Was covid really lab made?

[Anonymous]

Wow. This is not a conspiracy theory anymore.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/28/politics/wray-fbi-covid-origins-lab-china/index.html

[Soteris]

No it probably was not lab made. Best you can argue for is that it was collected from the wild and then stored in a lab for analyzing and then got out. It does not contain the normal signs you would expect from a virus being worked on in a lab.

As for the FBI nonsense, its based on reports. These reports reports has been graded in recent years ever since it caused a fiasco last time people took them more seriously than they would have warranted.

When people hear of an FBI report, what they are thinking of is reports carrying a high confidence assessment. It means the report was done with good evidence supporting it and a good analysis of said evidence or information. It means that the FBI has good reason to believe something is true.

This whole Covid nonsense has two reports that I know of. One is medium confidence and the other is low. Medium confidence means that either they have information but can't analyze it or they are missing some information and are forced to fill in the gaps with assumptions. In other words, they are saying "We dont know, but maybe its possible?"

And then there is low confidence.. There are many people in the American government that can ask the FBI to compile a report on something. There is no limit on what this subject can be. Biden can literally call and order the FBI to give him a report on alien lizard people and they will do this. Chances are that this report will be returned with a "low confidence" assessment. It means basically nothing, it is the highest form of FBI speculation.

So basically, the FBI dont think its from a lab. If they did, it would be a high confidence report. They are just saying there is technically a chance which is basically the same as the conclusion everyone else around the world has also come to. But I think the most important part is that it means that the FBI dont have any secret evidence for this. They are working with basically the same information we are, so we should stop trying to turn to them as an authority on this subject. They are not.

[FilmGuy93]

How the hell could you possibly argue that the virus was most likely not man made? If came from the wild, why haven't we found where it came from yet? If the virus came from nature, why have the Chinese been obstructing the WHO's laughable investigation into the matter every step of the way?

The most likely explanation is that the virus came from the lab.

[Soteris]

@FilmGuy93 If it came from the wild, why have we not found where it came from? Because it could have come from pretty much anywhere. There is nothing special about this virus, similar ones literally exists pretty much everywhere. You are saying it like its easy to track down where a grain of sand came from on a beech. It is also not particularly important to know where it came from either, its here already and that is the important part. Tracking its origin is simply a case of academic curiosity.

[FilmGuy93]

What you’re saying would be true if viruses were like grains of sand. The problem is that it really couldn’t have just come from anywhere. It is very specifically a bat coronavirus that showed up in a specific part of the world that doesn’t make any sense with the bat populations in the region.

Even grains of sand have unique characteristics depending on where in the world they came from.

Now… whether it makes any difference to chase that information down is an issue reasonable people can differ on, but this virus has a very knowable origin.

[Soteris]

@FilmGuy93 True, the virus shows similarities with those found in bat colonies and bats are fliers that travel a decent distance which means that it can transmit it to humans who also travels a long distance who then brings it back to civilization. Furthermore, it is speculated that this virus in particular probably used an intermediary carrier, meaning there was probably one or more other animals that got infected before the first human got infected meaning its even harder to backtrack this to a specific bat colony.

In other words, its not all all straight forward where to even look considering we dont even know where the first cases of transmission happened. To even begin you have to make several layers of guesses and then hope you are correct.

[FilmGuy93]

I think you are wildly overestimating how complicated that search process would be. The virus doesn’t share some characteristics; bat coronaviruses is the exact group of viruses it came from. We can’t even identify a carrier species. I’m not a biologist myself, but literally every biologist I’ve heard speak on this subject has directly said that the chance this occurred naturally is slim to none.

[Soteris]

@FilmGuy93 Not even sure what you are talking about. We have detected covid19 infections in a large number of species, most notably a number of cat species such as house cats and tigers as well as mice, ferrets, and other primates etc.. It is a highly transmissible disease that can infect a large number of species.

But, and this is the important part in my opinion. No one would make a disease like this in a lab. The traits you are aiming for when designing a disease with hostile intent is low mutation and very narrow parameters so it will not mutate into a strain you can't control or have cures for and spread outside the intended area where you released the infection.

A disease that spreads across the entire globe and mutates like crazy such as Covid19 is something an AI would do to kill off humanity. Do you see the problem here?

[FilmGuy93]

Do I see the problem here? Yes, your opinion is incredibly misguided. Every time a virus crosses species, the virus also changes. Covid-19 is the most contagious virus ever discovered; it is exactly the kind of virus they would develop in a lab.

[Soteris]

@FilmGuy93 It can pick up new traits but that is not at all a guarantee. Also Covid19 is not the most contagious virus ever discovered. It can't hold a candle to things like measles or whatever. The reason it spreads so quickly, and the reason why scientists has been ringing alarm bells for decades, is because modern society helps the spread of diseases much more than historically so if a case of the black death or whatever hits today then it would be far worse than ever.

As such, Covid19 is more of a warning shot of what COULD happen if something worse began to spread.

[FilmGuy93]

So, I looked up the contagion thing, and see that I am wrong about that. But I just don't understand how you could possibly look at all the information available and possibly conclude that the virus is naturally occurring. The totality of the evidence just doesn't suggest that to me at all.

[Soteris]

@FilmGuy93 I would argue the complete contrary. First of all, if you argue that things like its transmission rate is a sign of it being engineered then dont you find it strange that it only became more contagious after it started mutating during the pandemic? And again, that is a bad trait for something human designed, you dont want to lose control over your "weapon".

[FilmGuy93]

Something can be human designed without also being a weapon that’s been intentionally released. I can totally agree that the virus wasn’t intentionally released. But the entire purpose of gain of function research (the kind that was happening in the Wuhan lab) is to give viruses additional features and traits for the purpose of studying how they behave.

It seems to me that this novel, first of it’s kind virus that we just so happened to first observe near an infamously poorly-run laboratory that just so happens to work with that exact genus of virus the novel virus falls into is too great a coincidence to write off

[Soteris]

@FilmGuy93 Then you have even more problems. Viruses you keep in a lab for study you also modify to make them easier to handle. Covid19 does not have these industry standard modifications so it would be a pain in the ass to work with.

[FilmGuy93]

Can you expound upon what you mean by "industry standard modifications?" The gain of function research was outlawed specifically because scientists were making the viruses more dangerous. That's why it was such a big deal when it came out that Fauci had bypassed that law and was funneling research money to the Wuhan lab.

[Soteris]

@FilmGuy93 I am not a lab tech nor a biologist so I can only give you a few examples of some I have heard of in passing. Example one would be a form of bioluminescence so you can at a glance see if an infection has taken place in your sample or if it failed as well as track it in for example plants which is commonly used to replicate more for study.

Another would be a resistance towards a certain type of cure, labs has various standard issue antibiotics and such they use for this where the sample is modified to resist it but everything else is killed off to provide a clean work environment for the sample to grow in.

A third thing would be genetic markers. I am not entirely sure how these works but by giving the sample some specific markers you can make them much easier to genetically edit further saving a lot of time and money.

Again though, this is just some examples from someone who only seen these things briefly. There is undoubtedly countless more but my point is that samples you are expected to work with over the long term is prepared accordingly to just make them that much easier to work with.

As for the claim that Fauci promoted gain of function or whatever, that is just propaganda. What actually happened is that vaccine manufacturers prompted the virus to naturally evolve so that they could try predict its likely future path which is neither illegal nor immoral but just normal study.

[FilmGuy93]

That’s actually not propaganda at all; that is 100% confirmed fact. This conversation could go on forever though. I’ll just end this by saying, you are obviously entitled to your opinion, but I think the weight of the evidence and in fact the scientific community are so unambiguously against your position that I would encourage you to revisit the facts.

It’s kinda like the OJ verdict; the fact Covid came from a lab is pretty well understood.

[Soteris]

@FilmGuy93 You know what? I challenge your 100% confirmed fact. I know what you are talking about but for the benefit of your position ill have you provide a link to your claim and ill show you why its wrong as an example of how you have been tricked into believing all this propaganda rather than the science.

[FilmGuy93]

I'd love to see you try.
https://www.bbc.com/news/57932699

Dr Fauci argues that the NIH's experts looked at the project and did not believe it was classified as gain of function research. But the 2014 ban on research reads "New USG funding will not be released for gain-of-function research projects that may be
reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that
the virus would have enhanced pathogenicity and/or transmissibility in mammals via the
respiratory route. The research funding pause would not apply to characterization or
testing of naturally occurring influenza, MERS, and SARS viruses, unless the tests are
reasonably anticipated to increase transmissibility and/or pathogenicity. "
Although Wuhan's research did not intentionally mutate the viruses, one could reasonably infer that the existing viruses (which we had already classified) would acquire greater pathogenicity by studying how they infect other animals' cells.
www.phe.gov/.../gain-of-function.pdf

Dr. Fauci did this, my dude.

[FilmGuy93]

And here is the relevant grant, where the experiments talk about testing the virus on "humanized mice."

https://grantome.com/grant/NIH/R01-AI110964-02

[Soteris]

@FilmGuy93 This is not the one I was thinking about personally but I can't really see the scandal in it either. Quite frankly, its mostly just speculations and vague statements.

For example, the definition of "Gain of function" is much broader than I would argue it is and appears to just outlaw any handling of live viruses, period, as living viruses mutate naturally and can become more dangerous through nothing but random chance compared to my definition which says it has to be the results of an intentional edit by us.

Since this is not really based on much ill just link an interview of a scientist that is relevant to this who denies that there was any gain of function research and that the lab was not working on the covid19 virus.

www.scribd.com/.../Ralph-Baric-Statement-to-The-Fact-Checker

Sadly in my short time looking around I have not found the whole document outside of a paywall but the preview gives us enough information. It basically states that while yes, the US government did pause funding for a few years that was just under pretense of determining if there was gain of function research happening or not, and they resumed the funding later after determining it did not occur. Secondly that the Chinese lab did not work on the Covid19 virus at the time.

So.. I am not really sure if there is anything more to say. False alarm?

[FilmGuy93]

I wanted to take some time to think about how I would respond to this. That research was not a false alarm. The widespread scientiffic community's consensus is that the research being done in Wuhan was actually gain of function.

I think you are giving way too much charity and faith to these people. When Fauci's emails leaked, he even talks about burying evidence to escape culpability. There was pretty clearly something amiss here.

[Soteris]

@FilmGuy93 I mean, what more do you want quite frankly? USA did a review of it when they paused the funding and determined that the research was not actually considered gain of function which is why the funding resumed. Add to this this interview confirming this and the only counter arguments are people not related to the project who probably does not have a good insight in what they are doing in the first place.

Its just not much there quite frankly. I mean USA even did the cautious approach when people questioned the ethicacy to pause the funding and review it. Everything worked as it should and it turned out to be false alarm. It just sounds like a rare win for the system quite frankly.

[FilmGuy93]

There’s only not much there if you’re in denial about reality? The US absolutely did not do “the safe” approach. If they had, they would have at the very least made sure that the lab they were funding upheld basic safety protocols.

[FilmGuy93]

I feel like you didn’t read any of what I sent over. They were testing the virus on humanized mice. That means that they were testing the virus on mice that have been implanted with human tissue to simulate what would happen if the virus were to attack an actual human.

[Soteris]

@FilmGuy93 ... But they literally did just that? That was the whole point of the freeze in funding (not to mention whatever else they had done previously to approve this in the first place)

[FilmGuy93]

No, they didn’t. They froze the funding and then resumed it, despite the freeze clearly stating that research that could reasonably lead to increased pathogenicity of viruses had to stop. This research really obviously carried huge risks but Fauci wanted to fund it, so he had the NIH tweak the definition of gain of function.

This is not a win for the system by any definition.

[Soteris]

@FilmGuy93 But that is the thing, you are wrong. First of all, the pause was applied to projects that not only did gain of function research (although I highly disagree with their definition of this as previously mentioned) but projects that MIGHT be. The specific wording I think is:
"Specifically, the funding pause will apply to gain-of-function research projects that MAY BE REASONABLY ANTICIPATED to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the virus would have enhanced pathogenicity and/or transmissibility in mammals via the respiratory route."

This is not evidence against any one project that was defunded because there had not actually been an evaluation of if they actually qualified or not. It was a blanked freeze to a much wider pool of research that then could be individually evaluated and resumed later if needed. Which I think is very reasonable approach if you were concerned about something.

[FilmGuy93]

Soteris, what you’re arguing is absurd. I’m not even slightly wrong and the facts have consistently shown I’m not making logical leaps.

You’re either trolling me or an ideologue.

[Soteris]

@FilmGuy93 What you are saying is just not making any sense and is all based on the words of people who are not related directly and has no real credibility that I can see.

[FilmGuy93]

The only reason you can't see it is because you are either a troll or an ideologue.

[Soteris]

@FilmGuy93 And yet I have provided much more reliable sources than you have. Again, lets remind ourselves that your argument is based on what random people have said rather than those who are actually involved. It is quite frankly not very persuasive yet you act like you have a solid foundation for your beliefs.

[FilmGuy93]

I provided documents from the federal government. 🤣

[Soteris]

@FilmGuy93 Yes, but that was just supporting proof. Your actual argument depends on the claims made by random people who are concerned about gain of function research.

[FilmGuy93]

These aren't claims from random people. These are claims from people who work at the NIH and Fauci himself.

That's why I think you're an ideologue. What is gain of function research, if not research that enables (or could reasonably be anticipated to enable) a virus to infect new types of cells, specifically human cells? We've seen that the project happening in Wuhan was trying to infect humanized mice with bat coronviruses. That research could reasonably be anticipated to lead to a virus infecting the human population.

Now, obviously the question of whether the virus was intentionally released is a whole different discussion, but this virus is definitely the product of human experimentation.

[Soteris]

@FilmGuy93 Let me repeat what you told me then. You started with:
"Dr Fauci argues that the NIH's experts looked at the project and did not believe it was classified as gain of function research." which supports what I said, then you mention:

"But the 2014 ban on research reads "New USG funding will not be released for gain-of-function research projects that may be
reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS...(continued)" Which I have refuted since it was just under suspicion and funding was later reinstated when they cleared them of suspicion. Then you went on to say:

"Although Wuhan's research did not intentionally mutate the viruses, one could reasonably infer that the existing viruses... would acquire greater pathogenicity by studying how they infect other animals' cells. " Which I find to be a particularly weak argument since it implies that any study of live viruses is gain of function since it technically increases the chance of it mutating and acquiring greater "pathogenicity".

You also posted a link to an article:
https://www.bbc.com/news/57932699

which starts out with a bunch of Republican politicians making baseless accusations against China as well as Prof Richard Ebright which is the first actually relevant source so far. The problem is that while he has the qualifications he does not have direct access to any information that we dont and he is also clearly biased with a history of attacking various laboratories and such. Basically, he is an outspoken extremist ideologue. His opposition to this is not surprising or unexpected regardless if it was true or not so I am mostly discounting him until he can provide evidence which so far I have not seen any outside of his words.

So basically, you dont have much of a leg to stand on and I have provided equal, if not more evidence to support my side.

[FilmGuy93]

No, you didn’t. You did the equivalent of a toddler covering his eyes and saying “you can’t see me.”

[Kaneki05]

It's another of in the family of Sars, Sars wasn't made in a lab so anyone who says this just wrong. Now was it tested and held in a lab then it leaked by accident sure it may have. But if so that's just human error. If they wanted to direct a biological attack a country would pre-pair more so it don't effect unintended targets, and I'm pretty sure this Covid just went everywhere it could so unless there aim was mutual destruction it don't make sense.
Sars also broke out in 2002-2004 and has been around from time to time. Also fun fact Sars is actually more lethal than covid but is much less easy to spread therefore it caused much less problems.

[AmandaYVR]

Yes, looks like it's true.

"All right. The U. S. government still has no consensus, no certainty, on how the COVID-19 outbreak began more than three years ago. But there is this new report from the U. S. Department of Energy, and that report concluded with what it calls low confidence that COVID might have leaked from a lab in China."

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/28/1160157977/u-s-dept-of-energy-says-with-low-confidence-that-covid-may-have-leaked-from-a-la

[Anonymous]

The article makes the case it could have leaked from the lab, which has always been a possibility. It says nothing about it being made in a lab. It was discovered in bats prior to the Wuhan outbreak. It wouldn’t be a shocker if a lab employee was infected and carried it to the outside world but that’s speculation. Any explanation without definitive proof is a conspiracy theory at this point.

[FilmGuy93]

Of course it was really lab made? That shit was obvious. I don't understand why anyone ever called this a "theory."

Dr Fauci made an intentional decision to fund illegal research in the Wuhan lab that just so happened to be on the exact type of virus that caused the pandemic. Conspiracy? Sure. But only in the sense that a group of people worked together, or conspired, to break the law to conduct research that they believed would help them prevent the next major pandemic. Ironically, the dumbshits ended up CAUSING the pandemic in the process, but I guess it's the thought the counts.

[jshm2]

No and you need to learn some reading comprehension.

Even your article heading says "likely" and not "definitively".

You've got little clue what goes into making a change to a virus, let alone making one

[exitseven]

Of course it was. Trump was right years ago about this.

[gorydetails]

Of course it was. Most of us knew this 3 years ago.

[SpokenTruth]

You don't make lies in a lab nor can you protect yourself from a lie with masks.

[Shamalien]

The conspiracy portion won’t be acknowledged but it is fact

[AngryCarl2]

I haven't done any independent research but I think that's now widely accepted.

[Soteris]

Then you would be completely wrong. I can't think of anyone in a position that matters that are convinced of this.

[AngryCarl2]

@Soteris Maybe they just don't want to admit it?

[Soteris]

The bigger the conspiracy the less credible it becomes. Claiming there is literally a world wide conspiracy to not acknowledge that the origin of Covid19 was a Chinese lab is absurd due to the quantity of people it requires to not sell out the secret and this is without mentioning the next step in this conspiracy theory in that Covid19 was supposedly developed as a weapon and/or was released intentionally. Both of which is absurd which is why people like blue anon here begins with only mentioning this first part as a plausible first step into the conspiracy rabbit hole.

Basically. Its stupid and it leads to far more stupid if you are not mature enough to accept that we dont know.

[XXblack88]

I believe it is. But to each their own.

[Anonymous]

Not this again. Move on.