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

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

No good reason? Did you see the year where China basically refused to allow any access to anything that could be research on the lab, or the viruses origins? We had to accept what they told us. Very shady.

It's more like a police department who says none of their guys are racists, when "somehow" a black man gets shot while lying on the ground defenseless. Maybe it was an act of nature? Or shot himself in the back during the traffic stop?

Lol, no you're not in perspective. 

If something gets out of that department, it could be a hundred times worse than Covid. A thousand even. 

It's not a "regular" business. 

Is china amicable about anything whatsoever? Anything and everything is an insult. I don't see that as being out of character.

And it's not in any way offering any reasoning as to why the lab would be the source. You have reason to distrust a nation that rarely speaks straight. No good reason why the lab would be more likely than natural origins. 

Suspicion isn't proof. And you're only suspicious of motive. Nothing physical to illustrate even the possibility of a lab leak.

40 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

It's a logical fallacy to state you'll not consider evidence, because you dont like who presented it. Much less cast aside an entire branch of discussion because one poster seems crazy to you.

Uh bloke

Did you not read the quotes or something? 

Please explain how any one of them is a viable suspicion and not simply paranoid hate for a country that's been acting like an ass for the last few years.

Well, perhaps more of an ass. 

Heck, some of it is just bigoted crap, insinuating Chinese are dirty careless people. 

40 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I deny nothing she says. But suggest she wasn't everywhere, all the time. If I remember right she didn't work on coronaviruses, but on ebola? Apparently she did work in the P4 Lab, so the mechanisms and protocols would be known to her.

Again, what reason is that to consider a lab leak? As far as her report goes, there's no good reason to consider one. She was there at the time. Your taking wild guesses to support a paranoid conclusion by a paranoid poster. You've been doing that a bit lately. I get that they are countrymen but dude. There a line.

She knows the protocols, now well would you find your way around a P4, lab? What reason do you have to question her report! And then she clearly stated that what she has read in the media is not true. Surely you're not challenging that?

Hype had led some paranoid people to think a high containment lab is sloppy and dirty. Sorry mate, but that's very unrealistic on your behalf and totally ignoring the flaws being spread that she has already debunked. 

40 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Myself, I have no idea who is working in the next department at work. I can state that I believe they run their clean room just as good as we do ours, but it would ultimately be guessing?

A clean room isn't even close to a high containment lab. Clean rooms exist in many places of work, food prep, medical etc. I'm very familiar with them. Again, nothing alike. 

40 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

How many work in each department at the Wuhan lab, and could she know them all, and swear none if them would take shortcuts?

She wouldn't have to know them personally but yes, she would know them all through a register and the limited number of people approved for high containment. 

40 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Come on, you know what I meant. The conclusion in the article mentioned... That it could not be genetic engineered, was a informed conclusion, but it wasn't a scientific fact. It wasn't proven, only concluded. That it's more likely then not isn't the point. The point is there's a non-zero chance of "not".

Informed conclusion?

I take it you are unaware of the source of the lab leak nonsense? It was  Nicholas Wade previously of the NYT who made a fool of himself making up stuff about evolution. https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/06/nicholas-wade-on-origin-of-life.html?m=1

It was conspiracy theories that birthed the lab leak idea, and the descriptions of the lab spread in those colourful stories were not true as told by Dr Anderson.

So the conclusion, backed by the study represented in the paper linked in the OP, and Dr Andersons first hand report you're saying is at least as trustworthy as a dodgy journalists incorrectly described conspiracy theory? Not to mention we are considering a zoonotic disease?

You might want to re think that.  

I maintain that there's no good reason to consider a lab leak. It's a conspiracy theory for the easily led. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, stereologist said:

Still no defense of the inane false crap you post. Have you considered posting non-trash content?

Certainly.  The virus probably escaped from the lab around the corner from the wet market.  We know viruses escape from labs somewhat more regularly than most are aware (see my link earlier in the thread). Perhaps name something more serious than food poisoning that has escaped from a wet market and link to that for me as I did with other lab leaks.  There are thousands and thousands of wet markets in Asia so there must certainly be more examples of them being the source of deadly viruses.  The lab leak hypothesis makes much more sense than the wet market hypothesis to me.  You don't have to agree with me. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll throw my 2¢ into the heap.

Resesarch (in OP's link) is as good as datasets (provided by chinese CCP) are. How hard is to delete few rows from dataset? I'm not arguing integrity of the researchers, but I have my doubts about integrity of datasets researchers were given.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/27/2022 at 8:32 PM, 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

How initial datesets were acquired? Data from CCP driven "science" labs?

Plus, western universities/research centers are heavily funded by china CCP...  Take a gander...

BTW, how trustworthy CCP is?

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

On 8/4/2022 at 9:30 PM, bmk1245 said:

How initial datesets were acquired? Data from CCP driven "science" labs?

Plus, western universities/research centers are heavily funded by china CCP...  Take a gander...

BTW, how trustworthy CCP is?

The studies are based on almost 200 international sources. Only some of them are Chinese. If the Chinese data was tampered, it would have stood out.

A lot of bad stuff can be said about the Chinese government, but they take scientific rigor very serious. A few years back they cracked down on over 400 researchers suspected of fraud.

Not to mention that it was the Chinese government themselves who reported the Wuhan outbreak to the WHO on Dec. 31st 2019.

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

3 minutes ago, zep73 said:

The studies are based on almost 200 international sources. Only some of them are Chinese. If the Chinese data was tampered, it would have stood out.

[...]

Which studies? In OPs linked paper there are just two links to datasets, both taking roots from China.

Quote

[...]

A lot of bad stuff can be said about the Chinese government, but they take scientific rigor very serious. A few years back they cracked down on over 400 researchers suspected of fraud.

Not to mention that it was the Chinese government themselves who reported the Wuhan outbreak to the WHO on Dec. 31st 2019.

Yeah, but in early days 'twas declared that coof wasn't contagious when it already spread widely? Do I miss something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bmk1245 said:

Which studies? In OPs linked paper there are just two links to datasets, both taking roots from China.

Scroll down. The sources are listed below, as in all scientific research.

 

3 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

Yeah, but in early days 'twas declared that coof wasn't contagious when it already spread widely? Do I miss something?

It took some time before they realised what was going on, and that it was out of control.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, zep73 said:

Scroll down. The sources are listed below, as in all scientific research.

[...]

What is 'scroll'? You mean scroll until chapter Data sources (references #5 and #7, other aren't exactly relevant)?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

What is 'scroll'? You mean scroll until chapter Data sources (references #5 and #7, other aren't exactly relevant)?

It's called "References and Notes".

All of them are relevant. Why would you think only two are? Are you are scientist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, zep73 said:

It's called "References and Notes".

All of them are relevant. Why would you think only two are? Are you are scientist?

I am, though not in the area of question.

If you search for 'virus' in encyclopedia, you don't read whole encyclopedia from A to Z.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

I am, though not in the area of question.

If you search for 'virus' in encyclopedia, you don't read whole encyclopedia from A to Z.

It's not an encyclopedia. All references are relevant to the study.

What kind if scientist are you? Have you published any research?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, zep73 said:

It's not an encyclopedia. All references are relevant to the study.

[...]

No. Look for references to the datasets.

Quote

[...]

What kind if scientist are you? Have you published any research?

Not quite good, but in solid state physics, over 50 publications in peer reviewed journals.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

No. Look for references to the datasets.

Not quite good, but in solid state physics, over 50 publications in peer reviewed journals.

Not to diminish your work, but I think I trust the many virologists and epidemiologists, who reviewed the study, more than your unqualified estimation. Please don't take it as an insult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, zep73 said:

Not to diminish your work, but I think I trust the many virologists and epidemiologists, who reviewed the study, more than your unqualified estimation. Please don't take it as an insult.

Fair enough.

Though, when politics involved, you should be more careful.

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

17 hours ago, zep73 said:

Not to mention that it was the Chinese government themselves who reported the Wuhan outbreak to the WHO on Dec. 31st 2019.

They're not winning any awards for being open and honest, I think.

The best lies are 95% true.

And the best way to cover something up is to acknowledge what you can't hide and play ignorant of everything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, DieChecker said:

They're not winning any awards for being open and honest, I think.

The best lies are 95% true.

And the best way to cover something up is to acknowledge what you can't hide and play ignorant of everything else.

But what evidence supports a lab leak? 

What exists that makes a virologist say "that's odd for an allegedly natural virus"? Or has any reputable person held up evidence and said, here, this indicates unnatural origin.

There only seems to be the very opposite.

As far as I can tell the lab leak idea seems to based on the Chinese being incompetent dirty lazy liars. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, psyche101 said:

But what evidence supports a lab leak? 

What exists that makes a virologist say "that's odd for an allegedly natural virus"? Or has any reputable person held up evidence and said, here, this indicates unnatural origin.

There only seems to be the very opposite.

1. A spontaneous new virus appears 17 miles from the main labs studying that kind of virus in a nation of over a billion. If it was ANY other city...

2. Said lab does research on altering said viruses.

3. The nation that lab is run by has a history of taking short cuts. 

4. Said nation is known to cover up issues that make them look bad.

All together, an excellent reason to investigate the possibility. Not that anything will be found. Like in a spy thriller movie, they would have destroyed the records, papers and samples two years ago.

Quote

As far as I can tell the lab leak idea seems to based on the Chinese being incompetent dirty lazy liars.

Mostly. And in part that's their history. Liars. Dirty tricks. Incompetent in many ways...

Edited by DieChecker
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

1. A spontaneous new virus appears 17 miles from the main labs studying that kind of virus in a nation of over a billion. If it was ANY other city...

2. Said lab does research on altering said viruses.

3. The nation that lab is run by has a history of taking short cuts. 

4. Said nation is known to cover up issues that make them look bad.

All together, an excellent reason to investigate the possibility. 

5. Analysis of the virus shows shows it has not been modified in a lab.

6. Discard 1-4.

7. Conclude investigation.

In 2020.

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

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

1. A spontaneous new virus appears 17 miles from the main labs studying that kind of virus in a nation of over a billion. If it was ANY other city...

2. Said lab does research on altering said viruses.

3. The nation that lab is run by has a history of taking short cuts. 

4. Said nation is known to cover up issues that make them look bad.

All together, an excellent reason to investigate the possibility. Not that anything will be found. Like in a spy thriller movie, they would have destroyed the records, papers and samples two years ago.

Mostly. And in part that's their history. Liars. Dirty tricks. Incompetent in many ways...

Dude, that's a bigoted view. That's not a reason, that's a superiority complex.

You're better than that.

WTF DC? 

There was a time evidence was important to a hypothesis? What's happened to that? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2022 at 1:54 AM, DieChecker said:

That's just innuendo. I am well aware of lab issues in China.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2022 at 2:00 AM, DieChecker said:

It's supposition. Possibilities given actual events. 

The Chinese self admitted they do genetic research at Wuhan. The description I read was basically, "make changes and see what happens". I'll look it up again if you're not familiar with that statement. 

Did I misread the link, or is the non-perfect binding not one of their main bits of evidence? And such a change can't be done other then the way that they can detect easily? I believe I've read in the past there are several ways of doing viral genetic manipulation, and some don't show the change in the way they were looking for. I'll go look for a link.

Here's a link to a article suggesting the cleavage and receptors could very well be lab created.

Wiley: The genetic structure of SARS‐CoV‐2 does not rule out a laboratory origin.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bies.202000240

I'll not pretend to know what all that means, but I did see that it suggests this could be a chimeric virus. And I did see that Wuhan was doing chimeric virus studies going back to 2015.

Financial Times: Genetic engineering: why some fear the next pandemic could be lab-made.
https://www.ft.com/content/f81f18b0-0f93-4b4a-b299-ba0e39a82074

This article suggests the virus mutates very quickly. This could be accelerated in a lab environment. The basis could have been the Thailand bat samples. And the lab simply, over several years, and introducing it repeatedly during experiments, simply had to wait. 

We know they studied coronaviruses and were watching for changes that would affect infectiousness. We can easily suppose they had the base virus. 

The only missing element would be a known protocol fail.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2105253118

 

Again, that is all innuendo.

The fact that they have a library of genetic sequences shows they do genetic research. That is well known and the purpose of the lab.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34697827/

Quote

There is still no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 laboratory origin: Response to Segreto and Deigin

The fact is that there is no evidence, just innuendo.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2022 at 11:04 AM, OverSword said:

Certainly.  The virus probably escaped from the lab around the corner from the wet market.  We know viruses escape from labs somewhat more regularly than most are aware (see my link earlier in the thread). Perhaps name something more serious than food poisoning that has escaped from a wet market and link to that for me as I did with other lab leaks.  There are thousands and thousands of wet markets in Asia so there must certainly be more examples of them being the source of deadly viruses.  The lab leak hypothesis makes much more sense than the wet market hypothesis to me.  You don't have to agree with me. 

There is no lab around the corner. Are you as clueless as ever on that issue? Yes you are.

This is just BS you are making up: "We know viruses escape from labs somewhat more regularly than most are aware" Lab leaks are rare. We know they happen, but they are rare.

Let's see? COVID-19 killed 18 million people. That's worse than food poisoning.

It matters little if you make decisions with your head in the sand as you so clearly have stated you do. You have openly and clearly stated you are a scoffer. Here is what you posted:

"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. "

Definitely the words of a close minded scoffer.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, DieChecker said:

1. A spontaneous new virus appears 17 miles from the main labs studying that kind of virus in a nation of over a billion. If it was ANY other city...

2. Said lab does research on altering said viruses.

3. The nation that lab is run by has a history of taking short cuts. 

4. Said nation is known to cover up issues that make them look bad.

All together, an excellent reason to investigate the possibility. Not that anything will be found. Like in a spy thriller movie, they would have destroyed the records, papers and samples two years ago.

Mostly. And in part that's their history. Liars. Dirty tricks. Incompetent in many ways...

Do you have evidence for this spontaneous suggestion? I doubt you do. It is a new virus in the sense that it had not infected humans before. The word spontaneous is a loaded word here.

Then you go off on your innuendo without evidence. What you don't bother to do is to look at the evidence. Why not read the published paper and then comment with the collected evidence. Maybe you can report on the short comings of the paper. Remember that two of the authors were scientists believing in the lab leak theory before they decided to find evidence and to follow where the evidence would lead.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

O brother! I just found out that the Deigen suggesting a lab leak possibility has a masters in business administration.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/5/2022 at 1:01 PM, zep73 said:

A lot of bad stuff can be said about the Chinese government, but they take scientific rigor very serious.

Yeah. :rolleyes:

Edited by OverSword
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.