Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,uk.d-i-y
Subject: Re: OT: A lot better than a Covid death shot!
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 11:05:07 +0000
Organization: A little, after lunch
Lines: 94
Message-ID: <userd3$1l92b$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ii4juitohro4svdn5d8auajn9bvvb9j7oj@4ax.com>
 <ns6cnUVBU4EWB3T4nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> <usc974$11v8a$1@solani.org>
 <9fjjuid0i28o79c3nvlhuuao81ffqthv22@4ax.com> <uscl4a$13suf$1@dont-email.me>
 <usclep$13shm$1@dont-email.me> <uscllt$13taq$1@dont-email.me>
 <uscukk$15vjb$1@dont-email.me> <usedjj$1i92b$2@dont-email.me>
 <usekbt$1jk8m$3@dont-email.me> <useqs5$1l7i6$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 11:05:07 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dd4deb4cbe2ae2bc9e0b2dea043d3f41";
	logging-data="1745995"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+niCKUW6DOUQASDx4SxGz5wjhVG4tt0Yo="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yBk5dCoU9fX3vY4ROb85ol+pAHM=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <useqs5$1l7i6$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6012

On 08/03/2024 10:55, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On 8/03/2024 8:05 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 08/03/2024 07:09, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>> On 8/03/2024 4:48 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 07/03/2024 15:15, GB wrote:
>>>>> On 07/03/2024 15:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/03/2024 15:05, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>>>>>> There's not a shred of evidence that Covid-19 was any kind of 
>>>>>>> laboratory-developed virus, and virus labs are actually pretty 
>>>>>>> good at keeping dangerous viruses safely locked up. It's a stupid 
>>>>>>> idea, but Cursitor Doom and Jan Panteltje like it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually its pretty much the main stream  consensus that the virus 
>>>>>> was cooked up in a lab, and escaped.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that the consensus amongst people who really know what they are 
>>>>> talking about?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> As far as I know, yes.
>>>
>>> But you don't know much, and don't go to any trouble to find out 
>>> evidence that you'd prefer not to know about.
>>>
>>>> https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wrap-up-facts-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak%EF%BF%BC/
>>>>
>>>> is a fairly good overview. The problem is that accusing China of 
>>>> being uber sloppy was not politically *convenient*. So the default 
>>>> position initially was a 'we just dont know'
>>>>
>>>> Apparently now, we know a lot more...
>>>
>>> But you can't point to any of this "new"information.
>>>
>> that site is the information dearie
>>
>> https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wrap-up-facts-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak%EF%BF%BC/
>>
>> Don't bully me. Take it up with them.
> 
> There's no information there. There are a few American senators who know 
> what they want to believe, but no facts at all.
> 
> Here is a fact or two that I posted earlier.
> 
> https://news.yahoo.com/nih-admits-funding-gain-function-125103852.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAACPGaZ5dUJFM3q5AfcrA5yai45fdGG3fYRStdwAE3MyFcIuuVbjhdODrC9uQ1A6LkPTUjWl_y8le4SgMvvACZ5x16IR1_pOPgESFBYUgzj4cwPwtZk-heYt6_aG9uwn6DGb2nG0XNAx5OppmF3ArrFkja-d9TWqB8_U1lS1BLWYu
> 
> That wasn't "gain of function" research. The question examined was 
> whether "“spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses 
> circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor 
> in a mouse model.”
> 
> The naturally occurring bat coronaviruses weren't modified in any way. 
> The question was whether they were potentially dangerous to humans, and 
> it got the right answer, though nobody seems to have acted on the 
> information obtained - not that they could have done much.
> 
"More than three years have passed since the first case of a new 
coronavirus infection (SARS-CoV-2) in the city of Wuhan (Hubei, China). 
The Wuhan Institute of Virology was founded in that city in 1956 and the 
country’s first biosafety level 4 laboratory opened within that center 
in 2015. The coincidence that the first cases of infection emerged in 
the city where the virology institute’s headquarters is located, the 
failure to 100% identify the virus’ RNA in any of the coronaviruses 
isolated in bats, and the lack of evidence on a possible intermediate 
animal host in the contagion’s transmission make it so that at present, 
there are doubts about the real origin of SARS-CoV-2. This article will 
review two theories: SARS-CoV-2 as a virus of zoonotic origin or as a 
leak from the high-level biosafety laboratory in Wuhan."

....
"Do these findings close the discussion on the origins of SARS-CoV-2?

No. As can be seen, there are two theories that could coexist or the 
debate could be closed by choosing one or the other. Defining chains of 
infection and seeking the origin of them is a fundamental aspect of 
public health. Therefore, on the one hand, it seems evident that the 
transmission originated in the Huanan market. But, on the other hand, 
three fundamental questions remain that have not been definitively 
answered. First, where did the virus come from? Second, what was the 
intermediate animal host? And third, why has the virus genome not been 
reproduced 100% in any of the coronaviruses found in bats?"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10019034/

In short whilst there is no *conclusive* evidence one way or another the 
balance of probability is that it was made in a lab but not as a 
bioweapon. It was an accident.


-- 
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.