Growing evidence that Wuhan coronavirus orginated in a lab

Let it out.

Lol.

You realize Wuhan is an international hub, right?

Would have been impossible to keep it in.

When you make statements like this it really shows that your entire claim of having special Insider knowledge of the industry is absolutely nothing more than a complete fabrication.

We keep far deadlier strains locked up and level 4 containment facilities all the time and we have for over 60 years.

Quit feeding us BS.

1 Like

If this forum banned the words “racist” and “conspiracy”, 90% of the libertines posting here would have no arguments left.

1 Like

Paul the voice of reason: JayJay, not.

What an observation. You just offended a bunch of people. I heard the saferoom doors slam shut. :rofl::rofl:

WildRose for president, after four more years of Donald Trump and 8 years of Nikki Haley.

1 Like

Yes, I agree that Wuhan is the international hub of Chinese Wuhan Virus. You are 100% right Mr. JayJay.

Good job, Bill. You are rather cautious and conservative in your thoughts and analysis. I think.you are on course. Keep an eye on the liberal currents.

That is until you started sharing some of the notions you picked up on CNN

Maybe how reality works?

Videos and reports of violent protests on a bridge leaving Hubei province with the apparent support of local police:

A number of Hubei police officers appear to have joined the civilian demonstrators in their march toward Jiangxi, and evidently raised few objections when the civilians decided to trash a few Jiangxi police cars and club riot police with their own shields.

Noted Chinese dissident Badiucao heard rumors that the fight broke out because Jiangxi police resisted orders to open the border to Hubei after the coronavirus lockdown officially ended on Wednesday. One reason for their reluctance, according to Badiucao, is that “no one trusts the official numbers” for reduced coronavirus infections in Hubei, not even the police.

These protests came days after President-for-Life Xi Jinping publicly visited Wuhan as a part of official announcements of the end of the epidemic in China:

The people of around Wuhan have been treated like mushrooms for months and have learned to treat government reports with a lot of skepticism.

What would happen if people found out that all the deaths and suffering came as the result of a screw up at a government lab?

Repeatedly saying “I feel good about it”, “Game changer” “The FDA approved it” (they did not) is rhetorical language pimping it out as a cure.

We know such rhetoric works because here you are pushing quinine water as a prophylactic.

Here is a guy in Arizona eating fish tank cleaner.

You, of course, know this.

We said the FDA approved it? The guy eating fish tank cleaner got the Darwin award.

Trump has said that, and Pence has said that.

Yes the Arizona guy gets the Darwin Award.

1 Like

UPDATE:

It is becoming clear to me why the idea of escape from a lab is such a pariah among experts that appear in many media reports. The very experts cited in the media and government have a history of championing, funding, and implementing government-funded research involving gain-of-function research to produce novel viruses that are highly infectious in humans. This history raises serious concerns about the objectivity of experts about the origin of the virus.

Here are three examples of experts who have supported gain-of-function work in the past:

  1. Dr. Adrew Rambaut, co-author of the recent Nature article that dismisses the possible lab origin of the COVID-19 virus. A basic argument in the paper is that the virus could not possibly be the result of genetic engineering:
    "By comparing the available genome sequence data for known coronavirus strains, we can firmly determine that SARS-CoV-2 originated through natural processes"–Kristian Andersen, PhD, corresponding author on the paper.
    COVID-19 coronavirus epidemic has a natural origin -- ScienceDaily

What they failed to mention is that scientists know how to use selective breeding techniques to develop novel viruses that are highly infectious in humans. That should not be a mystery since, back in 2016, Dr. Rambaut supported work to " . . . provide fundamental mechanistic information on how bat CoVs become more pathogenic. A variety of experimental approaches could be used to create such viruses, including animal passage and mutagenesis." Here is a link to the paper:

According to Wikipedia, “Mutagenesis in the laboratory is an important technique whereby DNA mutations are deliberately engineered to produce mutant genes, proteins, or strains of organism.” Animal passage is also known as serial passage. Serial passage is described as “a virus may be grown in one environment, and then part of that virus can be removed and put into a new environment. This process is repeated with as many stages as desired, and then the final product is studied, often in comparison with the original virus.”

  1. Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy] at the University of Minnesota echoed the same argument:
    We could not have crafted a virus like this . . . mother nature does it so much better we can ever do it.
    See video starting 2:30
    Is the Coronavirus a Bioweapon? w/Michael Osterholm | Joe Rogan - YouTube

Again he failed to mention the scientists have perfected techniques for producing random combinations of viruses in animals using serial passage, even though he clearly knows the dangers of the research:

Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, who was a member of the NSABB during the controversy over the H5N1 papers, said he believes the GOF work can be done safely, but he doesn’t agree that scientists doing the federally funded work should be unfettered . . . Osterholm . . .added that some research is needed to answer key questions, such as what it would take for Ebola to become a respiratory virus, findings that would have implications for preparedness.

  1. Anthony Fauci, lead member of the White House Coronavirus Taskforce: He referenced the two 2011 papers describing techniques for developing highly infectious viruses in ferrets in his Washington Post Op-Ed supporting further government funding for this kind of work:

Two recent studies co-funded by the National Institutes of Health have shed light on how this potentially grave human health threat could become a reality. Working carefully with influenza viruses they have engineered in isolated biocontainment laboratories, scientists in Europe and the United States have identified several mechanisms by which the virus might evolve to transmit efficiently in the ferret, the best animal model for human influenza infection . . .
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-flu-virus-risk-worth-taking/2011/12/30/gIQAM9sNRP_story.html

Can we trust the experts to objectively investigate a possible lab origin for COVID-19 coronavirus when they have a history of supporting and/or benefiting from gain-of-function research?

For technical details and review of the Nature article from a blogger whose day job is research scientist at the University of Pittsburgh see:

His opinion is that experts who claim that the virus could not possibly have been produced in a lab are lying; their own papers and public statements show that they are very familiar with production of new and dangerous viruses using a wide variety of laboratory techniques.

My opinion is that the video is basically right; the experts who dismiss the possibility of a lab origin are providing grossly misleading information and omitting key facts from consideration.

1 Like

JC on a bike may be a smart guy and trained in neurobiology, but he is also deep into NWO conspiracy theories that taint his worldview pretty hard.

Yes, he has some political views I don’t agree with.

As another example, he mentions support of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in another video.

My opinion is that incompetence and the natural tendency to hide embarrassing information are more likely explanations of the epidemic than some vast global conspiracy to take away freedoms. On the other hand, I have no doubt that some governments will attempt to take advantage of the emergency powers used to fight the epidemic long after the current emergency is over.

I don’t disregard the last part. We can see that happening in Hungary.

But… I tend to take people with beliefs in grand conspiracies with a grain of salt.

The bolded is most definitely true.

I get being angry at China for suppressing how serious the virus was and they should definitely be held to account for what they did.

I guarantee you though that had this virus originated in the United States our government would have attempted to downplay its seriousness as long as possible. Would have been harder to do that here but I guarantee you they would have tried.

Also despite 30 years of the CEC hammering away at this idea that an authoritarian government takeover is imminent in the US, especially if we let “the Libs win”, we are not, in fact, in danger of that happening just because state governments are enacting shelter in place orders and having non-essential businesses shut down.

This is a playbook that is at least 100 years old in the United States, and actually goes back through most of human history whenever a very contagious disease that causes serious illness in a small but significant portion of the population breaks out, until such time as we can “get it under control”.

And it’s never been used as a means for the government to seize more permanent power.

Basically what he is saying is that a lab origin is entirely possible using well documented techniques. That does not prove a lab origin, but it certainly disproves assertions from some experts that a lab origin is impossible. I agree his basic analysis.

His background is in neurobiology, not virology, but he certainly seems to understand the literature related to development of new viruses. My concern is that the experts who are most familiar with science are also the same people who have interests in downplaying the likelihood that COVID-19 came from a lab. Given that situation, we may have to rely on scientists whose background is not directly in the field to cut through the BS.