Pandemic started in a lab:

[probinson]

So far, the majority scientific view remains a natural origin.

I'm not sure I'd rely on "majority" or perceived "consensus". Much of the "majority" response to COVID was nonsensical garbage. Just because the majority agrees does not make them correct, as we've seen all throughout the pandemic.

 

[probinson]

The GOP made it a partisan issue.

Oh please. Most politicians of all parties are little more than opportunist liars. This has been politicized by both republicans and democrats from day one.

By the way, did you know that NOT ONE raccoon dog has been found to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 naturally in the last three years? Fun facts that were probably not prominent (if mentioned at all) in the articles you cited for that claim.

 

[probinson]

Ultimately, it's a scientific question.

Whether or not Fauci and crew funded GoF research on coronaviruses at WiV is not a "scientific question". It's a simple question with a simple answer. They either continued to fund this dangerous research or they didn't. And why were five GoF projects permitted to continue even during the "pause" of funding for GoF research (that Collins said they never funded in the first place)? Also, not a "scientific question". Why were they deemed "urgently necessary"? Who made the decision to exempt those studies? What specifically were those studies doing, and what portion of them were funded by the NIH?

None of those are "scientific questions".

 

[Say it aint so]

This is a non-answer.

Are we allowed to make any inferences? You do know that an inference is defined as "a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning", right?

No one knows if SARS-CoV-2 originated at WiV, that much is true. But shouldn't we want to find out? And if there is evidence of Fauci and Collins going to great lengths to censor discussion of the potential of a lab-leak, isn't that even a teensy bit suspicious to you? And if not a congressional hearing, then how can we arrive at the truth?

Oh yes, you can make all the inferences (<-that's a link) in the world. The conclusion that of all the epidemiologists in the world, these two in particular in the US in your view are trying to hide things, means despite what every other epidemiologist may think, that means the lab leak is the inferred source. Again, nothing is being ruled out, but there is not enough there to be making a lab leak inference.

So how do they find out? I don't know, maybe using the same tools they have used in the past to determine origins. You sure won't get it from an unhinged congressional hearing.

 

[probinson]

Oh yes, you can make all the inferences (<-that's a link) in the world.

I find it amusing that you're showing me how to post a link when my posts are replete with links, images, and sources.

The conclusion that of all the epidemiologists in the world, these two in particular in the US in your view are trying to hide things, means despite what every other epidemiologist may think, that means the lab leak is the inferred source.

Who are these "every other epidemiologist(s)" that you're referencing? Sounds suspiciously like hyperbole or a bandwagon fallacy. Do you have any sources you can provide?

Again, nothing is being ruled out, but there is not enough there to be making a lab leak inference.

It's a quite plausible inference.

But you still haven't yet said how we can arrive at the truth. You said that a congressional hearing isn't the way to go, so how do we investigate this to get to the truth?

 

[Say it aint so]

I find it amusing that you're showing me how to post a link when my posts are replete with links, images, and sources.



Who are these "every other epidemiologist(s)" that you're referencing? Sounds suspiciously like hyperbole or a bandwagon fallacy. Do you have any sources you can provide?



It's a quite plausible inference.

But you still haven't yet said how we can arrive at the truth. You said that a congressional hearing isn't the way to go, so how do we investigate this to get to the truth?

So how do they find out? I don't know, maybe using the same tools they have used in the past to determine origins. You sure won't get it from an unhinged congressional hearing.

 

[probinson]

So how do they find out? I don't know, maybe using the same tools they have used in the past to determine origins.

What are those tools?

You sure won't get it from an unhinged congressional hearing.

But what if there is evidence, like we're seeing emerging from the FOIA requests? Is that applicable at all? Are emails, phone calls, text messages and other communications fair game in determining not only if the origin of the virus was because it was engineered in a lab, but also in understanding why Fauci and Collins sought to cover that up and classify anyone who speculated that it may have come from a lab as a conspiracy theorist?

See, you're saying that no one is ruling out the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered in a lab, and that's true... NOW. But you have a very short memory if you think that has always been the case. Social media companies censored any discussion that posited the lab-leak theory (at the behest of the government), and the media coalesced around calling people crank conspiracy theorists just a few short years ago if they suggested a lab-leak could have happened.

Why? Why was it such a taboo subject to even discuss? Everyone is pretending like this has always been one of many possibilities and treated as such, but you're engaging in some serious revisionist history if you're pretending like it has always been acceptable to discuss the lab-leak theory as a plausible explanation. Heck, there are threads on this very forum that got moved to the "Conspiracy Theories" forum just for suggesting that a lab-leak was possible. In fact, one such thread was moved to the conspiracy theories forum just a little over ONE MONTH AGO.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Whether or not Fauci and crew funded GoF research on coronaviruses at WiV is not a "scientific question".

The answer gets us no closer to the origin of COVID-19.

And why were five

The answer gets us no closer to the origin of COVID-19.

Why were they deemed "urgently necessary"?

The answer gets us no closer to the origin of COVID-19.

Who made the decision to exempt those studies?

The answer gets us no closer to the origin of COVID-19.

What specifically were those studies doing,

The answer gets us no closer to the origin of COVID-19.

and what portion of them were funded by the NIH?

The answer gets us no closer to the origin of COVID-19.

 

[Say it aint so]

What are those tools?



But what if there is evidence, like we're seeing emerging from the FOIA requests? Is that applicable at all? Are emails, phone calls, text messages and other communications fair game in determining not only if the origin of the virus was because it was engineered in a lab, but also in understanding why Fauci and Collins sought to cover that up and classify anyone who speculated that it may have come from a lab as a conspiracy theorist?

See, you're saying that no one is ruling out the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered in a lab, and that's true... NOW. But you have a very short memory if you think that has always been the case. Social media companies censored any discussion that posited the lab-leak theory (at the behest of the government), and the media coalesced around calling people crank conspiracy theorists just a few short years ago if they suggested a lab-leak could have happened.

Why? Why was it such a taboo subject to even discuss? Everyone is pretending like this has always been one of many possibilities and treated as such, but you're engaging in some serious revisionist history if you're pretending like it has always been acceptable to discuss the lab-leak theory as a plausible explanation. Heck, there are threads on this very forum that got moved to the "Conspiracy Theories" forum just for suggesting that a lab-leak was possible. In fact, one such thread was moved to the conspiracy theories forum just a little over ONE MONTH AGO.

Science and science research of origins is how. That's what is always used. Yes those congressional tools would have been fine before the tone of congressional hearings changed. It's not about fact finding anymore...at all.

 

[stevil]

What on earth has Trump to do with where the virus came from?

You are so insulting. You know we all have our own thoughts on these matters. I don't even remember Trump saying it came from the lab.

Oh, really? I find that hard to believe.

Do you remember who the president of USA was when the global pandemic hit?
There was some old guy muttering in front of the cameras that it was just like the flu, and that kids were immune and that just like a miracle it would go away. He said that Xi was doing a fantastic job controlling the outbreak.
At the same time, when the camera's weren't rolling he was telling Bob Woodward that the virus is deadly, and is also deadly to children.

He also got up on stage at the pandemic task force briefing and right after the task force told people that they should wear masks, this old man got to the podium and said that he wouldn't be wearing a mask.
Then when the task force talked about treatments that were under investigation, this old guy started promoting HCQ, but Faucci had to walk that back, saying it was still unproven but under investigation.
The old guy later went on to blabber about investigating injecting disinfectant into people, or somehow putting light inside the body, which had the scientists on the task force squirming uncomfortably.

Well this same old guy said that this is the CHINA virus (even though it is called the Carona virus), and he went on to say it was a Wuhan lab leak (even though there was no evidence to suggest this.

Now this old guy is declaring that he was right back then (even though, there is still inconclusive evidence regarding the origins)

 

[stevil]

No one knows if SARS-CoV-2 originated at WiV, that much is true. But shouldn't we want to find out?

Yes, people should be investigating how the pandemic started.

And if there is evidence of Fauci and Collins going to great lengths to censor discussion of the potential of a lab-leak, isn't that even a teensy bit suspicious to you? And if not a congressional hearing, then how can we arrive at the truth?

No, it's not suspicious.
When I've seen Fauci talk, he doesn't typically speak in terms of certainty. He almost always talks about probabilities and likelihoods etc.
Fauci had an official capacity on the task force. He was getting all sorts of information from all sorts of sources.. It was his job to verify information and to present it to the task force and to us, when he had done his initial levels of due diligence.
It wasn't his duty to simply pass on rumours.
Anyone can spread rumours.
Fauci isn't just anyone. he is a highly skilled, highly experienced scientist and he was employed into his position for his skills not for an ability to spread gossip.

 

[stevil]

As emails obtained from Freedom of Information requests revealed, Fauci arranged the call just days after receiving an email from Andersen expressing concerns he shared with several other prominent virologists that parts of the virus looked engineered. Andersen wrote that he and a few fellow researchers “all find the [SARS-CoV-2] genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”​

So Kristian Andersen emails Fauci and tells him that he and his fellow researchers all find the SARS-CoV-2 genome inconsistent with evolutionary theory and that it looks engineered.

I remember this whole saga. It is really sad that MAGA right wingers are still clinging to this.

Fauci's job was to assess the veracity of claims rather than to simply pass all claims onto the media.
These scientists came to Fauci with this claim as above. Fauci asked them to do some more investigation, which they did, and came back with a retraction when they found that the parts that they previously thought engineered had been found previously in nature.

 

[DaisyDay]

Oh please. Most politicians of all parties are little more than opportunist liars.

Not gonna argue that one.

This has been politicized by both republicans and democrats from day one.

Not really. It could have been either party that went the partisan route to embrace anti-government contrarianism, but it was the GOP what did.

By the way, did you know that NOT ONE raccoon dog has been found to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 naturally in the last three years? Fun facts that were probably not prominent (if mentioned at all) in the articles you cited for that claim.

How many were tested?

 

[rjs330]

Oh, really? I find that hard to believe.

Do you remember who the president of USA was when the global pandemic hit?
There was some old guy muttering in front of the cameras that it was just like the flu, and that kids were immune and that just like a miracle it would go away. He said that Xi was doing a fantastic job controlling the outbreak.
At the same time, when the camera's weren't rolling he was telling Bob Woodward that the virus is deadly, and is also deadly to children.

He also got up on stage at the pandemic task force briefing and right after the task force told people that they should wear masks, this old man got to the podium and said that he wouldn't be wearing a mask.
Then when the task force talked about treatments that were under investigation, this old guy started promoting HCQ, but Faucci had to walk that back, saying it was still unproven but under investigation.
The old guy later went on to blabber about investigating injecting disinfectant into people, or somehow putting light inside the body, which had the scientists on the task force squirming uncomfortably.

Well this same old guy said that this is the CHINA virus (even though it is called the Carona virus), and he went on to say it was a Wuhan lab leak (even though there was no evidence to suggest this.

Now this old guy is declaring that he was right back then (even though, there is still inconclusive evidence regarding the origins)

Post all you want. I didn't remember him saying it came from the lab. My thoughts are my own.

 

[stevil]

Post all you want. I didn't remember him saying it came from the lab. My thoughts are my own.

Yeah, well, your thoughts might be your own. But the facts are the facts, regardless of your thoughts.

If you want your thoughts aligned with reality then it makes sense to align them with the facts.
If you are proven wrong when someone shows you the facts, the honorable thing to do is to realign your new thoughts with the now known facts.

Today, Trump claims that he said all along that the origins was a lab leak.
Some people are now claiming that the evidence suggests it was a lab leak, but this is disputed by many others.
Even now, there doesn't seem to be supporting evidence of a lab leak, certainly no evidence that has been made public.

But especially when Trump was claiming it to be a lab leak, there was definitely no supporting evidence of that claim back then.
Unless you think Trump is some kind of "Prophet" being given special and private unknowable knowledge that noone else has access to, then you ought to recognise that Trump was making unsupported claims.

 

[whatbogsends]

The GOP made it a partisan issue.

That's an outright falsehood.

It became a partisan issue when Democrats aligned behind the skewed "Proximal Origins" Lancet article which was intended to shut down debate on the origin of Covid. The authors of this article had initially thought that the virus looked "potentially engineered" and "inconsistent with expectations of evolutionary biology".

Yet, within 3 days of a team of scientists (Andersen and Holmes among them) emailing Fauci with this concerning revelation, Andersen used the phrase "crackpot theory" to describe lab leak and likened it to "conspiracy theory" in Proximal Origins.

Tell me, when was the last time you called an assessment that you and several of your colleagues had 72 hours prior "crackpot" (or crazy, or what have you)? FOIA emails show that the _intent_ of Proximal Origins was to put the issue to rest.

Before publication, the article was sent to Fauci for his personal review. When he presented it to the public, he spoke as if he had just heard of the article upon its release.

 

[whatbogsends]

I remember this whole saga. It is really sad that MAGA right wingers are still clinging to this.

Fauci's job was to assess the veracity of claims rather than to simply pass all claims onto the media.
These scientists came to Fauci with this claim as above. Fauci asked them to do some more investigation, which they did, and came back with a retraction when they found that the parts that they previously thought engineered had been found previously in nature.

Wrong.

They didn't do a "retraction". They emailed Fauci privately saying they thought it looked engineered. Their first statement to the public was that it was "conspiracy theory" to think it came from a lab.

Andersen and Holmes have never, despite multiple interviews on the topic, explained 1) what made them and their team think it was engineered/inconsistent with evolutionary theory or 2) what evidence they discovered which changed their mind. Of course, there was only a 72-hour window for that evidence to having been discovered, as within 72 hours of saying "this looks engineered", Andersen said lab leak was "crackpot theory".

Not MAGA, never was. That you cling to false narratives and continue to pretend that Fauci is a man of character and integrity despite a long list of documented lies these last few years tells me all I need to know.

 

[probinson]

I remember this whole saga. It is really sad that MAGA right wingers are still clinging to this.

Thank you for clearly demonstrating who is politicizing this discussion.

 

[probinson]

The answer gets us no closer to the origin of COVID-19.

The answer gets us no closer to the origin of COVID-19.

The answer gets us no closer to the origin of COVID-19.

The answer gets us no closer to the origin of COVID-19.

The answer gets us no closer to the origin of COVID-19.

The answer gets us no closer to the origin of COVID-19.

Insightful.

You're also completely wrong. If Fauci and Collins did in fact work together to cover-up the lab-leak hypothesis, then the obvious question is what motive would they have to do so? And this leads us to speculate that it could be because they knew that they were funding research at WiV on coronaviruses strikingly similar to SARS-CoV-2. And if you pull at that thread, you may possibly find that the research that the NIH was funding at WiV led to the engineer and inadvertent release of SARS-CoV-2. Which would be a plausible explanation for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and look really, really bad for Fauci and Co. who continued GoF research in defiance of the "pause" because someone deemed the research "urgently necessary".

Now I will fully admit that all of the above is speculative. But a deeper investigation may uncover even more than what we've already seen from the now publicly available FOIA requested-emails. And such an investigation may indeed get us considerably closer to the origin of SARS-CoV-2.

 

[probinson]

Fauci asked them to do some more investigation, which they did, and came back with a retraction when they found that the parts that they previously thought engineered had been found previously in nature.

False.

Fauci scheduled a call with them that he deemed "URGENT" in his emails, and none of us has any idea what was discussed in that call. Your assertion that "Fauci asked them to do some more investigation" is nothing more than speculation made up out of whole cloth.

Here's what was said of Kristian Andersen's reconsideration that the virus was engineered (emphasis added).

"In January 2020, Dr. Andersen began investigating the origins of SARS-CoV-2. At every point, Dr. Andersen has objectively weighed all of the evidence available to him...Dr. Andersen’s view evolved consistent with the evidence at his disposal...Scientists must make conclusions supported by the available evidence, even when it conflicts with earlier assessments.9"​

​

But in an email from Dr. Andersen, it said this.

"Our main work over the last couple of weeks has been focused on trying to disprove any type of lab theory..."​

​

Source: https://oversight.house.gov/wp-cont...SCP-Memo-Re.-New-Evidence.Proximal-Origin.pdf​

​

So from the available evidence, it would seem that Dr. Andersen sought NOT to objectively weigh evidence, but to disprove any type of lab theory, which is demonstrably different than conducting an objective assessment. Perhaps that's what was discussed on the "URGENT" with Fauci.

This is what was said about that call.

As for the conference call of February 1, Dr. Fauci did not, in Dr. Andersen’s view, attempt to influence Dr. Andersen or any other member of the ad hoc working group of international subject matter experts with respect to any aspect of the discussion.​

But Dr. Andersen wrote this himself.

There has been a lot of speculation, fear mongering, and conspiracies put forward in this space and we thought that bringing some clarity to this discussion might be of interest to Nature [sic].​

​

Prompted by Jeremy Farrah [sic], Tony Fauci, and Francis Collins, Eddie Holmes, Andrew Rambaut, Bob Garry, Ian Lipkin, and myself have been working through much of the (primarily) genetic data to provide agnostic and scientifically informed hypothesis around the origins of the virus.​

So which is it? Did Fauci not attempt to influence Dr. Andersen, who originally came to Fauci stating that he believed that the virus was consistent with being engineered, or did Fauci "prompt" (and what does that mean?) Dr. Andersen and his colleagues to change their mind?

In any event, it's clear that Fauci was involved in a much greater capacity than was let on, and it's clear from his email to Nature that Dr. Andersen understood that his directive was NOT to be objective in his assessment, but to write a paper that would disprove the lab-leak hypothesis.