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 -

Senior US journalist attacks leading scientists for ‘misleading’ him over Covid lab-leak theory


Zetorian

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2024/03/26/new-york-times-donald-mcneil-wuhan-lab-leak-theory/

 

Quote

A former New York Times journalist has attacked a group of leading scientists for “clearly” misleading him over the Covid lab-leak theory in the early days of the pandemic.

Donald McNeil Jr said he became sceptical of the hypothesis the virus was engineered in a Wuhan lab after several top epidemiological virologists insisted it wasn’t possible

A very interesting story where a former journalist accuses a number of scientists for disinformation arguing the possibility of the virus been engineered in a lab was dropped for almost a year despite the fact that initially scientists knew the lab-leak hypothesis was plausible but didn't want to disclose it for political reasons. 

The former New York Times journalist Mr Donald McNeil argues he was mislead by scientists and he was a victim of deception because the lab-leak hypothesis was seriously considered but the message to the public and the journalists was very different.

The virus SARS-CoV-2 that causes the disease known as Covid-19 was thought to be a result of zoonosis and anyone who argued differently was attacked or sometimes even branded a conspiracy theorist. Various scientists were also attacked for suggesting it could be a result of a lab-leak. 

According to a 302 page Senate report on the origins of the virus, SARS-CoV-2 appeared to originate from a laboratory accident.The report made around a year ago.  

https://www.axios.com/2023/04/17/senate-covid-origins-report-details-lab-leak-theory

Quote

The coronavirus pandemic appeared to originate from a laboratory accident, based on biosafety issues in the epicenter in Wuhan, China, and factors observed in the nature and early spread of the virus, according to a 302-page Senate report obtained by Axios.

 

 

Edited by Zetorian
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Wrong section I think. This should probably be in the Covid section.

 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQEGXgR9zIOYTQnklp0Vls

 

 

How to say I'm not getting attention I want some without saying I'm not getting attention I want some..

 

The article also states:

 

However, the experts initially thought the lab leak theory was plausible but didn’t want to disclose so for political reasons, according to a raft of messages between them accidentally released by a US congressional committee last year.

 

Which is wrong. 

 

 

The old "group of scientists" hey. They get blamed for everything. 

 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Wrong section I think. This should probably be in the Covid section.

 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQEGXgR9zIOYTQnklp0Vls

 

 

How to say I'm not getting attention I want some without saying I'm not getting attention I want some..

 

The article also states:

 

However, the experts initially thought the lab leak theory was plausible but didn’t want to disclose so for political reasons, according to a raft of messages between them accidentally released by a US congressional committee last year.

 

Which is wrong. 

 

 

The old "group of scientists" hey. They get blamed for everything. 

 

It says in the article that scientists (or let's say some of them) considered the possibility of a lab-leak but according to the reporter the US and other countries didn't want to upset the Chinese or create a situation where China was blamed for the pandemic. 

I don't think the reporter blames ALL scientists but those who misread him, the public, and the other journalists by arguing the lab-leak hypothesis wasn't a plausible scenario at all and only zoonosis should be considered. 

Edited by Zetorian
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Wrong section I think. This should probably be in the Covid section.

 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQEGXgR9zIOYTQnklp0Vls

 

 

How to say I'm not getting attention I want some without saying I'm not getting attention I want some..

 

The article also states:

 

However, the experts initially thought the lab leak theory was plausible but didn’t want to disclose so for political reasons, according to a raft of messages between them accidentally released by a US congressional committee last year.

 

Which is wrong. 

 

 

The old "group of scientists" hey. They get blamed for everything. 

 

Have you come across the Senate report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2. 

This article is about the former NYT journalist who said he was mislead by some of the scientists. I thought it's mainstream political news from the US although it could be placed in the Covid section.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zetorian said:

It says in the article that scientists (or let's say some of them) considered the possibility of a lab-leak but according to the reporter the US and other countries didn't want to upset the Chinese or create a situation where China was blamed for the pandemic. 

Yes, there's a thread on it. 

It's not quite like that. China was considered the origin from day one, so I'm not sure why that would be something to avoid. It's well documented that the first cases were around the Wuhan market. 

The lab leak idea is not further today than it was to begin with. It has more public curiosity but that's about it. It's basically a nothing burger.

1 hour ago, Zetorian said:

I don't think the reporter blames ALL scientists but those who misread him, the public, and the other journalists by arguing the lab-leak hypothesis wasn't a plausible scenario at all and only zoonosis should be considered. 

That's the thing. "A group of scientists" isn't very definitive is it. That sort of vague reference usually means "I heard something somewhere " as opposed to actual communication. It's not like he has produced nefarious emails from "the group of scientists " or anything. It's just a way to keep generating headlines about a subject. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Zetorian said:

Have you come across the Senate report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2. 

Are you referring to the one evaluated by five agencies in the US? The one that considered the lab leak theory with low confidence? 

14 minutes ago, Zetorian said:

This article is about the former NYT journalist who said he was mislead by some of the scientists. I thought it's mainstream political news from the US although it could be placed in the Covid section.  

No offence, just thought it would probably fit better there. Maybe a mod will move it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Yes, there's a thread on it. 

It's not quite like that. China was considered the origin from day one, so I'm not sure why that would be something to avoid. It's well documented that the first cases were around the Wuhan market. 

The lab leak idea is not further today than it was to begin with. It has more public curiosity but that's about it. It's basically a nothing burger.

That's the thing. "A group of scientists" isn't very definitive is it. That sort of vague reference usually means "I heard something somewhere " as opposed to actual communication. It's not like he has produced nefarious emails from "the group of scientists " or anything. It's just a way to keep generating headlines about a subject. 

But I think the report says that most likely the pandemic originated from a laboratory accident. Have you not see this? 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a

This is an article from the Washington Post around a year ago. It's from the US Energy Department. In addition several scientists have pointed out to the lab-leak hypothesis long before the statement by the Department of Energy  

Lab Leak Most Likely Origin of Covid-19 Pandemic, Energy Department Now Says

Quote

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Energy Department has concluded that the Covid pandemic most likely arose from a laboratory leak, according to a classified intelligence report recently provided to the White House and key members of Congress.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Are you referring to the one evaluated by five agencies in the US? The one that considered the lab leak theory with low confidence? 

No offence, just thought it would probably fit better there. Maybe a mod will move it. 

Don't worry I am not getting offended 😁

If mods think it should be placed in the Covid section it's ok with me. 

https://www.newsweek.com/covid-lab-leak-theory-resurfaces-controversial-study-1877997

Quote

Four years on from the COVID-19 pandemic, the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is still contested. The most widely accepted hypothesis in the scientific community is that the virus naturally emerged from an animal source. However, there are others who believe that the virus leaked from a Chinese laboratory.

To add to this debate, a controversial new research paper from the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, has suggested that the available evidence points toward an unnatural origin for the virus. But many others are unconvinced.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Zetorian said:

But I think the report says that most likely the pandemic originated from a laboratory accident. Have you not see this? 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a

This is an article from the Washington Post around a year ago. It's from the US Energy Department. In addition several scientists have pointed out to the lab-leak hypothesis long before the statement by the Department of Energy  

Lab Leak Most Likely Origin of Covid-19 Pandemic, Energy Department Now Says

 

 

That's the one. Your link is behind a paywall. 

It's "most likely" hypothesis is regarded with "low confidence". As I said, it's still just an idea. There's no evidence at all supporting it. 

I'm pretty sure your link will say exactly that if you have access to it. If you want to pick one everyone can access it might be more helpful. 

It was championed by Wray at the FBI. However, it's simply his opinion. He was the one out of the five that elevated it. The other four agencies who read that report all said low confidence in the lab leak idea. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, psyche101 said:

That's the one. Your link is behind a paywall. 

It's "most likely" hypothesis is regarded with "low confidence". As I said, it's still just an idea. There's no evidence at all supporting it. 

I'm pretty sure your link will say exactly that if you have access to it. If you want to pick one everyone can access it might be more helpful. 

It was championed by Wray at the FBI. However, it's simply his opinion. He was the one out of the five that elevated it. The other four agencies who read that report all said low confidence in the lab leak idea. 

I think the Senate has produced a report that consists of 302 pages arguing the most likely cause is the lab leak.

But regardless of whether the link is behind a paywall the Department of Energy has concluded the same exactly thing. So you can have a look at the other links. 'Most likely' and 'low confidence' don't seem to go together. 

On the other hand has it been proven the pandemic was a result of zoonosis? I don't think so because it was asserted as the truth from the beginning based on a very controversial study 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Zetorian said:

Don't worry I am not getting offended 😁

If mods think it should be placed in the Covid section it's ok with me. 

:tu:

 

11 minutes ago, Zetorian said:

It says it all at the link. 

Did you read it? It's an algorithmic prediction. And also had no confidence from the medical community. It's not actually evidence, it's a calculation. All existing physical evidence points directly at the wet market. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

:tu:

 

It says it all at the link. 

Did you read it? It's an algorithmic prediction. And also had no confidence from the medical community. It's not actually evidence, it's a calculation. All existing physical evidence points directly at the wet market. 

I don't think they have proven the pandemic was a result of zoonosis. This is still an approved hypothesis pushed as a fact but highly contested by many scientists. 

The US Senate and the US Energy Department have come to different conclusions based on the evidence they have. 

I ve read several articles and papers on the subject and there is no proof yet on the origin of virus. The medical community is quite divided on the issue. 

But when the US Senate and US Energy Department have said it probably started because of a laboratory accident then it gives you some very interesting clues you didn't have earlier on the pandemic when it was assumed the pandemic started in the market as a result of zoonosis. 

Edited by Zetorian
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Zetorian said:

I think the Senate has produced a report that consists of 302 pages arguing the most likely cause is the lab leak.

But regardless of whether the link is behind a paywall the Department of Energy has concluded the same exactly thing. So you can have a look at the other links. 'Most likely' and 'low confidence' don't seem to go together. 

This link is public:

https://www.vox.com/health/23617450/covid-origins-lab-leak-theory-energy-department-sars-china

Another round of debate about the origin of Covid-19 sparked this week when the Wall Street Journal reported that the US Department of Energy concluded with “low confidence” that the virus escaped a laboratory in Wuhan, China.

However, officials declined to corroborate the Journal’s reporting. “We can neither confirm nor deny the item at issue in the WSJ story,” an Energy Department spokesperson told Vox in an email.

The new verdict echoes a similar conclusion from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. “The FBI has for quite some time now assessed that the origins of the pandemic are most likely a potential lab incident in Wuhan,” FBI director Christopher Wray told Fox News on Tuesday.

But it runs counter to that of four other federal agencies and a national intelligence panel, which concluded the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19 jumped into humans from a natural exposure to an infected animal.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/energy-department-covid-19-report-origins-lab-leak-debate/

A new classified report by the U.S. Energy Department has concluded with "low confidence" that it is plausible the COVID-19 pandemic originated from a laboratory leak, two sources familiar with the U.S. government's pandemic origins investigation tell CBS News

Official definition of low confidence:

https://www.dni.gov/nctc/jcat/jcat_ctguide/intel_guide.html

In addition to using words within a judgment to convey degrees of likelihood, the IC also ascribes “high,” “moderate,” or “low” confidence levels according to the scope and quality of information supporting analytic judgments.

HIGH CONFIDENCE generally indicates that the IC’s judgments are based on high-quality information or that the nature of the issue makes it possible to develop a solid judgment.
MODERATE CONFIDENCE generally means that the information could be interpreted in various ways, that the IC has alternative views, or that the information is credible and plausible but not corroborated sufficiently to justify a higher level of confidence.
LOW CONFIDENCE generally means that the information is scant, questionable, or very fragmented, so it is difficult to make solid analytic inferences; it could also mean that the IC has significant concerns about or problems with the sources.

 

4 minutes ago, Zetorian said:

On the other hand has it been proven the pandemic was a result of zoonosis? I don't think so because it was asserted as the truth from the beginning based on a very controversial study 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

All existing physical evidence points at that. 

The racoon dog data.

New Evidence Supports Animal Origin of COVID Virus through Raccoon Dogs

Genetic sequences show evidence of raccoon dogs and other animals at the Wuhan market sites where SARS-CoV-2 was found in early 2020, adding to evidence of a natural spillover event

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

11 minutes ago, Zetorian said:

I don't think they have proven the pandemic was a result of zoonosis. This is still an approved hypothesis pushed as a fact but highly contested by many scientists. 

The US Senate and the US Energy Department have come to different conclusions based on the evidence they have. 

I ve read several articles and papers on the subject and there is no proof yet on the origin of virus. The medical community is quite divided on the issue. 

But when the US Senate and US Energy Department have said it probably started because of a laboratory accident then it gives you some very interesting clues you didn't have earlier on the pandemic when it was assumed the pandemic started in the market as a result of zoonosis. 

Did you read the link? You forgot to answer. 

I've just posted links to the DoE vote of low confidence. It's common knowledge backed by many sources. Did you find it at your first link? 

I don't know where you get this "many scientists" but from. A few outsiders have voiced personal ideas that have absolutely no impact on the overall global consensus which overwhelming favours the natural origin data. 

There are many threads about this in the Covid section. Might pay to browse it a bit? Might answer a lot for you. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

This link is public:

https://www.vox.com/health/23617450/covid-origins-lab-leak-theory-energy-department-sars-china

Another round of debate about the origin of Covid-19 sparked this week when the Wall Street Journal reported that the US Department of Energy concluded with “low confidence” that the virus escaped a laboratory in Wuhan, China.

However, officials declined to corroborate the Journal’s reporting. “We can neither confirm nor deny the item at issue in the WSJ story,” an Energy Department spokesperson told Vox in an email.

The new verdict echoes a similar conclusion from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. “The FBI has for quite some time now assessed that the origins of the pandemic are most likely a potential lab incident in Wuhan,” FBI director Christopher Wray told Fox News on Tuesday.

But it runs counter to that of four other federal agencies and a national intelligence panel, which concluded the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19 jumped into humans from a natural exposure to an infected animal.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/energy-department-covid-19-report-origins-lab-leak-debate/

A new classified report by the U.S. Energy Department has concluded with "low confidence" that it is plausible the COVID-19 pandemic originated from a laboratory leak, two sources familiar with the U.S. government's pandemic origins investigation tell CBS News

Official definition of low confidence:

https://www.dni.gov/nctc/jcat/jcat_ctguide/intel_guide.html

In addition to using words within a judgment to convey degrees of likelihood, the IC also ascribes “high,” “moderate,” or “low” confidence levels according to the scope and quality of information supporting analytic judgments.

HIGH CONFIDENCE generally indicates that the IC’s judgments are based on high-quality information or that the nature of the issue makes it possible to develop a solid judgment.
MODERATE CONFIDENCE generally means that the information could be interpreted in various ways, that the IC has alternative views, or that the information is credible and plausible but not corroborated sufficiently to justify a higher level of confidence.
LOW CONFIDENCE generally means that the information is scant, questionable, or very fragmented, so it is difficult to make solid analytic inferences; it could also mean that the IC has significant concerns about or problems with the sources.

 

All existing physical evidence points at that. 

The racoon dog data.

New Evidence Supports Animal Origin of COVID Virus through Raccoon Dogs

Genetic sequences show evidence of raccoon dogs and other animals at the Wuhan market sites where SARS-CoV-2 was found in early 2020, adding to evidence of a natural spillover event

You see where the problem is? 

If the FBI, the US Senate, the US Deportment of Energy have all concluded that the most likely cause of the origin of the pandemic was a laboratory accident then it means they don't consider a natural spillover to be the likely cause otherwise they would have concluded the opposite. 

Did they conclude the most likely cause of the origin of the pandemic was the Wuhan Market? No. 

 

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Did you read the link? You forgot to answer. 

I've just posted links to the DoE vote of low confidence. It's common knowledge backed by many sources. Did you find it at your first link? 

I don't know where you get this "many scientists" but from. A few outsiders have voiced personal ideas that have absolutely no impact on the overall global consensus which overwhelming favours the natural origin data. 

There are many threads about this in the Covid section. Might pay to browse it a bit? Might answer a lot for you. 

I will have to say again that the 'low confidence' is just semantics in this case. 

Did the US Senate, FBI, and the US Energy Department conclud the pandemic started from the Wuhan Market? No they didn't. They concluded exactly the opposite. Which raises several issues against the original hypothesis made. 

On the top of this the story about the NYT journalist who says openly that the press was mislead by some scientists. 

When you have the above agencies, journalists, and scientists, going against the original story then something important is happening. There is no proof and no consensus on the origin of the virus. 

 

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

38 minutes ago, Zetorian said:

I will have to say again that the 'low confidence' is just semantics in this case. 

No, I posted the official definition. Perhaps you missed it? It's clear. 

38 minutes ago, Zetorian said:

Did the US Senate, FBI, and the US Energy Department conclud the pandemic started from the Wuhan Market? No they didn't. They concluded exactly the opposite. Which raises several issues against the original hypothesis made. 

Yes, its still their most likely hypothesis. It has high confidence. 

38 minutes ago, Zetorian said:

On the top of this the story about the NYT journalist who says openly that the press was mislead by some scientists. 

Yes, as I said a vague claim with no real details. 

He's basically saying he thought it up first but didn't say it because the data didn't support it. That hasn't actually changed. 

It's basically an anecdote. 

38 minutes ago, Zetorian said:

When you have the above agencies, journalists, and scientists, going against the original story then something important is happening. There is no proof and no consensus on the origin of the virus. 

 

They aren't though. They are considering a hypothesis based on poor communication. As I keep saying, the overall medical and scientific communities are overwhelming in favour of the natural origin data. 

Many things are "plausible". Even a space rock carrying the virus has been hypothesized as a "plausible hypothesis". That's where the wrong impression is easily picked up. The lab leak theory is entirely political in nature. That alone I honestly think should be a red flag.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

But it runs counter to that of four other federal agencies and a national intelligence panel, which concluded the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19 jumped into humans from a natural exposure to an infected animal.

Should've bolded this part psyche.

Anyone care to explain why the US Energy Department of all things is being tapped for this?

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

9 hours ago, Oniomancer said:

Should've bolded this part psyche.

Anyone care to explain why the US Energy Department of all things is being tapped for this?

Cheers O, good call :tu:

 

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

Posted (edited)
On 3/27/2024 at 12:25 PM, psyche101 said:

No, I posted the official definition. Perhaps you missed it? It's clear. 

Yes, its still their most likely hypothesis. It has high confidence. 

Yes, as I said a vague claim with no real details. 

He's basically saying he thought it up first but didn't say it because the data didn't support it. That hasn't actually changed. 

It's basically an anecdote. 

They aren't though. They are considering a hypothesis based on poor communication. As I keep saying, the overall medical and scientific communities are overwhelming in favour of the natural origin data. 

Many things are "plausible". Even a space rock carrying the virus has been hypothesized as a "plausible hypothesis". That's where the wrong impression is easily picked up. The lab leak theory is entirely political in nature. That alone I honestly think should be a red flag.

There is no evidence the virus came as a result of a natural spillover. It was a hypothesis that was reported by the media as fact. That's why the journalists has accused some of the scientists for misleading the public and the media. 

The three agencies I have discussed here on this thread have found that most likely the virus came from a laboratory accident and not as a result of zoonosis. 

The lab leak hypothesis is not political in nature. That's your own opinion. When the Department of Energy, the US Senate and the FBI conclude it probably came from a laboratory accident in China then they have access to information that most people don't have. Unless you think they are lying (in theory possible) but you need more than your opinion. 

Long before the conclusions by the the US Agencies many scientists have come to the same conclusion and there are published papers on the subject.  Professor Angus Dagleish has written a pair together with other two Danish researchers. At that time it didn't gain the attention it has to gain because the media was busy pushing a hypothesis as fact. 

And no you are wrong the power by a ftw scientists, the proximal origins of SARS-CoV-2, doesn't represent the entire scientific community and not everyone accepts the original hypothesis. And there is no evidence the majority of scientists accept the original hypothesis either. 

So no, you can present your personal opinion but the US Department of Energy, the FBI, the US Senate have concluded the opposite to what you have said. They have zero confidence in the natural spillover hypothesis. 

 

Edited by Zetorian
  • Like 4
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/29/2024 at 5:46 AM, Zetorian said:

There is no evidence the virus came as a result of a natural spillover.

You don't seem to be reading the links I leave you. 

All existing physical evidence and the spread illustrate a natural origin. 

On 3/29/2024 at 5:46 AM, Zetorian said:

It was a hypothesis that was reported by the media as fact.

No that is not true either. It is the most likely conclusion with the gathered data. The media didn't arrive at that conclusion, the combined efforts of the medical and scientific communities came to that conclusion. Politicians introduced the lab leak idea and to this day, it remains entirely speculation.

Check the links. 

On 3/29/2024 at 5:46 AM, Zetorian said:

That's why the journalists has accused some of the scientists for misleading the public and the media.

That's not true though. The public had been given the situation as it stands. Some people are personally attached to the lab leak idea and want to believe it's valid and suppressed. Like any conspiracy theory. 

On 3/29/2024 at 5:46 AM, Zetorian said:

The three agencies I have discussed here on this thread have found that most likely the virus came from a laboratory accident and not as a result of zoonosis. 

No, you obviously didn't read the links. The departments you mentioned have officially evaluated the lab leak idea as low confidence. Christopher Wray at the FBI stands alone on his personal conclusion that the idea has moderate confidence. All agencies still hold the natural origin data in high confidence. Read the links I left you instead of making it up as you go along. 

On 3/29/2024 at 5:46 AM, Zetorian said:

The lab leak hypothesis is not political in nature. That's your own opinion. When the Department of Energy, the US Senate and the FBI conclude it probably came from a laboratory accident in China then they have access to information that most people don't have. Unless you think they are lying (in theory possible) but you need more than your opinion. 

But you're not telling the truth and the above links outright prove that. 

I'm not sure why you are being dishonest about the report. It's simple for anyone to google and see just how wrong you are. 

Go ahead and post any physical information that supports a lab leak. You can't. Because it's an idea first floated by politicians and has become popular I'm conspiracy theory land. On the contrary however, as with the links already left for you,  all physical evidence that exists, and the structure and strain of the virus all point at natural origin. 

On 3/29/2024 at 5:46 AM, Zetorian said:

Long before the conclusions by the the US Agencies many scientists have come to the same conclusion and there are published papers on the subject.

Pure nonsense. 

A few rogue scientists have championed the lab leak idea out of personal preference through political motivation. 

The consensus of both the scientific and medical community always has been, and remains natural origin as the most likely conclusion. 

Feel free to post links to support what you think is true. We can clear up your misconceptions if you like. 

On 3/29/2024 at 5:46 AM, Zetorian said:

  Professor Angus Dagleish has written a pair together with other two Danish researchers. At that time it didn't gain the attention it has to gain because the media was busy pushing a hypothesis as fact. 

Expect the paper doesn't actually state or illustrate that the virus was engineered

 The paper begins with a discussion of how the new coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, came about. The study says that this is an important first step because “mistaken assumptions” about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 “risk creating ineffective or actively harmful vaccines”.

Within this section, the study authors write about data showing that there are “inserted sections placed on the SARS-CoV-2 Spike surface”, which may explain how the virus binds with human cells. The paper in its current published and peer-reviewed form doesn’t say this couldn’t have occurred naturally.

Professor Anne Spurkland, an immunologist from the University of Oslo who was not an author on the paper, told NRK, the Norwegian state broadcaster, that this is not evidence that the virus was man-made. Another vaccine researcher, Gunnveig Grødeland, who was also not involved in the paper, told NRK that these sequences can occur when a virus mutates and are found in other viruses including HIV and other coronaviruses.

HEALTH / CORONAVIRUS A Norwegian-British research paper doesn’t claim the virus causing Covid-19 was man-made

On 3/29/2024 at 5:46 AM, Zetorian said:

And no you are wrong the power by a ftw scientists, the proximal origins of SARS-CoV-2, doesn't represent the entire scientific community and not everyone accepts the original hypothesis. And there is no evidence the majority of scientists accept the original hypothesis either. 

No I'm not wrong. You seem to not want to believe that the science clearly illustrates natural origin. 

Virologists and epidemiologists back natural origin for COVID-19, survey suggests

The report, posted online on Friday, suggests virologists and other scientists with relevant expertise favor the view that the pandemic began when a natural virus jumped from an animal to a human, not because of an accident in a research lab studying or manipulating coronaviruses. 

 

As you can see a survey has been done just for people like yourself who struggle to accept that Covid was a natural origin.

It's the opposite of what social media is spreading. Clearly, that is where your ideas come from. 

On 3/29/2024 at 5:46 AM, Zetorian said:

So no, you can present your personal opinion but the US Department of Energy, the FBI, the US Senate have concluded the opposite to what you have said. They have zero confidence in the natural spillover hypothesis. 

 

That's a lie proven by links above. 

Again, here is another link to print be you are outright lying.

 

DOUCLEFF: Yeah. So I reached out to several of the authors on the science papers that I just described. And they noted several issues with the DOE assessment of what we know. You know, first of all, this low-confidence designation - what it means. And I'm quoting the federal government here. It means the information is, quote, "scant, questionable, fragmented or that solid analytical conclusions cannot be inferred from this information."

CHANG: OK.

DOUCLEFF: Scientists I talked to say this is not conclusive proof that a lab leak is equally as plausible as an animal origin. And right now, we're hearing about secondhand reports of a DOE assessment that was made with low confidence. Scientists tell me that currently that does not negate the large amount of evidence pointing to a natural origin at the seafood market.

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/28/1160157977/u-s-dept-of-energy-says-with-low-confidence-that-covid-may-have-leaked-from-a-la#:~:text=Race-,U.S. Dept of Energy says with 'low confidence' that COVID,natural origin for the virus.

 

 

That is the same information as is in the links I have already left.

You seem to be getting upset about being wrong. I suggest you step back and revisit the correct scientific information regarding Covid and give your political sources a miss. It will only improve your understanding of the situation as it stands factually. Anti vax weirdos and political whackos have clearly led you astray. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 3/27/2024 at 7:14 AM, Oniomancer said:

Anyone care to explain why the US Energy Department of all things is being tapped for this?

DOE is responsible for most of the US government laboratories. So they have expertise in diagnosing labratory issues.

https://www.energy.gov/national-laboratories

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/27/2024 at 3:30 AM, Zetorian said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2024/03/26/new-york-times-donald-mcneil-wuhan-lab-leak-theory/

 

A very interesting story where a former journalist accuses a number of scientists for disinformation arguing the possibility of the virus been engineered in a lab was dropped for almost a year despite the fact that initially scientists knew the lab-leak hypothesis was plausible but didn't want to disclose it for political reasons. 

The former New York Times journalist Mr Donald McNeil argues he was mislead by scientists and he was a victim of deception because the lab-leak hypothesis was seriously considered but the message to the public and the journalists was very different.

The virus SARS-CoV-2 that causes the disease known as Covid-19 was thought to be a result of zoonosis and anyone who argued differently was attacked or sometimes even branded a conspiracy theorist. Various scientists were also attacked for suggesting it could be a result of a lab-leak. 

According to a 302 page Senate report on the origins of the virus, SARS-CoV-2 appeared to originate from a laboratory accident.The report made around a year ago.  

https://www.axios.com/2023/04/17/senate-covid-origins-report-details-lab-leak-theory

 

 

Lots of unproven whatever burger there. what upsets me more than how it started is the glaring proven fact tRump held back crucial information from the American people, he down played or completely ignored safety precautions known to save life's, hit utter incompetency complete and total failure in his so called response to covid cost countless lives.

But of course like with Russia China also has tRump in their pocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are magicians and there are rabbits.

Then there are people who believe a magician when he tells them that he has a rabbit in his hat.

Does the rabbit in the hat exist or not? That is Schroedinger's problem.

It does not need to exist as long as people believe the magician's lie.

So the question is not whether the magician has the rabbit hidden in his sleave or in his hat. The question is why the people believe the magician.

The rabbit was a fairly innocuous common cold virus ffs!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/27/2024 at 3:27 AM, psyche101 said:

Are you referring to the one evaluated by five agencies in the US? The one that considered the lab leak theory with low confidence? 

To be fair Biden asked 18 agencies on thier opinion. 5 replied animal crossover, and two replied lab leak. The other 10, or 11, said theres not enough data to decide.

Of the 7 opinons given, one way or the other, ALL were low confidence, except the FBI (Lab Leak) who claimed medium confidence.

If we blow off "low confidence" opinions, that only leaves the FBIs medium confidence support of a lab leak.

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.