distinct SARS-CoV-2 lineages, which suggests that the virus leapt into the human population in two separate instances.

The conclusion based on the evidence leads to this

Quote

Irrefutable proof is harder to come by in biology than in a field like math or physics, Andersen cautioned. Yet he and his fellow co-authors who previously considered the lab leak hypothesis said they feel the evidence currently available points solidly in one direction.

Worobey agreed. The evidence he and his colleagues published Tuesday, he said, “has moved me to the point where now I also think it’s just not plausible that this virus was introduced in any other way than through the wildlife trade at the Huanan market.”

 

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, stereologist said:

Thank you for showing how close minded you are to the evidence. But that was already well known.

Have you ever considered the facts instead of a head in the sand stance?

Blah blah blah 

I don’t read your posts all the way through. :st

Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Blah blah blah 

I don’t read your posts all the way through. :st

You can't have an opinion about something you don't know.

So if you haven't read and understood the new study, your opinion is irrelevant.

 

Edited by zep73
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, zep73 said:

You can't have an opinion about something you don't know.

So if you haven't read and understood the new study, your opinion is irrelevant.

 

And yet it is my opinion.  You don't have to like, agree, or respect that and it won't bother me. :tu:

If you don't mind my asking, what background do you have that you are qualified to peer review or understand complicated peer reviewed scientific papers?  Are you a biologist?

Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, OverSword said:

And yet it is my opinion.  You don't have to like, agree, or respect that and it won't bother me. :tu:

If you don't mind my asking, what background do you have that you are qualified to peer review or understand complicated peer reviewed scientific papers?  Are you a biologist?

It's quite simple, once you get the hang of it.

It's a presentation of collected data, how it was obtained and processed and an establishment of patterns based on accumulated experience and knowledge.
The fact that it's peer-reviewed shows that other experts have checked it for errors and weaknesses, so I don't need to be an expert to trust the conclusions.

In the first study it is shown where (exact location) and when (the exact date and time) people were infected and with which virus strain. Based on that you can pinpoint the epicenter.

In the second study the virus strains are analysed and compared to known strains from wildlife surveillance and early mutations are shown step by step.

Based on that we can see which virus hit where and when and how it mutated. We can also conclude that all arrows point to the wet market as epicenter.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, zep73 said:

It's quite simple, once you get the hang of it.

It's a presentation of collected data, how it was obtained and processed and an establishment of patterns based on accumulated experience and knowledge.
The fact that it's peer-reviewed shows that other experts have checked it for errors and weaknesses, so I don't need to be an expert to trust the conclusions.

In the first study it is shown where (exact location) and when (the exact date and time) people were infected and with which virus strain. Based on that you can pinpoint the epicenter.

In the second study the virus strains are analysed and compared to known strains from wildlife surveillance and early mutations are shown step by step.

Based on that we can see which virus hit where and when and how it mutated. We can also conclude that all arrows point to the wet market as epicenter.

So you aren't qualified but (understandably and reasonably) choose to trust what random authorities say about the data.  That's fine. 

I don't know why people that were already convinced the virus did not leak from a lab felt the need for yet one more study. I don't know who funded the study.  I don't know who funds the research of the peers that reviewed the study.  The wet market was a short walk from the lab so how can they be certain of an epicenter in a market that was wiped off the face of the earth by the Chinese Government?  I don't understand why that same government won't cooperate in the investigation.  I know what common sense and my general distrust of this ongoing narrative indicate to me.  A cover-up.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesnt surprise me that it wasnt from a lab but rather a nasty wet mart, it also doesnt surprise me a "certain type" will insist it was from a an evil chinese lab.

Im not even surprised a few are kind enough to try to help that "certain type" not look so ignorant and clueless, but keep in mind you can lead a horse to knownladge you cannot make it think.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, the13bats said:

It doesnt surprise me that it wasnt from a lab but rather a nasty wet mart, it also doesnt surprise me a "certain type" will insist it was from a an evil chinese lab.

Im not even surprised a few are kind enough to try to help that "certain type" not look so ignorant and clueless, but keep in mind you can lead a horse to knownladge you cannot make it think.

You said it Bro.  :rolleyes:   

It's not unreasonable to believe CV19 escaped from a lab coincidentally right around the corner from  the wet-market they're trying to lay the blame on.  How many wet markets in Asia?  Thousands.  How often are they blamed for viruses spreading?  Never heard of it before, although I'm sure food poisoning is not uncommon.  How many virology research labs are there?  How often do viruses escape?  See the link I posted on that above, it's more than you think.  And how half assed are quality controls in China?  Very.

Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/28/2022 at 12:24 AM, OverSword said:

Blah blah blah 

I don’t read your posts all the way through. :st

I read yours to laugh and laugh and laugh.

Thanks for confirming that you are a close minded person.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.