- Documentation of intent to create the virus in the form of multiple approved NIH grant applications to Ecohealth Alliance. This work was performed in the Wuhan lab.
- DARPA rejected funding because it was gain of function research. NIH approved.
- Lab demonstrated creation of virus using the same techniques in Boston University 2022.
- Sworn testimony by Director of the CDC of coverup of the virus in Wuhan lab
- Deleted virus sequences
- Changed command and control from civilian to military
- Let contractor change the ventilation system
- Per recent testimony, in 2014, the lab in Wuhan published the creation of humanized mice having human style ACE2 receptors in their cells, paving the way for research into development of virus to attack those cells.
- COVID 19 attacks the ACE2 receptor of the human cell.
- COVID 19, has a bat virus body yet it cannot infect bats leaving no evolutionary host to infect humans.
- Virus was first discovered in the Wuhan population, adjacent to the lab.
the Air Vent 
[snip — the rule you need to follow is simple.
Post opinion, provide foundation if possible.
We will not be negotiating with your links kid. There is nobody to discuss with otherwise]
Bok, bok, bok.
The link contains technically competent arguments related your confident assertions.
Amusing that you’re not just unwilling to address those arguments, and so uncurious as to not want interrogate them, but that you’re proudly adamant about not doing so.
Here –
I’ll give you another chance, and give you the chance to provide a service by allowing a link for others to use in evaluating the relevant issues at hand.
https://journals.asm.org/doi/epdf/10.1128/jvi.00365-23
I will not be able to snip these until tomorrow: sorry folks.
Fascinating that you’re so invested in holding on tobyiir beliefs that you not only won’t look at credible counterarguments, you feel compelled to even delete links to them:
Just one of many:
Accepted ManuscriptEvidence A: Loss of furin cleavage site in the spike protein during cell 130 culture adaptation of initial isolates of SARS-CoV-2. Over the past three 131 years, hundreds of research groups around the world have cultured human 132 isolates of SARS-CoV-2 in cell lines. This collective experience has revealed a 133 highly reproducible consequence of viral propagation in culture: deletion of the 134 portion of the Spike gene encoding the furin cleavage site (3). If SARS-CoV-2 135 had a laboratory origin, it would have been amplified in a laboratory through a 136 process of serial passage typically needed to recover high titer stocks from 137 environmental samples. In this process, deletion of the furin cleavage site is 138 expected, offering a signature of laboratory handling. However, early isolates of 139 SARS-CoV-2 show the furin cleavage site to be intact, arguing against 140 introduction into humans after laboratory cell culture
Feel free to explain, considering your technical prowess in virology, why they’re wrong.
Lol.
Jeff –
Keep in mind, I’m no way do I assume that there AREN’T solid counterarguments.
I just think it’s hilarious that you make excuses to yourself, and expect readers to buy it, when you have such confidence in your views yet can’t or won’t present your own counterarguments to credible critiques.
It’s fascinating how people manage to hold on to their beliefs.
I won’t bother you any more Jeff. You and the bootlickers can knock yourselves out without having to address any skepticism. I’ve reluctantly decided you’re a lost cause.
The rule is the rule. You must express your own opinion or there is nobody to discuss with.
I’ll leave you with one last comment. It’s notable that Chan, a leading LL proponent, has the chops/stones that you lack.
Could be a coincidence that she also has (at least some) relevant domain knowledge, but I rather doubt it.
OK. One last more. Lol. ‘Cause this was too perfect.
> The rule is the rule. You must express your own opinion or there is nobody to discuss with.
You post just sayin’ stuff all the time, like Wolf’s crazy theories, as do many other commenters.
It’s clear that your operative judgment criterion is whether what’s posted lines up with your preferred narrative. And not as you say. The rule is clearly only the rule when you want the rule as an excuse.
Adios amigo.
You need an assistant admin???
Matthew,
I might at some point. Science blogs are a lot of work.
I have no idea what your point is. You realize that right? I can’t discuss with chan, she is not here.
Your fear of commitment to a dimple argument borders on insane at this point. So much fear.
I have no idea what a “dimple argument” might be, but it sounds really cute.
Hahaha.
That is when old dudes use phones to comment and can’t really see the tiny little letters.
Hey Jeff,
You need to take control of your comment section. It should be for commenting and arguing the topics. Not for Joshoo to take control and basically he has shut this site down.
I use the “how much CO2 is in the atmosphere ” as my first question to test someone out. Honest people usually answer with a number like 10% or 30 % and then you have to give a gentle lecture to put them straight.
Some say “I don’t know, I’m not a scientist”, in which case no need to give a lecture as they they probable not up to understanding much.
Joshoo was a classic “I don’t know, you can google it”, he even posted the google reference so I could do it.
CO2 doesn’t change much and the same number is good for a decade. Anyone who is aware that only one molecule in every 2,500 is a CO2 (I expressed it thus because Joshoo won’t be able to convert that to ppm) realise that the world is actually in a CO2 famine.
Over the millennia so much CO2 has been taken out of the atmosphere and converted to oil, gas, peats and limestone that plant life struggles. A thick strongly growing corn crop in a midsummer Iowan day can nearly deplete the available CO2 in the plant canopy.
Cheers
Ray
I’ve always had a very open comment section. He got to me though and has apparently moved on. I don’t mind being critiqued by thoughtful people although being wrong sucks, it does happen. Being critiqued by an individual having deliberate intent to never express an opinion is tiresome.
He was ruining your site with negativity and posting reams of god knows what.
It was really tiresome.
Hallelujah