There would be no need for nuclear war. This isn't even an option unless china declared war and shot off nukes. If that happens why worry you'll be dead anyway.
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Covid is a accidental Lab leaked bioweapon
- Thread starter gaiusmarius
- Start date
Covid is a accidental Lab leaked bioweapon
Check the construction
Indoor pictures
Covid is a accidental Lab leaked bioweapon
Check the construction
Indoor pictures
nah man, couldn't leak from that facility, that looks at least bio lab safety level 4, should by tight as a gnats ass, lmao......
i see no indication in the photos what or where that is. the run-down looking wooden fence visible outside the window suggests to me that this is not ANY kind of a govt facility anywhere in the world. a look out the window at an alley maybe...
plus those curtains...martha stewart wouldn't wipe a donkeys ass with those!
could be, look at that mutated yellow face outside The Lab. 
:
:
When late night comedians go off script about the bat soup being the source.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1404665481886195717
https://twitter.com/i/status/1404665481886195717
so sad, Jon Stewart used to be edgy, those times seem to be gone. yes it's funy, but he should have been saying this 6 months ago when it was dangerous to open your mouth about it, saying this now is not edgy at all. even if it is true.
The Military Games there in Wuhan before this started is too much of a coincidence. There is a bill being started in Congress called "the fire foochie act", drops his pay to $0.00 / yr.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...nese-communists-presser-fire-fauci-act-video/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...nese-communists-presser-fire-fauci-act-video/
The bats were for the bat soup, not foochie's evil research. Yeah, sure.
https://welovetrump.com/2021/06/15/watch-wuhan-lab-caught-housing-bats/
https://welovetrump.com/2021/06/15/watch-wuhan-lab-caught-housing-bats/
LMAO... Welovetrump. com = YOURASUCKER.COM
I remember reading early on that there was a mysterious respiratory illness floating around during the military games.
Iirc, that was in August/September 2019. The timing sounds about right for the infections that followed in China and Europe.
10,000 competitors from 100 countries.
This is an interesting article worth reading regarding natural or lab escape virus. It takes time to learn about a novel virus.
Kristian Andersen responds
Scientist Opens Up About His Early Email to Fauci on Virus Origins
https://www.yahoo.com/news/scientist...114537695.html
James Gorman and Carl Zimmer
Wed, June 16, 2021, 7:45 AM
Among the thousands of pages of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s emails obtained recently by The Washington Post and BuzzFeed News, a short note from Kristian Andersen, a virus expert at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, has garnered a lot of attention.
Over the past year, Andersen has been one of the most outspoken proponents of the theory that the coronavirus originated from a natural spillover from an animal to humans outside of a lab. But in the email to Fauci in January 2020, Andersen hadn’t yet come to that conclusion. He told Fauci, the government’s top infectious disease expert, that some features of the virus made him wonder whether it had been engineered, and noted that he and his colleagues were planning to investigate further by analyzing the virus’s genome.
Sign up for The Morning newsletter from the New York Times
The researchers published those results in a paper in the scientific journal Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020, concluding that a laboratory origin was very unlikely. Andersen has reiterated this point of view in interviews and on Twitter over the past year, putting him at the center of the continuing controversy over whether the virus could have leaked from a Chinese lab.
When his early email to Fauci was released, the media storm around Andersen intensified, and he deactivated his Twitter account. He answered written questions from The New York Times about the email and the fracas. The exchange has been lightly edited for length.
Q: Much has been made of your email to Fauci in late January 2020, shortly after the coronavirus genome was first sequenced. You said, “The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered.” Can you explain what you meant?
A: At the time, based on limited data and preliminary analyses, we observed features that appeared to potentially be unique to SARS-CoV-2. We had not yet seen these features in other related viruses from natural sources, and thus were exploring whether they had been engineered into the virus.
Those features included a structure known as the furin cleavage site that allows the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to be cleaved by furin, an enzyme found in human cells, and another structure, known as the receptor binding domain, that allowed the virus to anchor to the outside of human cells via a cell-surface protein known as ACE2.
Q: You also said you found the virus’s genome to be “inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”
A: This was a reference to the features of SARS-CoV-2 that we identified based on early analyses that didn’t appear to have an obvious immediate evolutionary precursor. We hadn’t yet performed more in-depth analyses to reach a conclusion, rather were sharing our preliminary observations.
I cautioned in that same email that we would need to look at the question much more closely and that our opinions could change within a few days based on new data and analyses — which they did.
Q: In March, you and other scientists published the Nature Medicine paper saying that “we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.” Can you explain how the research changed your view?
A: The features in SARS-CoV-2 that initially suggested possible engineering were identified in related coronaviruses, meaning that features that initially looked unusual to us weren’t.
Many of these analyses were completed in a matter of days, while we worked around the clock, which allowed us to reject our preliminary hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 might have been engineered, while other “lab”-based scenarios were still on the table.
Yet more extensive analyses, significant additional data and thorough investigations to compare genomic diversity more broadly across coronaviruses led to the peer-reviewed study published in Nature Medicine. For example, we looked at data from coronaviruses found in other species, such as bats and pangolins, which demonstrated that the features that first appeared unique to SARS-CoV-2 were in fact found in other, related viruses.
Overall, this is a textbook example of the scientific method where a preliminary hypothesis is rejected in favor of a competing hypothesis after more data become available and analyses are completed.
Q: Some people, including virus expert David Baltimore, say the presence of the furin cleavage site could be a sign of human manipulation of the virus, whereas you and other virus experts have said it naturally evolved. Can you explain for readers why you don’t think it is proof of an engineered virus?
A: Furin cleavage sites are found all across the coronavirus family, including in the betacoronavirus genus that SARS-CoV-2 belongs to. There has been much speculation that patterns found in the virus’s RNA that are responsible for certain portions of the furin cleavage site represent evidence of engineering. Specifically, people are pointing to two “CGG” sequences that code for the amino acid arginine in the furin cleavage site as strong evidence that the virus was made in the lab. Such statements are factually incorrect.
While it’s true that CGG is less common than other patterns that code for arginine, the CGG codon is found elsewhere in the SARS-CoV-2 genome and the genetic sequence that include the CGG codon found in SARS-CoV-2 are also found in other coronaviruses. These findings, together with many other technical features of the site, strongly suggest that it evolved naturally and there is very little chance somebody engineered it.
Q: Do you still believe that all laboratory scenarios are implausible? If not an engineered virus, what about an accidental leak from the Wuhan lab?
A: As we stated in our article last March, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove specific hypotheses of SARS-CoV-2 origin. However, while both lab and natural scenarios are possible, they are not equally likely — precedence, data and other evidence strongly favor natural emergence as a highly likely scientific theory for the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, while the lab leak remains a speculative hypothesis based on conjecture.
Based on detailed analyses of the virus conducted to date by researchers around the world, it is extremely unlikely that the virus was engineered. The scenario in which the virus was found in nature, brought to the lab and then accidentally release[d] is similarly unlikely, based on current evidence.
In contrast, the scientific theory about the natural emergence of SARS-CoV-2 presents a far simpler and more likely scenario. The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 is very similar to that of SARS-CoV-1, including its seasonal timing, location and association with the human food chain.
Q: Some people have pointed to your email to Fauci, suggesting that it raises questions about whether scientists and government officials gave more credence to the lab-leak theory than they let on to the public. And some recent reports have suggested that certain government officials didn’t want to talk about the lab-leak theory because it would draw attention to the government’s support of so-called gain-of-function research. What is your response to these suggestions? Were you worried in the spring of 2020 about the public latching on to a lab-leak theory?
A: My primary concern last spring, which is true to this day, is to perform research to discern exactly how SARS-CoV-2 emerged in the human population.
I won’t speak to what government officials and other scientists did or didn’t say or think. My comments and conclusions are strictly driven by scientific inquiry, and I strongly believe that careful, well-supported public messaging around complex topics is paramount.
Q: Many scientists have now expressed an openness to the possibility that a lab leak occurred. Looking back over the past year, do you have any regrets about the way you or the broader scientific community have communicated with the public about the lab-leak idea?
A: First, it is important to say that the scientific community has made tremendous inroads in understanding COVID-19 in a remarkably short amount of time. Vigorous debate is integral to science and that’s what we have seen regarding the origins of SARS-CoV-2.
It can be difficult at times for the public, I think, to observe the debate and discern the likelihood of the various hypotheses. That is particularly true where science becomes politicized, and the current vilification of scientists and subject matter experts sets a dangerous precedent. We saw that with the climate change debate and now we’re seeing it with the debate around various facets of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Throughout this pandemic, I have made my best efforts to help explain what the scientific evidence is and suggests, and I have no regrets about that.
Q: Do you support President Joe Biden’s call for U.S. intelligence agencies to further investigate these various possibilities? Could they find anything that would change your mind?
A: I have always supported further inquiries into the origin of SARS-CoV-2, including President Biden’s recent call, as it is important that we more fully understand how the virus emerged.
As is true for any scientific process, there are several things that would lend credence to the lab-leak hypothesis that would make me change my mind. For example, any credible evidence of SARS-CoV-2 having been at the Wuhan Institute of Virology prior to the pandemic — whether in a freezer, in tissue culture or in animals, or epidemiological evidence of very early confirmed COVID-19 cases associated with the institute.
Other evidence, were it to emerge, could lend further weight to the natural origin hypothesis. That includes the identification of an intermediate [animal] host (if one exists). Also, now that we know that live animals were sold at markets across Wuhan, further understanding of the flow of animals and connected supply lines could lend additional credence to natural emergence.
Q: It seems that you’ve shut down your Twitter account. Why? Will you come back?
A: I have always seen Twitter as a way to interact with other scientists and the general public to encourage open and transparent dialogue about science.
Increasingly, however, I found that information and comments I posted were being taken out of context or misrepresented to push false narratives, in particular about the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Daily attacks against scientists and the scientific method have also become common, and much of the conversation has steered far away from the science.
For those reasons, I felt that at present, I could no longer productively contribute to the platform, and I decided it would be more productive for me to invest more of my time into our infectious disease research, including that on COVID-19.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Kristian Andersen responds
Scientist Opens Up About His Early Email to Fauci on Virus Origins
https://www.yahoo.com/news/scientist...114537695.html
James Gorman and Carl Zimmer
Wed, June 16, 2021, 7:45 AM
Among the thousands of pages of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s emails obtained recently by The Washington Post and BuzzFeed News, a short note from Kristian Andersen, a virus expert at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, has garnered a lot of attention.
Over the past year, Andersen has been one of the most outspoken proponents of the theory that the coronavirus originated from a natural spillover from an animal to humans outside of a lab. But in the email to Fauci in January 2020, Andersen hadn’t yet come to that conclusion. He told Fauci, the government’s top infectious disease expert, that some features of the virus made him wonder whether it had been engineered, and noted that he and his colleagues were planning to investigate further by analyzing the virus’s genome.
Sign up for The Morning newsletter from the New York Times
The researchers published those results in a paper in the scientific journal Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020, concluding that a laboratory origin was very unlikely. Andersen has reiterated this point of view in interviews and on Twitter over the past year, putting him at the center of the continuing controversy over whether the virus could have leaked from a Chinese lab.
When his early email to Fauci was released, the media storm around Andersen intensified, and he deactivated his Twitter account. He answered written questions from The New York Times about the email and the fracas. The exchange has been lightly edited for length.
Q: Much has been made of your email to Fauci in late January 2020, shortly after the coronavirus genome was first sequenced. You said, “The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered.” Can you explain what you meant?
A: At the time, based on limited data and preliminary analyses, we observed features that appeared to potentially be unique to SARS-CoV-2. We had not yet seen these features in other related viruses from natural sources, and thus were exploring whether they had been engineered into the virus.
Those features included a structure known as the furin cleavage site that allows the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to be cleaved by furin, an enzyme found in human cells, and another structure, known as the receptor binding domain, that allowed the virus to anchor to the outside of human cells via a cell-surface protein known as ACE2.
Q: You also said you found the virus’s genome to be “inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”
A: This was a reference to the features of SARS-CoV-2 that we identified based on early analyses that didn’t appear to have an obvious immediate evolutionary precursor. We hadn’t yet performed more in-depth analyses to reach a conclusion, rather were sharing our preliminary observations.
I cautioned in that same email that we would need to look at the question much more closely and that our opinions could change within a few days based on new data and analyses — which they did.
Q: In March, you and other scientists published the Nature Medicine paper saying that “we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.” Can you explain how the research changed your view?
A: The features in SARS-CoV-2 that initially suggested possible engineering were identified in related coronaviruses, meaning that features that initially looked unusual to us weren’t.
Many of these analyses were completed in a matter of days, while we worked around the clock, which allowed us to reject our preliminary hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 might have been engineered, while other “lab”-based scenarios were still on the table.
Yet more extensive analyses, significant additional data and thorough investigations to compare genomic diversity more broadly across coronaviruses led to the peer-reviewed study published in Nature Medicine. For example, we looked at data from coronaviruses found in other species, such as bats and pangolins, which demonstrated that the features that first appeared unique to SARS-CoV-2 were in fact found in other, related viruses.
Overall, this is a textbook example of the scientific method where a preliminary hypothesis is rejected in favor of a competing hypothesis after more data become available and analyses are completed.
Q: Some people, including virus expert David Baltimore, say the presence of the furin cleavage site could be a sign of human manipulation of the virus, whereas you and other virus experts have said it naturally evolved. Can you explain for readers why you don’t think it is proof of an engineered virus?
A: Furin cleavage sites are found all across the coronavirus family, including in the betacoronavirus genus that SARS-CoV-2 belongs to. There has been much speculation that patterns found in the virus’s RNA that are responsible for certain portions of the furin cleavage site represent evidence of engineering. Specifically, people are pointing to two “CGG” sequences that code for the amino acid arginine in the furin cleavage site as strong evidence that the virus was made in the lab. Such statements are factually incorrect.
While it’s true that CGG is less common than other patterns that code for arginine, the CGG codon is found elsewhere in the SARS-CoV-2 genome and the genetic sequence
Q: Do you still believe that all laboratory scenarios are implausible? If not an engineered virus, what about an accidental leak from the Wuhan lab?
A: As we stated in our article last March, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove specific hypotheses of SARS-CoV-2 origin. However, while both lab and natural scenarios are possible, they are not equally likely — precedence, data and other evidence strongly favor natural emergence as a highly likely scientific theory for the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, while the lab leak remains a speculative hypothesis based on conjecture.
Based on detailed analyses of the virus conducted to date by researchers around the world, it is extremely unlikely that the virus was engineered. The scenario in which the virus was found in nature, brought to the lab and then accidentally release[d] is similarly unlikely, based on current evidence.
In contrast, the scientific theory about the natural emergence of SARS-CoV-2 presents a far simpler and more likely scenario. The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 is very similar to that of SARS-CoV-1, including its seasonal timing, location and association with the human food chain.
Q: Some people have pointed to your email to Fauci, suggesting that it raises questions about whether scientists and government officials gave more credence to the lab-leak theory than they let on to the public. And some recent reports have suggested that certain government officials didn’t want to talk about the lab-leak theory because it would draw attention to the government’s support of so-called gain-of-function research. What is your response to these suggestions? Were you worried in the spring of 2020 about the public latching on to a lab-leak theory?
A: My primary concern last spring, which is true to this day, is to perform research to discern exactly how SARS-CoV-2 emerged in the human population.
I won’t speak to what government officials and other scientists did or didn’t say or think. My comments and conclusions are strictly driven by scientific inquiry, and I strongly believe that careful, well-supported public messaging around complex topics is paramount.
Q: Many scientists have now expressed an openness to the possibility that a lab leak occurred. Looking back over the past year, do you have any regrets about the way you or the broader scientific community have communicated with the public about the lab-leak idea?
A: First, it is important to say that the scientific community has made tremendous inroads in understanding COVID-19 in a remarkably short amount of time. Vigorous debate is integral to science and that’s what we have seen regarding the origins of SARS-CoV-2.
It can be difficult at times for the public, I think, to observe the debate and discern the likelihood of the various hypotheses. That is particularly true where science becomes politicized, and the current vilification of scientists and subject matter experts sets a dangerous precedent. We saw that with the climate change debate and now we’re seeing it with the debate around various facets of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Throughout this pandemic, I have made my best efforts to help explain what the scientific evidence is and suggests, and I have no regrets about that.
Q: Do you support President Joe Biden’s call for U.S. intelligence agencies to further investigate these various possibilities? Could they find anything that would change your mind?
A: I have always supported further inquiries into the origin of SARS-CoV-2, including President Biden’s recent call, as it is important that we more fully understand how the virus emerged.
As is true for any scientific process, there are several things that would lend credence to the lab-leak hypothesis that would make me change my mind. For example, any credible evidence of SARS-CoV-2 having been at the Wuhan Institute of Virology prior to the pandemic — whether in a freezer, in tissue culture or in animals, or epidemiological evidence of very early confirmed COVID-19 cases associated with the institute.
Other evidence, were it to emerge, could lend further weight to the natural origin hypothesis. That includes the identification of an intermediate [animal] host (if one exists). Also, now that we know that live animals were sold at markets across Wuhan, further understanding of the flow of animals and connected supply lines could lend additional credence to natural emergence.
Q: It seems that you’ve shut down your Twitter account. Why? Will you come back?
A: I have always seen Twitter as a way to interact with other scientists and the general public to encourage open and transparent dialogue about science.
Increasingly, however, I found that information and comments I posted were being taken out of context or misrepresented to push false narratives, in particular about the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Daily attacks against scientists and the scientific method have also become common, and much of the conversation has steered far away from the science.
For those reasons, I felt that at present, I could no longer productively contribute to the platform, and I decided it would be more productive for me to invest more of my time into our infectious disease research, including that on COVID-19.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
thats an interesting read, thanks for sharing.
Good article Buzzmobile. This has become so tied up in conspiracy theory, politics, and anti China sentiment that everyone has lost sight of the science. I posted videos and aricles earlier in this thread and others that were ignored because it didn't fit the narrative. The narrative is politically driven. There are literally thousands of these viruses out there and the more people encroach on natural environment, interact with these animals, and sadly consume them, the more likley we will see pandemics. Viruses have occurred naturally in the past and will in the future. I urge people to take an hour out of their lives and look at the vid I posted earlier which give a great explanaition of these viruses. If he turns out to wrong, at the very least you will learn a lot about viruses. Edit; see below.
https://attend.mediahouse.com.au/bre...bYI94RPm4Hx5aA
Maybe the lab leak theory will prove correct, but I doubt it. Still no evidence. Just a lot of people joining imaginary dots. Now Biden has asked the intelligence agencies to answer what should be a scientific question. Not holding my breath on that answer, whatever it turns out to be.
https://attend.mediahouse.com.au/bre...bYI94RPm4Hx5aA
Maybe the lab leak theory will prove correct, but I doubt it. Still no evidence. Just a lot of people joining imaginary dots. Now Biden has asked the intelligence agencies to answer what should be a scientific question. Not holding my breath on that answer, whatever it turns out to be.
It seems many are discounting science over trying to prove China released a virus from their lab and the Democrats are wrong. With the political climate so distorted the right answer is what the majority can be made to believe regardless of the science.
Buzz's article is good, the stuff you shared wasn't. basically arrogant "fact checkers" announcing that they just know, is in no way convincing.
Hempy McNoodle
Well-known member
What are the advantages of 'slow-dripping' the facts to the public little by little?
Does it give the Deep State a chance to double-down on their lies (their only real option)? And, then the next droplet comes and everyone sees that the liars lied again and the people who had it right all along, are once again, proven correct. We are in a war, make no mistake about it. The exposure of this biological attack will end the enemies grip on peoples minds. Once people wake up and see the true nature of this Deep State, the Deep State will lose control forever. Their operations depend on the consent of the brainwashed masses. Once one begins to see the truth, it becomes nearly impossible to unsee it.
Does it give the Deep State a chance to double-down on their lies (their only real option)? And, then the next droplet comes and everyone sees that the liars lied again and the people who had it right all along, are once again, proven correct. We are in a war, make no mistake about it. The exposure of this biological attack will end the enemies grip on peoples minds. Once people wake up and see the true nature of this Deep State, the Deep State will lose control forever. Their operations depend on the consent of the brainwashed masses. Once one begins to see the truth, it becomes nearly impossible to unsee it.
the big question that no one has answered in China's favour is why all the secrecy? why take the corona virus data bank offline? why refuse access to the corona virus facility? why refuse access to the raw data? why did it take over 1 year to let a group they preselected, in? these things point to a guilty conscious or even worse a cover up? if this thing was easily traced back to the military games or what ever that was, then why not show us the chain or transmission leading back to that place and that time. considering how fast this shit moves in the population it seems unlikely that it started anywhere else, or any other time, then where it fricking started to show up. unless it was brought there and leaked there on purpose. which i don't believe so far, an accident seems the better explanation then some kind of purposeful leak.
? China secrecy?. China has never been forthcoming about anything they do. They will never let another country investigate their shit ever!!.
