The Coronavirus Thread

[Cunt]

A virus of zoonotic origin, could leak from a lab, rainbow.

Folks claiming one the former excludes the latter, may need your drawing skills.

[NineBerry]

Yes, it could happen, but it wouldn't really be a big scandal because the same virus would also have been present outside the lab before.

[Cunt]

What I'm getting at, is that anyone suggesting it couldn't leak from a lab, because of 'zoonotic origin' has missed a step.

When they find the zoonotic origin, they might be able to exclude a lab leak, but considering what was in Fauci's emails, it seems there was a lot of money, and irregular oversight, at that lab near where the zoonotic origin is claimed to have occurred. It's possible the CCP is being completely honest and forthright, but I haven't ever believed that about my government. Or the US. So I guess I'm a bit cynical about their honesty.

[NineBerry]

What was in the emails? Please quote the relevant pieces

[Cunt]

What was in the emails? Please quote the relevant pieces

I don't have the relevant pieces to share. I hear about them on audio, and you can too. Bongino has a theatrical and dramatic take, which is available on video or audio.

But I found this, with an easy search...
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/0 ... uciemails/

Despite the warnings, the US National Institute of Health (NIH) under Dr. Anthony Fauci awarded a $3.7 million grant to the Wuhan lab studying the bat virus. This was after State Department warned about the risky tests going on in the lab.

In one email from April 18, 2020, Dr. Peter Daszak thanked Dr. Fauci for insisting the COVID-19 virus was naturally occurring — when both men knew this was a lie.

And now a second email surfaced from the Fauci email dump that shows Dr. Fauci was told inlate January 2020 that some of the features of the coronavirus “look engineered.”
Dr. Fauci knew the truth.

And he lied about it for over year — maybe because he was funding the projects — something else he lied about.

[Sean Hayden]

--sigh

That's an awful interpretation of what's in the email.

[Cunt]

You might try this episode of the Dark Horse podcast. It's only 3 hours or so, and if you adjust the speed to 'Shapiro', it is half that.

Of course, it's hard to call these guys 'alt-right' or 'science deniers', but I'm sure there will be someone along to attack their character. I'm going to listen to what is said, instead of what politics the speakers have though.

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cH ... HQAAAAAQGQ

Dr. Robert Malone is the inventor of mRNA Vaccine technology.
Mr. Steve Kirsch is a serial entrepreneur who has been researching adverse reactions to COVID vaccines.
Dr. Bret Weinstein is an evolutionary biologist.
Bret talks to Robert and Steve about the pandemic, treatment and the COVID vaccines.

[Cunt]

--sigh

That's an awful interpretation of what's in the email.

Yes, and one could also make a flattering interpretation.

[Sean Hayden]

Maybe --like I've said before, I enjoy a conspiracy, I just prefer for it to be exposed with solid reasoning.

[Cunt]

Is the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology a suitable 'expert'?

[NineBerry]

Is the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology a suitable 'expert'?

No. Neither is Karl Benz an expert on autonomous driving cars.

[Cunt]

Is the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology a suitable 'expert'?

No. Neither is Karl Benz an expert on autonomous driving cars.

Well, they have a lot more credentials than any of the posters here, so I'll listen to them AND you.

Maybe you'll have some disagreement with their topics. Let me know.

[NineBerry]

Ich habe Besseres zu tun

[Joe]

--sigh

That's an awful interpretation of what's in the email.

Yes, and one could also make a flattering interpretation.

Or one could simply wait for Anderson and his colleagues to complete their examination and draw conclusions instead of dishonestly quote mining an email from well before they were done. The paper was published in March and concluded:

In the midst of the global COVID-19 public-health emergency, it is reasonable to wonder why the origins of the pandemic matter. Detailed understanding of how an animal virus jumped species boundaries to infect humans so productively will help in the prevention of future zoonotic events. For example, if SARS-CoV-2 pre-adapted in another animal species, then there is the risk of future re-emergence events. In contrast, if the adaptive process occurred in humans, then even if repeated zoonotic transfers occur, they are unlikely to take off without the same series of mutations. In addition, identifying the closest viral relatives of SARS-CoV-2 circulating in animals will greatly assist studies of viral function. Indeed, the availability of the RaTG13 bat sequence helped reveal key RBD mutations and the polybasic cleavage site.

The genomic features described here may explain in part the infectiousness and transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 in humans. Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here. However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.

More scientific data could swing the balance of evidence to favor one hypothesis over another. Obtaining related viral sequences from animal sources would be the most definitive way of revealing viral origins. For example, a future observation of an intermediate or fully formed polybasic cleavage site in a SARS-CoV-2-like virus from animals would lend even further support to the natural-selection hypotheses. It would also be helpful to obtain more genetic and functional data about SARS-CoV-2, including animal studies. The identification of a potential intermediate host of SARS-CoV-2, as well as sequencing of the virus from very early cases, would similarly be highly informative. Irrespective of the exact mechanisms by which SARS-CoV-2 originated via natural selection, the ongoing surveillance of pneumonia in humans and other animals is clearly of utmost importance.

You should note that while they said they didn't think the lab leak hypothesis was plausible, they didn't rule it out and said more data could change that view. And yes, that was one of the hypotheses they looked at. Pretty open minded of them, don't you think?

As usual, Gateway Pundit is pushing BS.

[Cunt]

Your video looks cute, but the guy on the podcast offered a million bucks if anyone can prove the NIH was right about Ivermectin.

Go get it, nb!

(I really hope you do...I think you would look good with a fat pile of cash)