Damning changes in Wuhan lab in September 2019
- Deleted virus sequences
- Changed command and control from civilian to military
- Let contractor change the ventilation system
We have heard reports that COVID was out earlier than we thought, you have to wonder just how early.
Dr. Redfeild “in 2014, this lab actually published a paper that they put the ACE2 receptor into humanized mice”
Placing the ACE2 receptor into “humanized” mice is actually a Wuhan specialty. This forms the foundational test bed for the gain-of-function COVID research which preceded the application by Dr. Peter Daszak’s Ecohealth Alliance to create COVID using those very same humanized mice.
Dr. Redfield was kept from all discussions by Fauci based on his understanding that this was not a natural event. Fauci then used government money to create a single narrative amongst the other scientists.
Everything proving the devlopment of COVID in Wuhan lab is in writing. We have numerous other avenues of evidence as well. We know Fauci gave out huge grants, days after prominent doctors changed their minds to state the virus was of natural origin. It’s well past time to see some prosecution of those who caused this pandemic, and further investigation as to how or why this virus was released. This goose is cooked.
the Air Vent 
Alot of evidence the China Wuhan Virus was out pre-October 2019. (for those that do facts)
> We know Fauci gave out huge grants, days after prominent doctors changed their minds to state the virus was of natural origin.
Lol.
So predictable.
Did you check to see when the grant applications were evaluated and the grants awarded?
You’ll just swallow anything that confirms your biases without checking first.
And I love the appeal to Redfield’s authority. Perfect.
And of course the appeal to Redfield’s authority is on top of the selective appeal to self-interest.
Those acting out of self interest? Fauci, Democratic politicians.
Those acting out altruism, patriotism, and an unrelenting desire for”truth?” Redfield, Republican politicians. Oh, and also ’cause they’re good looking and smell good also.
“And of course the appeal to Redfield’s authority is on top of the selective appeal to self-interest.”
Redfield sucks, but even you have to admit that the application for the creation of the Wuhan virus in the Wuhan lab by Peter Daszak is in plain sight. Fauci is busted in a coverup per the Director of the CDC, whom I am no fan of.
You can make all the arm flapping sounds you want, but these are the known facts.
> Redfield sucks, but even you have to admit that the application for the creation of the Wuhan virus in the Wuhan lab by Peter Daszak is in plain sight.
You still display an amazing ability to not understand basic facts.
There are very significant technical components that distinguish their research focus from SCoV-2.
You uniformly ignore all of the many counterarguments I’ve presented to you. It’s a sad statement on your approach to these kinds of issues.
“There are very significant technical components”
Name them troll.
I’ve given you links to the discussions of the significant differences, the reasons why people with domain knowledge say the respective viruses are very different, and that the documented focus of viruses on the grants were not likely progenitors for SCoV-2. Those materials have also explained why, of you were going to engineer SCoV-2 you wouldn’t likely have started from the viruses they were experimenting with.
Even people like Chan acknowledge all of that.
It’s not my job to explain it to you, and I certainly can’t make you read that material but if you’re interested, it’s not hard to find the evidence.
Here –
Related technical explanation. Feel free to explain the flaws in his logic. Lol.
And I’ve already given you this:
These are just some of the technical responses as to the plausibility of SCOV-2 resulting from their research. You have rsonses to none of those arguments:
Joah,
Your second link is a complete non-sequtur. Haven’t read the first yet.
No it isn’t. It’s an explanation for why the argument that SARS 2 was engineered is improbable. And also why the previous research would not likely have been the basis for engineering SARS 2 even if it were engineered.
But it is cute how you duck out if any kind of a technical critique of the arguments.
As you’ve done all along.
While claiming the arguments have been “proven wrong.”
Bok, bok, bok.
This is what it looks like when someone who thinks a lab leak is plausible, and has at least some domain relevant competence, addresses the technical arguments I’ve pointed you to.
You have only pointed to people Josh. No actual references.
The problem with your non-existent argument is that there is no data for it, only opinions. On my side, I have documentation of the intent to create the virus in the form of multiple grant applications. I have documentation of other labs repeating the same work again, even in Boston. I have sworn testimony of the documentation of virus coverup even by the CDC leadership involved. I have the very unusual structure of the ‘bat’ virus which cannot infect bats. I have the lab in Wuhan which was published in 2014 for the production of humanized mice which were given the ACE2 receptor gene that the virus was attuned to. I have sworn testimony that the lab was taken over by the military and sequences were deleted. AAANDDD I have the location in Wuhan, right next to the lab, where the virus was first reported in the human population.
You really have to be a chicken brain to not notice the difference between what you are posting and what I have presented.
All you keep doing is providing sideshow and noise. There are literally no claims which counter any of the things I’ve presented. Just folks who don’t want it to be true.
I’ve pointed to arguments. Inn your twisted epistemics that equates to an appeal too authority.
You’ve critiqued none of them, presumably because you’re not capable of doing so but I can’t know for sure why.
All you do is stomp your feet and make nonsensical arguments about “proof.”
At least Chan makes a rudamentry attempt – which I respect. Unfortunately she also mixes in conspiratorial elements baswdnon scientists lying and colluding to hide information about the deaths of millions – possible but I don’t think plausible. But in itself that doesn’t suffice as a critique of her argument. It only provides some information relevant to the probabilities of her analytical process.
A link with no words is not a point to be figured out, let alone disagreed with. I read one the other day, in which you left no comment of your own yet implied it had meaning. It was completely unrelated to the origin of the virus. What am I supposed to do with that?
I truly can’t understand why you think you are making a point.
State your claim, provide documents if you can.
Of course, another question is why you don’t even attempt to critique the technical arguments – unlike Chan, who does. I respect her for engaging in a discussion.
Possibly you’re just afraid to do so.
Bok, bok, bok.
> in which you left no comment of your own yet implied it had meaning.
Perfect window into your ridiculous epistemics.
Of course I have no opinion on the technical arguments about whether SARS-2 is engineered.
I present those arguments to you because you claim to know with certainty about the origins of the virus. What’s hilarious is that you have such confidence with no willingness or ability (I can’t know for sue which) to address the plausibility arguments.
You can always do it if you have the stones. Seems unlikely, but I don’t like to assume the worst in people.
I demand you listen to what I’m saying.
” present those arguments to you because ……”
YOU PRESENT NO ARGUMENTS. There is nothing I can figure out that you make to agree or disagree with. It’s like you have some kind of glitch in your head.
Make your point, provide evidence if you can.
I haven’t “demanded” anything. What a bizarre world view you have. REPLY: that is why the words say “I demand”, because it isn’t you Joshua
I’ve presented you with technical arguments as to the likelihood of SARS-2 being engineered and/or engineered from the precursor research. REPLY: false
And I’ve noted that you have nothing to say about those technical arguments. And ice speculated about the reasons why thsr might be the case. REPLY: there is no argument to make
At least Chan has the stones and chops to make an argument. All you do is wave your hands, act like a blowhard, and repeat planely bogus arguments such as popular media conspiratorial narratives about research funding that would require a time machine to be valid.
“I’ve presented you with technical arguments as to the likelihood of SARS-2 being engineered”
FALSE
“and I’ve noted that you have nothing to say about those technical arguments”
TRUE – because the first statement is FALSE.
You present nothing, just copy peoples opinions with nothing to add.
[self snip] very tired
Lol.
Typical snowflake, authoritarian response.
Snip because you can’t/won’t face technical critiques.
I’ll bet you’ve even complained about Realclimate moderation.
Too funny.
[snip, make your own point and provide evidence if you can]
Typical snowflake authoritarian response.
I’ll bet you’ve even complained about Realclimate moderation.
Snip because you can’t/won’t engage discussion at a technical level.
Sad and predictable. So fragile.
Oh dear, Joshoo taking over the comments again, posting reams of other peoples stuff. When I tried to pin him down with a simple fact, no answer. Just more postings.
Seriously joshoo, for the first time one simple fact. How much CO2 in the atmosphere?
Ray
You also just gotta love the logic.
So they “locked out” Redfield from the discussions because he thought the virus came from a lab.
But they included other scientists in the discussions who….
… wait for it….
Thought the virus came from a lab.
I can’t see your paywalled link. Some dude says whatever and you believe.
The data of what was EXACTLY done is now public. NYT is doing damage control, nothing more.
Lol. “Some dude.” That’s too perfect.
He’s one of the scientists you just claimed colluded in hiding responsibility for the deaths of tens of millions, for profit.
And now he’s just “some dude.”
You make a big deal about him changing his perspective on the origins of the virus, but are uncurious as to his explanation regarding the evidence basis for his change of perspective.
Too perfect.
Y I B U R Right
The one who was paid to state falsehoods instead of the truths he started out with.
and he is stating blatantly known falsehoods.
odd.
“blatant falsehoods.”
Lol.
You have been completely unable to address the approved grant applications to develop bat covid into a human ACE2 attacking virus —- > or the result.
You have made precisely ZERO points to counter these facts.
Just pathetic.
You swallow nonsense from politicians without bothering to check the veracity.
You believe the story they spin about Fauci paying off a scientist for changing his publicly stated view on the plausibility of engineering WITHOUT EVEN CHECKING THE MOST SIMPLE OF FACTS RELATED TO THE TIMELINE OF THE SUPPOSED CONSPIRACY TO COLLUDE
Classic. So credulous to believe textbook conspiracy ideation.
Speaking of too perfect.
Now I can find out why Trump can be excused for pushing the vaccines that are killing millions. It wasn’t his fault ’cause he was misled. Just like with Barr, Kelly, Sessions, Mattis, Cohen, Tillerson, etc.
Go ahead *
Explain to Holmes, or Neil, or Worobey, or ANY of them, why they’re wrong in the technical arguments they make regarding the plausibility of engineering, or even better, the plausibility of engineering SCoV-2 off of the research you see as building a progenitor.
Go for it!
Bok, bok, bok.
Lol:
Of course, that they say their study was misinterpreted only proves that the study proves that MASKS DO NOTHING .
That’s how conspiracy ideation works.
My doctor went on a huge rant just yesterday about how masks do nothing.
You have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old.
Lol. You just really can’t keep yourself from appealing to authority, can you?
Such a chicken brain. Can’t even work out what appeal to authority means.
Whar funny is that the authors just didn’t realize how many numbskulls could possibly misread what they stated so explicitly: there is uncertainty, and the evidence is insufficient to draw firm conclusions.
https://www.cochrane.org/news/statement-physical-interventions-interrupt-or-reduce-spread-respiratory-viruses-review
I can read statistics myself Josh. I know exactly what the data says even without the leftists help.
You should try it.
Anonymous –
All I needed to do was read the study to know what the study said.
There’s uncertainty. The existing evidence is ambiguous and not sufficient for drawing firm conclusions.
And that’s on top of basic problems with external validity of the evidence, such as RCTs with unknown or low levels or varying levels of compliance, and tons of confounding variables. And a lack of evaluation of the effect as source control.
We have some evidence of an effect from mechanistic studies. But that’s a long way from evaluating efficacy in the real world – even less so if you’re trying to evaluate the effect of mandates. And it’s still further away from telling us whether there’s any effect at an individual event level – you can’t really reverse engineer that from evaluating population level epidemiological data unless you have massive control for confounding variables.
So imo, it’s a case of low probability/high damage function risk, where there’s likely low potential down side from the intervention (of course, there’s also uncertainty there that adds on to the other uncertainty).
It’s unfortunate that there weren’t “challenge trials” RCTs early in the pandemic where you might have reasonably good control for confounding variables.
All we have now is pointless use of masks as proxy for culture wars.
“he existing evidence is ambiguous and not sufficient for drawing firm conclusions.”
You have proven repeatedly that you cannot read a study. It’s gotten to the point that it is actually funny that you don’t realize that.
You have the same level of compliance you get in practice. There is always uncertainty in measured data, this uncertainty was extremely small and vastly overstated by the propagandist editor.
Masks do not prevent viral spread. Quite obviously.
Anonymous –
> this uncertainty was extremely small and vastly overstated by the propagandist editor.
Lol. You state this based on…. RCTs? With no likely external validity due to myriad confounds (compliance being only one). I see you’re going to ignore that just as Jeff likes to.
> Masks do not prevent viral spread. Quite obviously
Lol X 2.
There’s mechanistic, lab-based, empirical evidence that suggests otherwise. The observational and RCT evidence from real world context is (ambiguous) and insuffient for drawing firm conclusions.
But nothing will get in the way of you confirming your beliefs.
Obviously.
You know you are your own caricature right?
And…
> > this uncertainty was extremely small and vastly overstated by the propagandist editor.
The “propagandist editor” basically restated what was EXPLICITLY stated in the study itself – signed off by ALL of the authors.
I guess that’s a bitter pill for some to swallow.
It’s just perfect how in an u like turn of events, hide absolutely convinced that masks have no benefit embrace the “golf standard” peer-reviewed Cochrane Review only if they ignore what it says and then dismiss the credibility of the whole Cochrane endeavor.
I just love you boyz.
Anonymous –
> You have the same level of compliance you get in practice.
Perhaps you don’t understand. If you have low or unknown compliance in an RCT, then you can’t validly use that RCT to draw conclusions about whether masks have a benefit.
At most, if there was a mandate associated with that RCT and the RCT shows no benefit then you might fairly conclude that mandates don’t have a benefit where the rates of compliance and other important variables are similar across context.
Do you really not understand that?
“Perhaps you don’t understand. If you have low or unknown compliance in an RCT, then you can’t validly use that RCT to draw conclusions about whether masks have a benefit. ”
This is a false statement when you are testing a real world condition. It fooled me too for a moment so I can’t blame you less science minded folks for falling for that, but if the manner in which people use masks affects the efficacy of the masks and causes them to fail to produce any efficacy across 100% of all testing, the mask still doesn’t work. I don’t believe for a moment that failure to comply is going on here, because if there were a signal (reduction in spread), the manner of usage would simply create a weaker signal and across hundreds of thousands of people, should be detectable.
What we have across ALL studies, including those trained in the usage of a mask, is ZERO signal. What you are reading and assuming to be true is nothing but propaganda style opining of people not able to believe that masks don’t work.
Again Josh, the reality is that even if we test 10 million people with perfect (staple it to your face) compliance and find a signal, we now know with certainty that it will be so small as to be non-useful. I wish you were a little more open minded as this discussion is beyond pedantic and your fascist slave-mask ideals were again on the wrong side.
You should ask your dr about wearing a mask in surgery……
Yeah. Tell him Matt days it’s not necessary.
Lol.
Or her.
I don’t really go to doctors very often. When I do, it is usually for an opinion on things I don’t have experience of on my own. For instance, I don’t need to ask a doctor about second hand smoke. I didn’t ask his opinion on masks or vaccines either. He gave them both to me though.
Turns out that he agreed with me that the vaccines should have been held for the high risk crowd only to prevent the virus from evolving around the shot.
odd, I’ve read something similar somewhere. 😀 I didn’t know he thought the same way on that.
Are we cured?!!