Origin of the Coronavirus

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by peter12

No.

Know a lot about China's constitution and the weight it carries in governance?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by peter12

AFC is a nice guy, but clearly suffers from a kind of quasi-left English Boomer mentality about the world and how it works.

Nice guy though.

Oo, nice analysis! Now do Peter12 next.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by peter12

AFC is a nice guy, but clearly suffers from a kind of quasi-left English Boomer mentality about the world and how it works.

Nice guy though.

It would seem churlish not to like that

[peter12]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

It would seem churlish not to like that

Am I wrong? I would say I mostly disagree with what you say, but I like your overall tone a lot. Plus you seem like a genuinely good dude.

Hey, I can disagree with people without engaging in a childish piling on like some people on here. Oh look, it's started again.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Am I wrong? I would say I mostly disagree with what you say, but I like your overall tone a lot. Plus you seem like a genuinely good dude.

Hey, I can disagree with people without engaging in a childish piling on like some people on here. Oh look, it's started again.

No, and I rarely get to use churlish and its a word I like, so double bonus

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

what circumstantial evidence?

I posted on the first page of this thread, an article from noted conspiracy rag The Washington Post, talking about all the circumstantial evidence. That was followed by three pages of wise cracks and false accusations from people with poor reading comprehension skills.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by peter12

Am I wrong? I would say I mostly disagree with what you say, but I like your overall tone a lot. Plus you seem like a genuinely good dude.

Hey, I can disagree with people without engaging in a childish piling on like some people on here. Oh look, it's started again.

Maybe if you were less holier than thou, you wouldn't get piled on so much. Just sayin'

[Buzzard]

Does a Nobel Prize winner in medicine have enough credibility?

https://www.gilmorehealth.com/chines...iscovered-hiv/

Professor Luc Montagnier, 2008 Nobel Prize winner for Medicine, claims that SARS-CoV-2 is a manipulated virus that was accidentally released from a laboratory in Wuhan, China. Chinese researchers are said to have used coronaviruses in their work to develop an AIDS vaccine. HIV DNA fragments are believed to have been found in the SARS-CoV-2 genome.

in order to insert an HIV sequence into this genome, molecular tools are needed, and that can only be done in a laboratory.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Buzzard

Does a Nobel Prize winner in medicine have enough credibility?

https://www.gilmorehealth.com/chines...iscovered-hiv/

He is 87.

So no I would no longer believe he is a scientific expert.

He said it on a podcast and not on a peer reviewed paper. He references the Indian work that notes the interesting coincidence as evidence. When the authors themselves stated that they pulled it because people were misinterpreting their work.

I should add that if this was an accidental lab release that wouldn’t be surprising. There are near misses surprisingly regularly. There is just the one case not linked to the market as evidence. I just don’t think it matters.

[peter12]

Montagnier is probably one of those once in a generation geniuses though.

[GoFlamesGo89]

Originally Posted by peter12

Montagnier is probably one of those once in a generation geniuses though.

So you think his recent studies of 'water memory' are going to result in something useful? Even geniuses can pass their prime. Look up Linus Pauling and Vitamin C. Montagnier is well known to be controversial.


You can look up the genome of the virus yourself and use a tool called BLAST to look up similarity to other known genomes. Almost all viruses share similarities (something called homology) which IS NOT the same thing as being identical. HIV doesn't make it very high up on that list.

[Codes]

Yeah, that was debunked months ago. There are no signs of manipulation in the SARS-CoV-2 genome.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by GoFlamesGo89

So you think his recent studies of 'water memory' are going to result in something useful? Even geniuses can pass their prime. Look up Linus Pauling and Vitamin C. Montagnier is well known to be controversial.


You can look up the genome of the virus yourself and use a tool called BLAST to look up similarity to other known genomes. Almost all viruses share similarities (something called homology) which IS NOT the same thing as being identical. HIV doesn't make it very high up on that list.

I didn't know I didn't know!

[afc wimbledon]

He may or may not be a genius but he knows a publicity when he sees it and there is no publicity in it being naturally occuring.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

He may or may not be a genius but he knows a publicity when he sees it and there is no publicity in it being naturally occuring.

True, Covid basically got no coverage until this theory started coming out

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by GGG

He is 87.

So no I would no longer believe he is a scientific expert.

He said it on a podcast and not on a peer reviewed paper. He references the Indian work that notes the interesting coincidence as evidence. When the authors themselves stated that they pulled it because people were misinterpreting their work.

I should add that if this was an accidental lab release that wouldn’t be surprising. There are near misses surprisingly regularly. There is just the one case not linked to the market as evidence. I just don’t think it matters.

He may or may not be as sharp as 12 years ago when he won the Nobel but there are plenty more scientists now claiming this virus could not have been born naturally where the CPC says it came from.

[Codes]

Originally Posted by Codes

Yeah, that was debunked months ago. There are no signs of manipulation in the SARS-CoV-2 genome.

Here is an article from Nature discussing the possible origins of SARS-CoV-2. They provide rationale for why it is improbable the virus was a result of laboratory manipulation.

Edit:

News article from yesterday citing additional studies further disputing claims the virus is non-natural.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

He may or may not be as sharp as 12 years ago when he won the Nobel but there are plenty more scientists now claiming this virus could not have been born naturally where the CPC says it came from.

Sorry but... like who?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

He may or may not be as sharp as 12 years ago when he won the Nobel but there are plenty more scientists now claiming this virus could not have been born naturally where the CPC says it came from.

I don’t think I am disputing that not have the information you are referring too to dispute that. The question was is an 87 year old former Nobel winner who made statements on a podcast a credible source.

Also he won the Nobel prize for work done 27 years ago. He didn’t win until 2008.

My answer was no

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Well here’s an article from the Washington post saying that it’s possible this could have been an accidental release from the bio lab.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.wash...outputType=amp

Highlights include:
No evidence of bats being sold at this seafood market
The bats that carry these viruses live in southern China, 1000s of Km’s from Wuhan
Bat coronaviruses were being studied at the virology institute
Institute is 300 yards from seafood market
First case had no known link to seafood market
Articles postulating this could have been an accidental release scrubbed from Chinese internet.

There’s a microbiologist from Rutgers quoted in the story, hopefully he’s credible enough for the people on this board. It’s at least a possibility, nothing more nothing less. In any case, postulating that scientists know 100% that this originated from an animal market is just dumb. It’s weird to see this pandemic play out and people refuse to allow possibilities for variance in things we most assuredly don’t know, like transmissibility fatality rates and origin. No one has a scientific background I guess.

Thought I would just point out the researchers believe tends that bats then infected Pangolins that then infected humans, while the wet market possibly didn't sell bats it did, I assume, sell pangolins that are mainly bred or caught in southern china where the bats are, it would seem more likely that a pangolin being bred in some barn in southern china which had bats nesting in it or something of that nature caught the bat flu and was then shipped out to Wuhan, where it then had its revenge on humans dumb enough to think that Pangolin tastes better than chicken.

All of this doesn't disprove that the Chinese did this on purpose or by accident or anything else, but it seems some variation of a pangolin catching bat flu on the farm or caged in some truck on the way to market is still massively the most likely.