Coronavirus

[One Brow]

At the moment in 2021 or right now? The answer for both is I never believed it. But that’s me. If you read it or watched it people could absolutely take it as an absolute statement.

People can take almost anything out of almost any statement. Most reasonable people realized this was not intended as an absolute statement.

Not the same example. This is guesstimating.

Within the same interview. To insist that one paragrpah is attempting precision, while two paragraphs later is guesstimating, does not seem like a reasonable position to me. YMMV.

... yet you didn’t provide the actual facts from each of the cases to make it look like I wasn’t being truthful. There is a difference in what I did and what you just did.

I don't think you were being untruthful in the discussion of classified files cases (perhaps suffering from confirmation bias a little). I asked for a specific example, and the examples you offered didn't quite fit, but I never thought you intended deceit.

I have already talked about this topic ad nauseam, so I will bow out with a Bill Bur clip. I think it goes well with this post.

I really don't want to discuss everything wrong with clip at this point. Maybe another day.

 

[Bucknutz]

I really don't want to discuss everything wrong with clip at this point. Maybe another day.

Please don’t, it’s not for dissecting. It’s for humor.

 

[Red]

Here’s hoping this does not become the next one…

The Bird Flu Outbreak Has Taken an Ominous Turn

The avian flu has killed millions of chickens, decimated wild birds—and moved into mammals. Now the poultry industry needs new measures to stop its spread.

www.wired.com

“To be clear, this does not yet include people. Although past decades have witnessed bird flu outbreaks that spread to humans, only two cases have been identified in the past 12 months: a Colorado adult last May, and a 9-year-old girl in Ecuador in January. (Neither died.) And there’s no evidence yet that the virus has been able to jump from newly infected mammals to people. But the fact that it was transmitted from bird to mammals, and then spread among them, indicates a disquieting trend.”

Bird flu alarm drives world towards once-shunned vaccines

More governments around the world are reconsidering their opposition to vaccines as culling birds or locking them inside has failed to prevent bird flu.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Bucknutz]

So another agency believes it was a lab leak. With low confidence.


View: https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1629814630259343362?s=12


The FBI believes it was a lab leak with moderate confidence. NIC believes it was a lab leak with low confidence. Just waiting on the CIA now.

 

[SteakNEggs]

So another agency believes it was a lab leak. With low confidence.


View: https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1629814630259343362?s=12


The FBI believes it was a lab leak with moderate confidence. NIC believes it was a lab leak with low confidence. Just waiting on the CIA now.

It's not rocket science. As I've always said, a once in a century plus virus randomly showing up at a market that was 100's of feet from a lab that basically gave mice human lungs so they could infect them with a coronavirus from bats is near impossible. The fact that this is just coincidence... literally hundreds of feet, is near absolute zero. Especially with the lax safety measures where these Drs were only forced to wear lab coats and safety glasses.

Fauci funded this research btw. What are the astronomical chances on that? Especially as he was insistent at first outbreak that it didn't come from his funded projects and we have emails that he wanted the theory gone to other scientists.

 

[One Brow]

So another agency believes it was a lab leak. With low confidence.


The FBI believes it was a lab leak with moderate confidence. NIC believes it was a lab leak with low confidence. Just waiting on the CIA now.

I'm just waiting for the Departments of the Interior, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development to weigh in.

 

[Bucknutz]

I'm just waiting for the Departments of the Interior, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development to weigh in.

Not sure if you’re being sarcastic or ignorant. Either way you bring no additional info, data or value to the conversation.

 

[One Brow]

Not sure if you’re being sarcastic or ignorant. Either way you bring no additional info, data or value to the conversation.

Sarcastic. The WSJ brought no additional information, value, or data to the conversation, and the fact that you thought they did reflects poorly on you. The Department of Energy has no significant expertise in intelligence, nor in epidemiology, and nor in virology. If the CIA, CDC, or NIH had said this, it would be newsworthy.

 

[Bucknutz]

Sarcastic. The WSJ brought no additional information, value, or data to the conversation, and the fact that you thought they did reflects poorly on you. The Department of Energy has no significant expertise in intelligence, nor in epidemiology, and nor in virology. If the CIA, CDC, or NIH had said this, it would be newsworthy.

You obviously didn’t read the article. Again you’re very dismissive when it goes against your beliefs. You’re one of the people on this board who shouted down others who brought the lab leak opinion before.

Maybe you will listen to someone on the left explain D of Energy’s involvement.


View: https://twitter.com/edkrassen/status/1629867956371968003?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ


But keep dismissing.

 

[SteakNEggs]

We haven't found a single animal in Wuhan that had this virus or where it came from. Why not?

 

[One Brow]

You obviously didn’t read the article.

The WSJ has a paywall, and you certainly didn't summarize any evidence. Other articles referred to an updated, internal memo that we have no details about.

Again you’re very dismissive when it goes against your beliefs. You’re one of the people on this board who shouted down others who brought the lab leak opinion before.

Any shouting is in your own mind, and your characterization here offers no evidence that the DoE is a reliable source for this type of information.

Maybe you will listen to someone on the left explain D of Energy’s involvement.

Which part of that tweet said the DoE has the expertise in intelligence, epidemiology, or virology to come to an informed conclusion?

But keep dismissing.

I set a standard, but you're too busy feeling persecuted to notice, AFAICT.

 

[One Brow]

We haven't found a single animal in Wuhan that had this virus or where it came from. Why not?

It took 7 years to locate the source of swine flu (it was in Mexico), so I'm going with "we haven't had enough time or cooperation from the Chinese".

 

[SteakNEggs]

It took 7 years to locate the source of swine flu (it was in Mexico), so I'm going with "we haven't had enough time or cooperation from the Chinese".

Ok... So we still don't really know where it came from. How can you be so insistent that it didn't come from a lab? Why is this such a no no to even bring up? If we are being honest, we would not try to sweep a very prominent theory under the rug. We should pursue all angles. As Buck pointed out... There are more and more and more people coming out thinking it's a possibility. The only reason to push this under the rug and not even give it thought is to hide something.

 

[Bucknutz]

The WSJ has a paywall, and you certainly didn't summarize any evidence. Other articles referred to an updated, internal memo that we have no details about.

You put forth no effort. It's easy to read any article that's online for free. There ya go.

https://archive.ph/2023.02.26-120226/https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a

Any shouting is in your own mind

This took about 5 mins to look up. Here are 3 examples of you shouting down someone. I define shouting down when you let the another person know they are wrong on the topic with out any information or evidence. You do this all the time. You put no effort in to debate just twisting words and shouting down.

, and your characterization here offers no evidence that the DoE is a reliable source for this type of information.


Which part of that tweet said the DoE has the expertise in intelligence, epidemiology, or virology to come to an informed conclusion?

From the article:
"The Energy Department’s conclusion is the result of new intelligence and is significant because the agency has considerable scientific expertise and oversees a network of U.S. national laboratories, some of which conduct advanced biological research."

Wow, you formed an opinion about D of Energy without doing any research, just because it goes against your belief. Again this is why you are so dismissive, you don't put the effort to actually research topics.

I set a standard, but you're too busy feeling persecuted to notice, AFAICT.

As you can see above, your standard is low. Not worth debating or discussing because you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

[One Brow]

Ok... So we still don't really know where it came from. How can you be so insistent that it didn't come from a lab?

To my understanding, the internal evidence from the virus shows no evidence of genetic tampering, while we would expect a lab-engineered virus to show some sign of that. If that turns out to be wrong, I'll change my mind.

Why is this such a no no to even bring up?

Disagreement is not censorship.

We should pursue all angles.

I agree.

 

[One Brow]

You put forth no effort. It's easy to read any article that's online for free. There ya go.

You bypassed a paywall by going to the web archive. Still, since you made the effort, I looked at the article for why the DoE assessment was newsworthy. I found this:

The Energy Department’s conclusion is the result of new intelligence and is significant because the agency has considerable scientific expertise and oversees a network of U.S. national laboratories, some of which conduct advanced biological research.

Which had me wondering what the DoE was overseeing?

Biological and Environmental Research

Homepage for Biological and Environmental Research

www.energy.gov

Nothing about epidemiology or virology. Again, why is their assessment newsworthy? When the CIA talks about where the intelligence leads, or the CDC about epidemiology, or the NIH about virology, that will be newsworthy.

Origins of Coronaviruses

Research evidence suggests that SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV originated in bats. SARS-CoV then spread from infected civets to people, while MERS-CoV spreads from infected dromedary camels to people. To date, the origin of SARS-CoV-2 which caused the COVID-19 pandemic has not been identified.

www.niaid.nih.gov

The scientific evidence thus far suggests that SARS-CoV-2 likely resulted from viral evolution in nature and jumped to people or through some unidentified animal host. Public health and scientific organizations are engaged in a continued international effort to uncover the origins of SARS-CoV-2, which is essential to preventing future pandemics.

When the science changes, or is outweighed by firm intelligence saying otherwise, I'll change my mind.

I define shouting down when you let the another person know they are wrong on the topic with out any information or evidence.

Perhaps the definition has changed, but I operated under the understanding that shouting was ALL CAPS TYPING. I appreciate you sharing what you mean.

You'll note that all of your examples involve JazzyFresh. Think there might be a reason for that?

Wow, you formed an opinion about D of Energy without doing any research, just because it goes against your belief.

Now that your aware there biological research has nothing to do with epidemiology or virology, would you care to rethink this?

 

[Bucknutz]

You bypassed a paywall by going to the web archive. Still, since you made the effort, I looked at the article for why the DoE assessment was newsworthy. I found this:



Which had me wondering what the DoE was overseeing?

Biological and Environmental Research

Homepage for Biological and Environmental Research

www.energy.gov

Nothing about epidemiology or virology. Again, why is their assessment newsworthy? When the CIA talks about where the intelligence leads, or the CDC about epidemiology, or the NIH about virology, that will be newsworthy.

Origins of Coronaviruses

Research evidence suggests that SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV originated in bats. SARS-CoV then spread from infected civets to people, while MERS-CoV spreads from infected dromedary camels to people. To date, the origin of SARS-CoV-2 which caused the COVID-19 pandemic has not been identified.

www.niaid.nih.gov

When the science changes, or is outweighed by firm intelligence saying otherwise, I'll change my mind.


Perhaps the definition has changed, but I operated under the understanding that shouting was ALL CAPS TYPING. I appreciate you sharing what you mean.

You'll note that all of your examples involve JazzyFresh. Think there might be a reason for that?


Now that your aware there biological research has nothing to do with epidemiology or virology, would you care to rethink this?

You literally put forth no effort.

Both wrong again.

DOE Resources Supporting Coronav... | U.S. DOE Office of Science(SC)

DOE provides research funding and resources to National Laboratories and academic institutions for a broad range of scientific disciplines including epidemiology and genomic-related research. These areas of research support the development of new technologies, generation of datasets, and...

science.osti.gov

Comprehensive Epidemiologic Data Resource (CEDR)

oriseapps.orau.gov

 

[One Brow]

You literally put forth no effort.

Minor effort. Since you insist, I'll put some effort into this post.

Both wrong again.

Really, you don't seem to understand what you linked to.

DOE Resources Supporting Coronav... | U.S. DOE Office of Science(SC)

DOE provides research funding and resources to National Laboratories and academic institutions for a broad range of scientific disciplines including epidemiology and genomic-related research. These areas of research support the development of new technologies, generation of datasets, and...

science.osti.gov

This page says that they fund research, not interpret it.

DOE and Public Health Research Disciplines

DOE provides research funding and resources to National Laboratories and academic institutions for a broad range of scientific disciplines including genomic-related research, structural characterization of biomolecules and computational modelling of biological systems.

Still, maybe they interpret the research. Let's look at the specialties of the lead scientist on the first ten papers under "COV and Virus":

1. Babek, Andi -- Beamline scientist
2. Paranthaman, Mariappan Parans -- Chemical sciences
3. Mallick, Sourav -- Electrochemical energy storage
4. Dommer, Abigail -- Chemistry
5. Pallares, Roger M. -- Radiopharmaceuticals
6., 7. McGill, Joseph R. -- Computational immunology, statistics
8. Farley, Scotland E. -- Graduate student in the study of lipoproteins and covid
9. Velappan, Nileena -- Antibody engineering, epidemiology
10. Kneller, Daniel W. -- Protein structural biologist and biochemist

Exactly one in epidemiology, so if she was working on covid origins (she was not), she would be qualified. No virologists (again, the category was "COV and Virus"). This is not a surprise, because it's the DoE, not the NIH, and their research would be supplemental to covid studies (though no less important for that).

Comprehensive Epidemiologic Data Resource (CEDR)

oriseapps.orau.gov

The mission statement says it all.

Mission​

To enhance DOE's epidemiologic research program by facilitating independent access and use of data collected during studies of the health impacts associated with working at or living near DOE facilities or operations.

The sharing of these data through CEDR supports the spirit of openness in government and the Secretary of Energy's initiative to make environmental, safety, and health information available to all stakeholders

Don't worry, until you ask me to stop, I'll be happy to subject of your comments to this level of scrutiny. You have earned it.

 

[Douchebag K]

Something else for One Brow to deny and again display how far behind he is on this topic. Your government's view, not mine

Covid-19 likely came from lab leak, says news report citing US energy department

Updated finding comes with ‘low confidence’ and is a departure from previous studies on how virus emerged, Wall Street Journal reports

www.theguardian.com

 

[Bucknutz]

Minor effort. Since you insist, I'll put some effort into this post.

Finally effort

Really, you don't seem to understand what you linked to.

I do.

Still, maybe they interpret the research. Let's look at the specialties of the lead scientist on the first ten papers under "COV and Virus":

1. Babek, Andi -- Beamline scientist
2. Paranthaman, Mariappan Parans -- Chemical sciences
3. Mallick, Sourav -- Electrochemical energy storage
4. Dommer, Abigail -- Chemistry
5. Pallares, Roger M. -- Radiopharmaceuticals
6., 7. McGill, Joseph R. -- Computational immunology, statistics
8. Farley, Scotland E. -- Graduate student in the study of lipoproteins and covid
9. Velappan, Nileena -- Antibody engineering, epidemiology
10. Kneller, Daniel W. -- Protein structural biologist and biochemist

Exactly one in epidemiology, so if she was working on covid origins (she was not), she would be qualified. No virologists (again, the category was "COV and Virus"). This is not a surprise, because it's the DoE, not the NIH, and their research would be supplemental to covid studies (though no less important for that).

10…out of 909 under Covid. Under Virus 25,513 papers.

Maybe they do more with Viruses than you think. But keep digging and keep proving my point.
You just looked dumb stating opinions with no knowledge on the subject.

Don't worry, until you ask me to stop, I'll be happy to subject of your comments to this level of scrutiny. You have earned it.

You have no credibility. Your opinion and scrutiny has no value.