The Source of COVID

[Catlanta33]

Here's the flaw in peer review and highlighted in probably one of the more despicable ways to misuse the public's trust.

EcoHealth Alliance, headed up by Peter Daszak, orchestrated "doctors/scientists" to join their peers in calling a covid lab leak a conspiracy.

https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/The_Lancet_Emails_Saif-2.6.20.pdf

He also has accepted 3.7 million in research funds from the NIH and even thanked Fauci for his support.

 

[batchaps4me]

It’s interesting as I’ve seen many comments yesterday that science says there isn’t the markers on the virus that it’s been chemically manipulated in the lab, but you mention there is that evidence.

Which way is up? I think the unique challenges that science has had within their own community and processes has left them open to being massively co-opted by politics and narrative and it’s all truly fucked right now.

To the point where someone always known as being pro to most liberal things is being blasted out by those very supporters for posing a legitimate question and issue.

I agree with your post and would only add that there is also an element of funding that co-opts academia as well and slants the design and objectives of studies to a predetermined outcome.

 

[DraftNerd]

Well, the state of politics in media and the polarization and speed of the media cycle preclude meaningful conversation. We're in the situation now where the possibility of criminalizing doubt in anthropogenic climate or improper transgender-associated pronoun use is seriously considered. Censorship, something long considered taboo for the field of journalism, was openly employed to prevent the spread of factual information related to the son of a presidential candidate- now president, who is accused of peddling influence to foreign governments and being massively compromised by ties to illicit drugs.

People don't know what to believe, as the sources they've traditionally trusted- the government and the media, have been exposed as lying to them. So trust in both institutions is at an all-time low. Whereas the obvious path to rebuilding that trust would seem to be reform and accountability, instead government and media instead have doubled down on telling yet more lies and insisting we all believe them. Hijacking science and corrupting its objective principles is neither new, nor surprising. Sadly.

Good points, though helpful on this thread to try to keep to the topic of the OP, or this thread could turn into a braying shit fest. Then I have to inconvenience an OP and ask them to move it to the cesspool.

That preamble done, I understand the examples you share as to why people are confused like crazy these days.

 

[DraftNerd]

I've posed the question before that if the virus starts naturally but is genetically modified later, is it still natural?

Not as simple for me. I want to say at a base level that intent of modification, how much its modified and for what purpose colors this.

To learn how a virus works and be prepared to defend or beat it takes some modification to do. My understanding is that this is usually minor. Engineering said virus to be a more potent version of itself (weaponizing) would take much more modification.

Im basing this some on my own theory for over a year now……that China was studying this virus for the purpose of defending against an outbreak of it, because it could surely happen there. That’s not humanity in action. Think of it China’s way….a devastating blow to their populace would be a devastating blow to their economy, growing power and influence. Of course they want to be prepared.

I don’t think they had it in the lab to weaponize it. Not that lab that is run in conjunction with US interests. I think they were studying it to understand it. Maybe they made some minor tweaks to study it and created something in the process that could inflect.

If you’re worried about a virus making a leap of species you kind of have to manipulate it into something that can make that leap and then figure out how to beat it.

And…..oops….it got out.
It’s still natural and from nature all through that. It just had some unintended influence to make the leap to us.

 

[DraftNerd]

I agree with your post and would only add that there is also an element of funding that co-opts academia as well and slants the design and objectives of studies to a predetermined outcome.

Oh fully agree. That’s the root of the rot to me. It used to be that money was offered from benefactors interested in advancing scientific breakthroughs that help society. Those surely still exist. But I’m not sure how much “influence money” is coming into play now.

 

[Catlanta33]

I agree with your post and would only add that there is also an element of funding that co-opts academia as well and slants the design and objectives of studies to a predetermined outcome.

Usually the crime is in the cover up and when you follow the money for covid research, it all points back to the Wuhan lab and has exposed some bad actors that are seemingly going to walk from this unscathed.

When you tie the GOF funding, US and China together - which that is a connection we know now from the Fauci emails - it at least makes sense why there was so much of an effort to censor and label people as kooky instead of doing right by them. Not saying it was right but I can at least understand why they want to cover their asses.

 

[DraftNerd]

Usually the crime is in the cover up and when you follow the money for covid research, it all points back to the Wuhan lab and has exposed some bad actors that are seemingly going to walk from this unscathed.

When you tie the GOF funding, US and China together - which that is a connection we know now from the Fauci emails - it at least makes sense why there was so much of an effort to censor and label people as kooky instead of doing right by them. Not saying it was right but I can at least understand why they want to cover their asses.

The breadcrumbs on Fauci/NIH involvement with this lab were there long before the emails confirmed it. At least, I remember reading something over a year ago that led me to this.

And that’s the thing that bugs me the most. Perhaps this was always the aim of the Wuhan lab study wise. Or maybe, clever Chinese, they put it there to have such a contingency if it went sideways. Who knows on that.

I just think we all talked sourcing and culpability when this first hit. Then we rightly dropped it and concentrated on the immediate fire. That fire is now going out. To not go back and look into this is just plain wrong.

 

[Catlanta33]

Not as simple for me. I want to say at a base level that intent of modification, how much its modified and for what purpose colors this.

To learn how a virus works and be prepared to defend or beat it takes some modification to do. My understanding is that this is usually minor. Engineering said virus to be a more potent version of itself (weaponizing) would take much more modification.

Im basing this some on my own theory for over a year now……that China was studying this virus for the purpose of defending against an outbreak of it, because it could surely happen there. That’s not humanity in action. Think of it China’s way….a devastating blow to their populace would be a devastating blow to their economy, growing power and influence. Of course they want to be prepared.

I don’t think they had it in the lab to weaponize it. Not that lab that is run in conjunction with US interests. I think they were studying it to understand it. Maybe they made some minor tweaks to study it and created something in the process that could inflect.

If you’re worried about a virus making a leap of species you kind of have to manipulate it into something that can make that leap and then figure out how to beat it.

And…..oops….it got out.
It’s still natural and from nature all through that. It just had some unintended influence to make the leap to us.

I won't pretend to understand all the nuances of GOF but from what I do understand, it's not really minimal modifications. They are quite literally taking a virus isn't transmissible to humans to making it transmissible to humans.

Another question I had is what's the difference between bioweapon and GOF? If you take a virus not able to transmit to humans, it seems like a pretty fine line between bioweapon and prevent pandemic - since we are still dealing with a pandemic likely stemming from GOF.

I'm not asking OE as in prove something but in general, seems like you could start something as GOF and it end up being a bioweapon.

 

[Mofo]

I won't pretend to understand all the nuances of GOF but from what I do understand, it's not really minimal modifications. They are quite literally taking a virus isn't transmissible to humans to making it transmissible to humans.

Another question I had is what's the difference between bioweapon and GOF? If you take a virus not able to transmit to humans, it seems like a pretty fine line between bioweapon and prevent pandemic - since we are still dealing with a pandemic likely stemming from GOF.

I'm not asking OE as in prove something but in general, seems like you could start something as GOF and it end up being a bioweapon.

So, GOF is a tool in the field of pathogenesis. Say you've got a strain of something that affects mice or mosquitos- it doesn't necessarily have to be humans. But the transmission or virulence of the bacteria or virus is unpredictable and it's not entirely clear how such a thing would reliably kill 50% of your target organism. If you're an epidemiologist or virologist, tweaking the bacteria or virus by inserting some sort of protein coating, immune factor or antigen to smooth your testing can theoretically provide you with better data in those studies. The GOF tweaks needn't be minimal necessarily, but typically they are, to avoid any suggestion that it could spiral out of control or have the appearance of bioweapons. The thinking is that, we should be really, really careful with infectious pathogens, but shouldn't treat everything as untouchable, unknowable and destroy anyone who suggests we learn how it works, like a bunch of Luddites.

Bioweapon research is strictly about two things: (1) death and (2) delivery. There's a little concern about how to effectively, safely and cheaply keep a warm-base production capacity, but mainly those two things. Then, the research is about (1) changing one or few variables at a time, putting it into a test animal population and measuring lethality over time. The other side (2) is about how to infect the biggest population or widest dispersal, through air, water, food, etc., and whatever device(s) are necessary: nebulizers, dissolving capsules, missiles, canisters, etc. Both tracks are repeated endlessly until the BW capability is considered mature and then either used or threatened for use.

GOF is more innocent than many would have you believe, and it's hard not to take Fauci at face value for his claims that this was all NIH-NIAID / BARDA wanted to fund with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Without such knowledge, epidemiologists and public health officials will have more difficulty in planning response to epidemics / pandemics. But there is that grey area, where there is overlap where GOF research can definitely be used for BW and is definitely a concern.

 

[Catlanta33]

So, GOF is a tool in the field of pathogenesis. Say you've got a strain of something that affects mice or mosquitos- it doesn't necessarily have to be humans. But the transmission or virulence of the bacteria or virus is unpredictable and it's not entirely clear how such a thing would reliable kill 50% of your target organism. If you're an epidemiologist or virologist, tweaking the bacteria or virus by inserting some sort of protein coating, immune factor or antigen to smooth your testing can theoretically provide you with better data in those studies. The GOF tweaks needn't be minimal necessarily, but typically they are, to avoid any suggestion that it could spiral out of control or have the appearance of bioweapons. The thinking is that, we should be really, really careful with infectious pathogens, but shouldn't treat everything as untouchable, unknowable and destroy anyone who suggests we learn how it works, like a bunch of Luddites.

Bioweapon research is strictly about two things: (1) death and (2) delivery. There's a little concern about how to effectively, safely and cheaply keep a warm-base production capacity, but mainly those two things. Then, the research is about (1) changing one or few variables at a time, putting it into a test animal population and measuring lethality over time. The other side (2) is about how to infect the biggest population or widest dispersal, through air, water, food, etc., and whatever device(s) are necessary: nebulizers, dissolving capsules, missiles, canisters, etc. Both tracks are repeated endlessly until the BW capability is considered mature and then either used or threatened for use.

GOF is more innocent than many would have you believe, and it's hard not to take Fauci at face value for his claims that this was all NIH-NIAID / BARDA wanted to fund with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Without such knowledge, epidemiologists and public health officials will have more difficulty in planning response to epidemics / pandemics. But there is that grey area, where there is overlap where GOF research can definitely be used for BW and is definitely a concern.

Good breakdown. I'd add that's if everything is on the up and up. There is a Chinese scientist or doctor over here talking to the FBI because she says covid is coming from bioweapon research in China.

I definitely agree the intent would be different but I guess my question was worded poorly. It seems like it would be easy to develop a bioweapon under the guise of GOF. Not saying that is what happened but that it seems like it all that would take is someone like the CCP calling the shots.

 

[batchaps4me]

Oh fully agree. That’s the root of the rot to me. It used to be that money was offered from benefactors interested in advancing scientific breakthroughs that help society. Those surely still exist. But I’m not sure how much “influence money” is coming into play now.

AND

Usually the crime is in the cover up and when you follow the money for covid research, it all points back to the Wuhan lab and has exposed some bad actors that are seemingly going to walk from this unscathed.

When you tie the GOF funding, US and China together - which that is a connection we know now from the Fauci emails - it at least makes sense why there was so much of an effort to censor and label people as kooky instead of doing right by them. Not saying it was right but I can at least understand why they want to cover their asses.

In the current Wuhan Lab/pandemic origins or in science in general? With the Wuhan lab, IMHO it is more about our culpability in the funding. IF the origins of the pandemic is the Wuhan lab and our NIH funded it, lets just say that our government at the time took a firm hand to the WHO ... do you think that the NIH and NAID were worried about what the former POTUS would do to them in regards to discipline, accountability funding and PR? I know I am speculating but legacies were on the line last year.

Another question I had is what's the difference between bioweapon and GOF?

AND

So, GOF is a tool in the field of pathogenesis. Say you've got a strain of something that affects mice or mosquitos- it doesn't necessarily have to be humans. But the transmission or virulence of the bacteria or virus is unpredictable and it's not entirely clear how such a thing would reliably kill 50% of your target organism. If you're an epidemiologist or virologist, tweaking the bacteria or virus by inserting some sort of protein coating, immune factor or antigen to smooth your testing can theoretically provide you with better data in those studies. The GOF tweaks needn't be minimal necessarily, but typically they are, to avoid any suggestion that it could spiral out of control or have the appearance of bioweapons. The thinking is that, we should be really, really careful with infectious pathogens, but shouldn't treat everything as untouchable, unknowable and destroy anyone who suggests we learn how it works, like a bunch of Luddites.

Bioweapon research is strictly about two things: (1) death and (2) delivery. There's a little concern about how to effectively, safely and cheaply keep a warm-base production capacity, but mainly those two things. Then, the research is about (1) changing one or few variables at a time, putting it into a test animal population and measuring lethality over time. The other side (2) is about how to infect the biggest population or widest dispersal, through air, water, food, etc., and whatever device(s) are necessary: nebulizers, dissolving capsules, missiles, canisters, etc. Both tracks are repeated endlessly until the BW capability is considered mature and then either used or threatened for use.

GOF is more innocent than many would have you believe, and it's hard not to take Fauci at face value for his claims that this was all NIH-NIAID / BARDA wanted to fund with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Without such knowledge, epidemiologists and public health officials will have more difficulty in planning response to epidemics / pandemics. But there is that grey area, where there is overlap where GOF research can definitely be used for BW and is definitely a concern.

Good question and response. Thanks @Mofo because I was going to wade into the delivery aspects. IMHO the virus was accidentally leaked and it was not weaponized. JMO it is not a weapon until a delivery system more advanced than your own infected scientists is used.

 

[DraftNerd]

AND

In the current Wuhan Lab/pandemic origins or in science in general? With the Wuhan lab, IMHO it is more about our culpability in the funding. IF the origins of the pandemic is the Wuhan lab and our NIH funded it, lets just say that our government at the time took a firm hand to the WHO ... do you think that the NIH and NAID were worried about what the former POTUS would do to them in regards to discipline, accountability funding and PR? I know I am speculating but legacies were on the line last year.

AND

Good question and response. Thanks @Mofo because I was going to wade into the delivery aspects. IMHO the virus was accidentally leaked and it was not weaponized. JMO it is not a weapon until a delivery system more advanced than your own infected scientists is used.

Well said on the possible culpability on our side. That’s just what I’ve seen as a factor that gives us pushing a possible cover up legs. We were invested there. We had US people reporting the lax security and safety and that this could cause and issue before COVID. And then it did.

I also like your answer on what makes a weapon. Delivery system is a great delineation. If this virus piggy backed out in a Wuhan scientist because they couldn’t be bothered to treat safety right that’s not a bio weapon attack.

And theories that start with “what does China care if an attack on all of us starts with their own people?” is as weak as China claiming our own troops might have unleashed this on them.

 

[DraftNerd]

So, GOF is a tool in the field of pathogenesis. Say you've got a strain of something that affects mice or mosquitos- it doesn't necessarily have to be humans. But the transmission or virulence of the bacteria or virus is unpredictable and it's not entirely clear how such a thing would reliably kill 50% of your target organism. If you're an epidemiologist or virologist, tweaking the bacteria or virus by inserting some sort of protein coating, immune factor or antigen to smooth your testing can theoretically provide you with better data in those studies. The GOF tweaks needn't be minimal necessarily, but typically they are, to avoid any suggestion that it could spiral out of control or have the appearance of bioweapons. The thinking is that, we should be really, really careful with infectious pathogens, but shouldn't treat everything as untouchable, unknowable and destroy anyone who suggests we learn how it works, like a bunch of Luddites.

Bioweapon research is strictly about two things: (1) death and (2) delivery. There's a little concern about how to effectively, safely and cheaply keep a warm-base production capacity, but mainly those two things. Then, the research is about (1) changing one or few variables at a time, putting it into a test animal population and measuring lethality over time. The other side (2) is about how to infect the biggest population or widest dispersal, through air, water, food, etc., and whatever device(s) are necessary: nebulizers, dissolving capsules, missiles, canisters, etc. Both tracks are repeated endlessly until the BW capability is considered mature and then either used or threatened for use.

GOF is more innocent than many would have you believe, and it's hard not to take Fauci at face value for his claims that this was all NIH-NIAID / BARDA wanted to fund with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Without such knowledge, epidemiologists and public health officials will have more difficulty in planning response to epidemics / pandemics. But there is that grey area, where there is overlap where GOF research can definitely be used for BW and is definitely a concern.

I had to look up GOF to be fair. I’ve been walking past it since I didn’t know it. Gain-of-function….interesting term.

This is a tricky part. There is no solid proof that China would be researching this bug for scientific and medical reasons and not also sending GOF samples to the military to weaponize. It is exactly what the Soviets would do, or the Russians are doing now. It’s plausible.

It falls in the same vain as Iran enriching Uranium. Do they deserve to develop nuclear power? Sure. Can they be trusted to not also make weapons? Of course not.

But what do we do….make a convention with most countries vowing to stop doing GOF? That’s shooting ourselves in the foot therapeutically, it’s also not going to stop the bad actors from doing it anyway.

It plays back to Stewart’s quip that the last word from man could be a lab scientist saying “huh, it worked”. People are going to do it.

I just don’t believe the Wuhan lab was doing GOF on SARS-COVID-2 for anything but legitimate medical and pandemic fighting reasons in this case.

But damn if it isn’t a wake up call that is being openly suppressed. And that sucks.

 

[batchaps4me]

Well said on the possible culpability on our side. That’s just what I’ve seen as a factor that gives us pushing a possible cover up legs. We were invested there. We had US people reporting the lax security and safety and that this could cause and issue before COVID. And then it did.

I also like your answer on what makes a weapon. Delivery system is a great delineation. If this virus piggy backed out in a Wuhan scientist because they couldn’t be bothered to treat safety right that’s not a bio weapon attack.

And theories that start with “what does China care if an attack on all of us starts with their own people?” is as weak as China claiming our own troops might have unleashed this on them.

We had to shut down our labs at Fort Detrick in AUG19 for safety reasons. It is dangerous no matter the safety protocols. Everyone is blasting China, but what information does the US government share about their failures?
Army germ lab shut down by CDC in 2019 had several 'serious' protocol violations that year
The lab itself reported that the shutdown order was due to ongoing infrastructure issues with wastewater decontamination, and the CDC declined to provide the reason for the shutdown due to national security concerns.

 

[DraftNerd]

We had to shut down our labs at Fort Detrick in AUG19 for safety reasons. It is dangerous no matter the safety protocols. Everyone is blasting China, but what information does the US government share about their failures?
Army germ lab shut down by CDC in 2019 had several 'serious' protocol violations that year
The lab itself reported that the shutdown order was due to ongoing infrastructure issues with wastewater decontamination, and the CDC declined to provide the reason for the shutdown due to national security concerns.

Good points. I’m not interested in bashing China as a core reason. I’m interested in the proper wake up for all.

Think the advancement of this theory, as well as the whistles being blown on China before the pandemic were merely attempts to “throw stink off of us”? It’s just not hard to believe that a country that willingly put lead in kids toys and doesn’t give two fucks about its own people would be culpable.

But, you’re right, it would need to be a wake up for all.

 

[batchaps4me]

I just don’t believe the Wuhan lab was doing GOF on SARS-COVID-2 for anything but legitimate medical and pandemic fighting reasons in this case.

I disagree with this statement. IMHO there was legitimate virus study, including GOF, and the military military application study concurrently. That is not much different than what we do as well and spans across all kinds of technology. Hell most tech today was derived from military application development.

 

[DraftNerd]

I disagree with this statement. IMHO there was legitimate virus study, including GOF, and the military military application study concurrently. That is not much different than what we do as well and spans across all kinds of technology. Hell most tech today was derived from military application development.

Ok, that’s a good point. I’m not sure of the mechanisms, but imagined the military would just acquire samples and study details later.

Concurrently makes total sense. I don’t agree with it, but I can totally see it goes on this way.

 

[Catlanta33]

In the current Wuhan Lab/pandemic origins or in science in general? With the Wuhan lab, IMHO it is more about our culpability in the funding. IF the origins of the pandemic is the Wuhan lab and our NIH funded it, lets just say that our government at the time took a firm hand to the WHO ... do you think that the NIH and NAID were worried about what the former POTUS would do to them in regards to discipline, accountability funding and PR? I know I am speculating but legacies were on the line last year.

I really just think they're too chicken shit to come out and say that the US may have played a part in creating the covid pandemic and hoped they could bury the lab leak theory from every getting off the ground.

 

[Mofo]

Good question and response. Thanks @Mofo because I was going to wade into the delivery aspects. IMHO the virus was accidentally leaked and it was not weaponized. JMO it is not a weapon until a delivery system more advanced than your own infected scientists is used.

The issue is that China is the sort of regime that will expend a huge amount of effort to suppress whatever it is they did. It needn't be nefarious underground research into some sort of genocide device that they plan on unleashing to kill off Uyghurs and Tibetans. It's embarrassing to them that as a superpower, they were unable to provide basic safety and that a virus got out and killed 3-5 million people globally. So the government just denies it, deflects and says insane alternatives like maybe U.S. troops did it, or claim it's a smear campaign; whatever they can sell to their own people. This is a country that purged Winnie the Pooh from their Internet because one man can't take a stupid joke.

I had to look up GOF to be fair. I’ve been walking past it since I didn’t know it. Gain-of-function….interesting term.

This is a tricky part. There is no solid proof that China would be researching this bug for scientific and medical reasons and not also sending GOF samples to the military to weaponize. It is exactly what the Soviets would do, or the Russians are doing now. It’s plausible.

It falls in the same vain as Iran enriching Uranium. Do they deserve to develop nuclear power? Sure. Can they be trusted to not also make weapons? Of course not.

But what do we do….make a convention with most countries vowing to stop doing GOF? That’s shooting ourselves in the foot therapeutically, it’s also not going to stop the bad actors from doing it anyway.

It plays back to Stewart’s quip that the last word from man could be a lab scientist saying “huh, it worked”. People are going to do it.

I just don’t believe the Wuhan lab was doing GOF on SARS-COVID-2 for anything but legitimate medical and pandemic fighting reasons in this case.

But damn if it isn’t a wake up call that is being openly suppressed. And that sucks.

Our mistake was that we trusted the Chinese to be responsible. The safeguards to protect against SARS release aren't too difficult. Scientists are generally friendly with each other across countries, even U.S. and China. Something like this that is Monday morning quarterback'd into "we should've never done that" is easy, of course, but if the lab truly was this shitty, it wouldn't have been insane to require either inspections or even man-in-plant presence by NIAID staff to ensure safety protocols were sufficient.

The Chinese have learned their lesson, in a sense. They will be more careful, and the offending scientists have been silenced and/or executed. If anything, we'll have less cooperation and will be even more in the dark about their activities, going forward. I've lost a great deal of respect for NIH, CDC and FDA, as a result of this pandemic and our response

 

[Mofo]

I really just think they're too chicken shit to come out and say that the US may have played a part in creating the covid pandemic and hoped they could bury the lab leak theory from every getting off the ground.

This is entirely possible. That the U.S. was complicit in throwing money towards a foreign power that leaked an improved SARS virus upon the world, is embarrassing. The whole idea behind the grant money wasn't that China was too poor to enable the research itself (they have plenty of money); it's that this is how NIH-NIAID tries to influence projects by stipulating funding gates. So we thought we knew what they were doing and how, and clearly we did not. It's not as serious a fuckup as the UN's World Health Organization, which openly participated in a cover-up of the leak and delayed the response, but heads should've rolled at NIH over this.