Sources believe coronavirus originated in Wuhan lab as part of China's efforts to compete with US

surface

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
14,169
Nothing in this video is new, and not much is substantiated. It is still speculation
I am confused actually. Mostly same people who are convinced that covid is just a mild flu are convinced that this came from China. Why do they bother with China if it is just a mild flu?
 

mister

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
8,813
I am confused actually. Mostly same people who are convinced that covid is just a mild flu are convinced that this came from China. Why do they bother with China if it is just a mild flu?

Because it's a mild flu for the majority of people? But that still leaves a lot of death and destruction...
 

Brenden_E

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
6,456
You're being incredibly facetious with that example.

Also, the papers suggest that either bats or pangolins could have been the species that carried the progenitor virus, because DNA from both appears in the genome of SARS-CoV-2.

No-one can say with certainty which species made the zoonotic jump. More samples would be needed.



Attention should only be focused on both scenarios if there's enough evidence to support both a lab leak and natural zoonotic infection, and there must be scientific consensus on the likelihood of either.

Currently, the consensus leans heavily towards zoonosis as there isn't enough evidence to support a lab leak.

Even if we get spy pictures showing us that the WIV parking lot was emptied out in November 2019, even if we get reports of a small number of staff falling ill, that's not enough solid proof that it leaked from a lab. An anthrax leak from a bioweapons lab in Russia went over a decade without a proper conclusion to the CIA's investigation of it until the fall of the Soviet Union, when everyone learned of the existence of Compound 19. Procedures were lax at Compound 19 and design flaws in the ventilation system allowed for the air conditioning to run without a HEPA filter. Even with good intelligence from the CIA, researchers had to look at the the original samples from autopsies conducted on the anthrax victims to confirm if they had inhaled it or ingested it, giving or taking away credence to the theory that it was a lab leak.

The 1977 H1N1 pandemic also was likely a lab leak, also in Russian territory. But that's more than likely a botched vaccine trial. Turning H1N1 into a bioweapon would be handing over an extinction-level event in a small, fragile glass tube.

But in the case of the WIV building near that wet market, it is a BSL-4 research facility that has multiple layers of security and protection, and has churned out tons of valuable research since opening in 2015. It has much higher security levels than the labs that had SARS leaks in Taiwan and China previously.

It is still plausible that the virus leaked from WIV (lab leaks are always plausible), but there's scant evidence to show that this is the case because among the original infections reported by doctors in Wuhan, none have been found/shown to have ties to WIV. Some of them were workers and janitors at that wet market.
What I roundabout way to say, "I was wrong but my ego won't let me admit it".
 

CataclysmZA

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
5,237
What I roundabout way to say, "I was wrong but my ego won't let me admit it".
A lab leak was always plausible. There is just not enough evidence to support that theory. I've held that same view for over a year now.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
20,587
Ditto for the wet market hypothesis. Neither of the options should be called theories as both so far hardly qualify even to be called hypotheses yet.
 

CataclysmZA

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
5,237
If you look at your earlier posts in this thread (from a year ago), you were definitely the one who was most dismissive of it.

I think you'll find that there was no evidence to support the theory that it was a lab leak back then.

Ditto for the wet market hypothesis. Neither of the options should be called theories as both so far hardly qualify even to be called hypotheses yet.

Hypothesis
noun

a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. 'his ‘steady state’ hypothesis of the origin of the universe' synonyms: theory, theorem, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, concept, idea, contention, opinion, view, belief
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
20,587
I think you'll find that there was no evidence to support the theory that it was a lab leak back then.



Hypothesis
noun

a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. 'his ‘steady state’ hypothesis of the origin of the universe' synonyms: theory, theorem, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, concept, idea, contention, opinion, view, belief
In Science Methodology, Hypothesis and Theory are NOT synonyms, with one preceding the other.
 

CataclysmZA

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
5,237
In Science Methodology, Hypothesis and Theory are NOT synonyms, with one preceding the other.

That's almost correct, but we are not making a scientific hypothesis here. Instead we are all drawing conclusions from incomplete evidence, which is a regular hypothesis.

A scientific hypothesis uses the scientific method to explain how things happen as they are observed because there are gaps in the theories that should reveal how and why it works. A scientific hypothesis requires that you can test it using known scientific theory. If the theories don't explain what you're seeing, and don't resolve the hypothesis, then you've discovered something that needs new science or mathematics to explain it.

None of us are making anything remotely approaching a scientific hypothesis when discussing whether the virus leaked from a lab. Overwhelming DNA evidence and prior observations all point to it being naturally selected in the wild.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
20,587
That's almost correct, but we are not making a scientific hypothesis here. Instead we are all drawing conclusions from incomplete evidence, which is a regular hypothesis.

A scientific hypothesis uses the scientific method to explain how things happen as they are observed because there are gaps in the theories that should reveal how and why it works. A scientific hypothesis requires that you can test it using known scientific theory. If the theories don't explain what you're seeing, and don't resolve the hypothesis, then you've discovered something that needs new science or mathematics to explain it.

None of us are making anything remotely approaching a scientific hypothesis when discussing whether the virus leaked from a lab. Overwhelming DNA evidence and prior observations all point to it being naturally selected in the wild.
Nothing overwhelming about the DNA evidence. Just hype, and subterfuge. The virus started in bats yes, that is about the limit of the overwhelming evidence. The debate is how did it get from there to us. And so far there is nothing but guess work, hype and BS, that is poorly documented and badly correlated.
 

quovadis

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
5,692
Nothing overwhelming about the DNA evidence. Just hype, and subterfuge. The virus started in bats yes, that is about the limit of the overwhelming evidence. The debate is how did it get from there to us. And so far there is nothing but guess work, hype and BS, that is poorly documented and badly correlated.
Nothing at all? Lol. Ok.
 
Top