Coronavirus

[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.

 

[FalseFlagg 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.

 

[One Brow]

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

We've been talking about that for the last 7-8 posts. Thank you for mentioning how far behind I am.

 

[One Brow]

Finally effort

I do.

Yet, you show no signs of it.

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

Of which how many have you gone through, and found a virologist was the lead scientist? I looked over the papers and the specialties of the leads. You just lazily provided some links and counts, with no attempts at interpretation, no interest in what they were testing, and no apparent ability to process what you linked to. Perhaps you talk of laziness is projection.

Maybe they do more with Viruses than you think.

If you had bothered to look at the papers I referred to, you would have seen that they all involved work on viruses.

But keep digging and keep proving my point.

Perhaps I should, because you keep proving mine.

You just looked dumb stating opinions with no knowledge on the subject.

Except, my opinions turned out to accurately summarize the qualifications of the researchers at the DoE, and you looked like you didn't understand the papers you referred to or the specialties of the lead authors. How would you think a beamline scientist would be an expert in virology or epidemiology?

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

I would expect not, because despite your pretensions, you have no interest in uncovering truth. You're seeking to have your preconceptions confirmed. You complain about others doing research, without taking the time to truly delve into your links and comprehend what they are saying. I would be disappointed if you thought me credible.

 

[One Brow]

I did some thinking last night, and I realized I have been making a false association. Early on, so many people were combining the "genetic engineered" hypothesis and the "lab leak" hypothesis, that I have been associating those views this whole time. Since the virus shows no sign of being altered, I interpreted that as evidence against a lab leak. However, that was an error on my part. It's certainly possible that a lab studying a wild virus could have a leak, and you would not be able to tell from the virus itself whether it came from a civet or a human in a lab. I'll be more careful about separating these possibilities in the future.

 

[LogGrad98]

The thing I wonder is why it matters so much if it were a lab leak or a wild virus? I get the conspiracy theory part, that "the man" is out to get us all the time so we have to keep an eye on "the man", for some reason since keeping an eye on "the man", and catching "them" in the act let's us protect ourselves from "the man", something something because of reasons and things. But we cannot pretend that all Right and Good people never do viral research and that all Bad and Evil people do all the viral research. Viral research is an important component of developing vaccines and other mitigations for disease. Not sure what inciting a panic over a lab-leaked virus would serve.

 

[SteakNEggs]

The thing I wonder is why it matters so much if it were a lab leak or a wild virus? I get the conspiracy theory part, that "the man" is out to get us all the time so we have to keep an eye on "the man", for some reason since keeping an eye on "the man", and catching "them" in the act let's us protect ourselves from "the man", something something because of reasons and things. But we cannot pretend that all Right and Good people never do viral research and that all Bad and Evil people do all the viral research. Viral research is an important component of developing vaccines and other mitigations for disease. Not sure what inciting a panic over a lab-leaked virus would serve.

The only ones panicking are the ones trying to sweep the lab leak theory under the rug. Why are they so adamant on not addressing this and hiding this? That's the concern. If it was a lab leak and Fauci funded it and lied that pretty substantial. Him funding research that killed millions? I'm curious how is that not extremely important if(IF)true?

There's a faction adamantly trying to silence this... Fauci was and is one of them though he's now saying it's a possibility finally. Why? All options should be on the table not silenced like Fauci tried to do(read Faucis emails). Is it because he paid for the gain of function research where they mutated mice to basically have human lungs? I dunno but the way he's trying to hide it is and has been sketchy.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

The thing I wonder is why it matters so much if it were a lab leak or a wild virus? I get the conspiracy theory part, that "the man" is out to get us all the time so we have to keep an eye on "the man", for some reason since keeping an eye on "the man", and catching "them" in the act let's us protect ourselves from "the man", something something because of reasons and things. But we cannot pretend that all Right and Good people never do viral research and that all Bad and Evil people do all the viral research. Viral research is an important component of developing vaccines and other mitigations for disease. Not sure what inciting a panic over a lab-leaked virus would serve.

It is because we as a society should be able to address threats, and we did, and we established protections from a particular threat, and those protections were circumvented with millions of people losing their lives as a consequence.

The science that likely created the novel coronavirus was banned in the United States for being too dangerous. We created the tools. We created the techniques used. We are the source of funding. The machines that created the novel coronavirus were located in Wuhan, but they were American-made machines located in lab owned by an American company who had opened a satellite office to rake in money that originated from American grants flowing to a part of the world friendlier to looking the other way.

The reason why it matters so much if this is a lab leak or a wild virus is because if this is the result of a lab leak then we obviously need to strengthen the prohibitions that were too easily skirted by those intent on doing this type of potentially pandemic-causing science.

 

[One Brow]

If it was a lab leak and Fauci funded it and lied that pretty substantial. Him funding research that killed millions? I'm curious how is that not extremely important if(IF)true?

The science that likely created the novel coronavirus was banned in the United States for being too dangerous. ...

The reason why it matters so much if this is a lab leak or a wild virus is because if this is the result of a lab leak then we obviously need to strengthen the prohibitions that were too easily skirted by those intent on doing this type of potentially pandemic-causing science.

See, these are the types of posts that I referred to earlier. Whether the virus leaked from a lab (possible, but there is no good intelligence or evidence that it did) is being conflated with "Fauci funded it" and "created the novel coronavirus", both of which we have ample evidence are false, via several analyses of the virus itself.

Beau of the Fifth column discusses what it means to have "low confidence" in the lab leak hypothesis:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8jxjNKvxrI

 

[Al-O-Meter]

See, these are the types of posts that I referred to earlier. Whether the virus leaked from a lab (possible, but there is no good intelligence or evidence that it did) is being conflated with "Fauci funded it" and "created the novel coronavirus", both of which we have ample evidence are false, via several analyses of the virus itself.

You are missing the point. LogGrad98 is making a case that we shouldn't even be asking the question. We shouldn't investigate. We shouldn't do studies because it doesn't matter. I disagree with that. I fully support our efforts to learn what we can about where this virus originated.