Where'd This Shit Come From?

[SuburbanFarmer]

(2.2.1) This conjecture is corroborated by California's state government who's own research has suggested an epidemic in California at least since Sep 2019. https://www.theblaze.com/coronavirus-or ... idge-study

(2.2.2) More research out of California shows incredibly high rates of infection in certain counties that would not support a late Jan / early Feb start. https://thehill.com/homenews/news/49339 ... widespread

If this is true, it only confirms how badly the WHO and CDC botched the entire thing.

It would also explain why California does not have a massive problem right now.

That second study is thoroughly debunked. Can’t speak to the Cambridge one.

[Speaker to Animals]

I like Chris a lot, and I will probably watch it when I take a shit tomorrow morning, but I am a bit tired of using "debunked" as a replacement for "this guy disagrees with it". It's not as cliche and clumsy as the "fact check" game, but it's not too far behind.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I like Chris a lot, and I will probably watch it when I take a shit tomorrow morning, but I am a bit tired of using "debunked" as a replacement for "this guy disagrees with it".

He has a lot of information that clearly points to a conflict of interest, and a dismal lack of proper sampling/testing.

Or in short, debunked.

[Speaker to Animals]

I like Chris a lot, and I will probably watch it when I take a shit tomorrow morning, but I am a bit tired of using "debunked" as a replacement for "this guy disagrees with it".

He has a lot of information that clearly points to a conflict of interest, and a dismal lack of proper sampling/testing.

Or in short, debunked.

No.

Even the researchers admit there are sampling problems. Debunked does not mean "this guy disagrees so it's 'debunked'" LOL

The existing sample is one among many such data points that indicate this disease has a bit more saturation in the American population than it should if it really only began community spread in Feb. Nobody presented either of these papers as bullet-proof and flawless theoretical proofs of anything. They are working papers that suggest something.

From what I know of Chris, his real concern is that we not make policy decisions based on weak data (which all of this is admittedly so and by the researchers themselves). I can imagine his other concern is that you will see a legion of dumbasses that use it as an excuse to argue we already are anywhere near herd immunity (and it's definitely not).

[SuburbanFarmer]

I like Chris a lot, and I will probably watch it when I take a shit tomorrow morning, but I am a bit tired of using "debunked" as a replacement for "this guy disagrees with it".

He has a lot of information that clearly points to a conflict of interest, and a dismal lack of proper sampling/testing.

Or in short, debunked.

No.

Even the researchers admit there are sampling problems. Debunked does not mean "this guy disagrees so it's 'debunked'" LOL

The existing sample is one among many such data points that indicate this disease has a bit more saturation in the American population than it should if it really only began community spread in Feb. Nobody presented either of these papers as bullet-proof and flawless theoretical proofs of anything. They are working papers that suggest something.

From what I know of Chris, his real concern is that we not make policy decisions based on weak data (which all of this is admittedly so and by the researchers themselves). I can imagine his other concern is that you will see a legion of dumbasses that use it as an excuse to argue we already are anywhere near herd immunity (and it's definitely not).

...or you could just watch and take in the evidence, before you start arguing about it.

[Hastur]

It seems to have been a lot of back and forth between China and the US when it comes to this bat virus research.

The "bat woman" Zhengli Shi turns up everywhere in the stories. Here is a good article about her with some scary details.

https://gulfnews.com/world/coronavirus- ... 7380739770

Q: What did Prof Zhengli say that she did upon returning to her lab?
She insisted that she then put her lab to work. Her main objective: sequence the genomes of SARS-CoV-2 from infected patients. Next, compare these with records of the experiments they had conducted on site.

Scientific American quoted the virologist as saying she didn't find a 100% DNA match between the viruses her team was working on and the new infection from patients.

"That really took a load off my mind," she told the magazine. "I had not slept a wink for days."

Q: So what’s the storm all about?
The Wuhan lab worked with a close relative of SARS-CoV-2 — a bat coronavirus called RaTG13.

That's according to evolutionary virologist Edward Holmes, of the Charles Perkins Center and the Marie Bashir Institute for Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity at the University of Sydney (as quoted by the Australian Media Center).

But Holmes said of the novel coronavirus: "The level of genome sequence divergence between SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 is equivalent to an average of 50 years (and at least 20 years) of evolutionary change." (That means that in the wild, it would take about 50 years for these viruses to evolve to be as different as they are.)

Back in 2015, an experiment involving Prof. Zhengli, who worked with a number of collaborators in the US (i.e. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA, in a study led by Dr. Ralph S Baric and designed/analysed by Dr Vineet D. Menachery), showed the ability of a bat coronavirus surviving and evolving to thrive in a human cell.

Prof. Baric, who works in UNC's Department of Microbiology and Immunology, is known to have also worked in "rewired TRN SARS-CoV mutants" with proceedings published in 2018.

The 2015 paper (accessed 1.89 million times as of April 20, 2020) published in the journal Nature Medicine, the researchers, described it as a "hybrid virus".

Dr Vineet D. Menachery, now works as Assistant Professor at the Department of Microbiology & Immunology of the University of Texas Medical Branch.

In the virology community, their project is known as "chimeric coronavirus", eerily similar to COVID-19. This chimera is created in a petridish, reportedly with the "surface spike protein (S protein) of a coronavirus found in horseshoe bats, called SHC014, and the backbone of a SARS virus that could be grown in mice".

The team refered to the chimeric CoV as "SHC014-MA15". The study lists the following as authors: Vineet D Menachery, Boyd L Yount Jr, Kari Debbink, Sudhakar Agnihothram, Lisa E Gralinski, Jessica A Plante, Rachel L Graham, Trevor Scobey, Xing-Yi Ge, Eric F Donaldson, Scott H Randell, Antonio Lanzavecchia, Wayne A Marasco, Zhengli-Li Shi & Ralph S Baric.

Menachery designed, coordinated and performed experiments, completed analysis and wrote the manuscript, according to Nature Medicine.

Here's the scary bit: In the lab (we don't know which one), this new coronavirus was found so potent it could infect and replicate in human airway cells naturally. It also infected mice lung cells. It's one of the experiments which prompted Prof Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, to warn that such research is "misleading" and "irrational", stating thus: “The consequence of any accident would be anywhere from a handful of infections to a catastrophic pandemic.”

[Speaker to Animals]

It seems to have been a lot of back and forth between China and the US when it comes to this bat virus research.

The "bat woman" Zhengli Shi turns up everywhere in the stories. Here is a good article about her with some scary details.

https://gulfnews.com/world/coronavirus- ... 7380739770

Q: What did Prof Zhengli say that she did upon returning to her lab?
She insisted that she then put her lab to work. Her main objective: sequence the genomes of SARS-CoV-2 from infected patients. Next, compare these with records of the experiments they had conducted on site.

Scientific American quoted the virologist as saying she didn't find a 100% DNA match between the viruses her team was working on and the new infection from patients.

"That really took a load off my mind," she told the magazine. "I had not slept a wink for days."

Q: So what’s the storm all about?
The Wuhan lab worked with a close relative of SARS-CoV-2 — a bat coronavirus called RaTG13.

That's according to evolutionary virologist Edward Holmes, of the Charles Perkins Center and the Marie Bashir Institute for Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity at the University of Sydney (as quoted by the Australian Media Center).

But Holmes said of the novel coronavirus: "The level of genome sequence divergence between SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 is equivalent to an average of 50 years (and at least 20 years) of evolutionary change." (That means that in the wild, it would take about 50 years for these viruses to evolve to be as different as they are.)

Back in 2015, an experiment involving Prof. Zhengli, who worked with a number of collaborators in the US (i.e. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA, in a study led by Dr. Ralph S Baric and designed/analysed by Dr Vineet D. Menachery), showed the ability of a bat coronavirus surviving and evolving to thrive in a human cell.

Prof. Baric, who works in UNC's Department of Microbiology and Immunology, is known to have also worked in "rewired TRN SARS-CoV mutants" with proceedings published in 2018.

The 2015 paper (accessed 1.89 million times as of April 20, 2020) published in the journal Nature Medicine, the researchers, described it as a "hybrid virus".

Dr Vineet D. Menachery, now works as Assistant Professor at the Department of Microbiology & Immunology of the University of Texas Medical Branch.

In the virology community, their project is known as "chimeric coronavirus", eerily similar to COVID-19. This chimera is created in a petridish, reportedly with the "surface spike protein (S protein) of a coronavirus found in horseshoe bats, called SHC014, and the backbone of a SARS virus that could be grown in mice".

The team refered to the chimeric CoV as "SHC014-MA15". The study lists the following as authors: Vineet D Menachery, Boyd L Yount Jr, Kari Debbink, Sudhakar Agnihothram, Lisa E Gralinski, Jessica A Plante, Rachel L Graham, Trevor Scobey, Xing-Yi Ge, Eric F Donaldson, Scott H Randell, Antonio Lanzavecchia, Wayne A Marasco, Zhengli-Li Shi & Ralph S Baric.

Menachery designed, coordinated and performed experiments, completed analysis and wrote the manuscript, according to Nature Medicine.

Here's the scary bit: In the lab (we don't know which one), this new coronavirus was found so potent it could infect and replicate in human airway cells naturally. It also infected mice lung cells. It's one of the experiments which prompted Prof Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, to warn that such research is "misleading" and "irrational", stating thus: “The consequence of any accident would be anywhere from a handful of infections to a catastrophic pandemic.”

I am also seeing a slight uptick in that bogus fake news strategy of "debunking" the suggestion by disproving shit that was not even stated as if that dismisses all concerns over this research and its connection to the pandemic.

The probability that they were experimenting on this virus in at least two labs around the world and that it also happens to be the same virus that jumped randomly from bats is lower than it leaking from one of these two labs, in my opinion. That's not proof of anything, but the language being used to absolve these researchers is a lot like most of the lying propaganda we have seen over the years.

I think this really needs to be investigated and the attempts to absolve BOTH labs without evidence, while calling the argument that we should look into nothing more than a conspiracy theory.. shit is off.

[Speaker to Animals]

For one thing.. it is claimed this could not have leaked from the GoF research because there is a third animal between bats and humans intertwined in this story. I am not sure how that is supposed to disprove the possibility that it leaked from a lab. Was that third animal lab mice?

Another problem.. it is claimed that the GoF research in UNC resulted in a significantly different DNA makeup from type A sars2. First problem with that is that we don't know how many versions they created and pointing to just one of your versions and assuring us that it was different does not do anything to exonerate yourselves. There was little to no oversight at either labs. Second problem with that is that they did not release this DNA evidence.

I would like for this entire research program from both nations to be audited by a panel of scientists from every other nation that was not involved in the research. Get every documentation out of these labs and find out for sure what the fuck is going on. If they didn't fuck up, then fine. This isn't a request for an inquisition where their guilt is assumed.

I think the world has the absolute right and indeed the moral responsibility to audit these labs. All of them. Not just China's lab. We have to figure out if this was an accident so that we can understand it and prevent it from ever happening again. And if it was an accident -- and I don't care from what country -- then the survivors of the people who died deserve to know.

[C-Mag]

My th theory is they tested it on a pig. Pig dies, ordered destroyed. Some poor commie salvages the carcass and sells it at the market.

[C-Mag]

NYC is Still running mass transit buses and subways.

These idiots are too dumb to survive. It's no wonder they have death rate 330X that of Wyoming.