Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

[ButchPlz]

Remember when President Trump said this same thing 3 years ago and every democrat and liberal media outlet labeled it a conspiracy theory and said it was completely debunked?

EDIT: They also said the lab leak theory was racist.

WSJ News Exclusive | Lab Leak Most Likely Origin of Covid-19 Pandemic, Energy Department Now Says

It was these guys doing all the deboonking.

 

[utvolpj]

@lawgator1 had his typical wrong take. Here, he lays into @AM64 for posting about lab leak theory:

His prediction accuracy is unmatched

 

[NurseGoodVol]

I was walking through the hospital Thursday. In an area that isn’t for patient care. Just offices and call sleep rooms (different story, but that seems like an oxymoron to me). Saw a hospitalist in his office by himself typing away at his computer. With an ear loop surgical mask on. I lost a lot of hope in that moment.

Yes, constant masker #4 just tripped pos for covid for the 4th time. Just got her bivalent in January. At this point I’ve lost hope in many moments.

 

[lawgator1]

Interested to see @lawgator1 's response. Will he admit he was entirely wrong? Everyone with one or more brain cells knew in the back of their minds this was a gain of function virus, created in the Wuhan lab. The reason it was downplayed and dismissed was because Fauci and his minions funded it. Fauci should be brought up on charges.

1) The intelligence community said at the time that it appeared to have evolved naturally, likely from the market in Wuhan.

2) My understanding from the reporting this weekend is that this is still the theory of many agencies, but that now the Energy Department says that it started in a lab. (footnote: why the Energy Department studied this issue, I have no idea).

3) However, that is stated with "low confidence" which in technical jargon for them means insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion.

4) Notably, it appears that the agencies that have reached the opposite conclusion have done so also with "low confidence."

I conclude from all of this that it remains the case that there are competing theories and insufficient evidence to decide which one is correct. Of course, that does not stop some people from overstating what they see as a political opportunity to promote what they want the answer to be on both sides.

 

[utvolpj]

1) The intelligence community said at the time that it appeared to have evolved naturally, likely from the market in Wuhan.

2) My understanding from the reporting this weekend is that this is still the theory of many agencies, but that now the Energy Department says that it started in a lab. (footnote: why the Energy Department studied this issue, I have no idea).

3) However, that is stated with "low confidence" which in technical jargon for them means insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion.

4) Notably, it appears that the agencies that have reached the opposite conclusion have done so also with "low confidence."

I conclude from all of this that it remains the case that there are competing theories and insufficient evidence to decide which one is correct. Of course, that does not stop some people from overstating what they see as a political opportunity to promote what they want the answer to be on both sides.

It's interesting you're more concerned with the ones discussing real alternative theories to your accepted narrative. Most are more concerned with the absolute abuse of free speech from the fed govt.

Many people in China were silenced for telling the story of what really happened. That was very early on when the wet market fairy tale was laughed out of the room. It was never a valid theory after a couple months of investigation

 

[Sea Ray]

1) The intelligence community said at the time that it appeared to have evolved naturally, likely from the market in Wuhan.

2) My understanding from the reporting this weekend is that this is still the theory of many agencies, but that now the Energy Department says that it started in a lab. (footnote: why the Energy Department studied this issue, I have no idea).

3) However, that is stated with "low confidence" which in technical jargon for them means insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion.

4) Notably, it appears that the agencies that have reached the opposite conclusion have done so also with "low confidence."

I conclude from all of this that it remains the case that there are competing theories and insufficient evidence to decide which one is correct. Of course, that does not stop some people from overstating what they see as a political opportunity to promote what they want the answer to be on both sides.

First of all, the Dept of Energy investigated this because your guy in the White House ordered it. As for other agencies and low confidence...actually the FBI used the term "moderate confidence":

It now joins the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in saying the virus probably spread after a mishap at a laboratory, a conclusion the FBI reached in 2021 with “moderate confidence”.

US energy dept says COVID probably leaked from Wuhan lab

Admittedly, our gov't is giving us weaselly words here and that's disappointing. What's the point of investigating if they're not going to give us firm conclusions? We already had enough "low confidence" opinions

 

[Sea Ray]

It's interesting you're more concerned with the ones discussing real alternative theories to your accepted narrative. Most are more concerned with the absolute abuse of free speech from the fed govt.

Many people in China were silenced for telling the story of what really happened. That was very early on when the wet market fairy tale was laughed out of the room. It was never a valid theory after a couple months of investigation

Fauci is still standing by the wet market theory

 

[hog88]

Fauci is still standing by the wet market theory

Of course he is. If the fed ever officially debunks that he's done, he's perjured himself too many times not to be held accountable.

 

[lawgator1]

It's interesting you're more concerned with the ones discussing real alternative theories to your accepted narrative. Most are more concerned with the absolute abuse of free speech from the fed govt.

Many people in China were silenced for telling the story of what really happened. That was very early on when the wet market fairy tale was laughed out of the room. It was never a valid theory after a couple months of investigation

See, why do you have to engage in this hyperbole of "silenced persons" and "laughed out of the room"? Its not helpful and is inexact in the extreme. All it does is make it apparent, ironically enough given the weekend's news, that it is you and not me who is completely unwilling to change your mind.

 

[lawgator1]

First of all, the Dept of Energy investigated this because your guy in the White House ordered it. As for other agencies and low confidence...actually the FBI used the term "moderate confidence":



US energy dept says COVID probably leaked from Wuhan lab

Admittedly, our gov't is giving us weaselly words here and that's disappointing. What's the point of investigating if they're not going to give us firm conclusions? We already had enough "low confidence" opinions

On this we agree. Its the language of bureaucracy and is very unfortunate here because people don;t understand that it has specific meaning. Do you know whether the FBI position is still with moderate confidence or have they amended that?

Also, did not know Biden ordered the energy Department to study it. Curious as to the back story on that.

 

[hog88]

See, why do you have to engage in this hyperbole of "silenced persons" and "laughed out of the room"? Its not helpful and is inexact in the extreme. All it does is make it apparent, ironically enough given the weekend's news, that it is you and not me who is completely unwilling to change your mind.

People who raised doubts about the wet market theory were silenced and ridiculed, are you disputing that?

 

[lawgator1]

People who raised doubts about the wet market theory were silenced and ridiculed, are you disputing that?

Depends on what they said and how they said it. And you need to be more specific than "silenced and ridiculed."

If someone said that without doubt it was man made and did so without any basis in science then yes, they should have been ridiculed. And if someone merely repeated what they heard from some other dubious source, such as a tweet or a blog, without bothering to understand how the source reached his or her conclusion, yes, they should have been ridiculed.

If someone came out with a calm, well thought out and researched basis for such a claim, no, they should not have been ridiculed and I am unaware of that having happened but I am sure you will tell me who it was, what their evidnece was, and how they were ridiculed.

 

[InVOLuntary]

1) The intelligence community said at the time that it appeared to have evolved naturally, likely from the market in Wuhan.

2) My understanding from the reporting this weekend is that this is still the theory of many agencies, but that now the Energy Department says that it started in a lab. (footnote: why the Energy Department studied this issue, I have no idea).

3) However, that is stated with "low confidence" which in technical jargon for them means insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion.

4) Notably, it appears that the agencies that have reached the opposite conclusion have done so also with "low confidence."

I conclude from all of this that it remains the case that there are competing theories and insufficient evidence to decide which one is correct. Of course, that does not stop some people from overstating what they see as a political opportunity to promote what they want the answer to be on both sides.

 

[hog88]

Depends on what they said and how they said it. And you need to be more specific than "silenced and ridiculed."

If someone said that without doubt it was man made and did so without any basis in science then yes, they should have been ridiculed. And if someone merely repeated what they heard from some other dubious source, such as a tweet or a blog, without bothering to understand how the source reached his or her conclusion, yes, they should have been ridiculed.

If someone came out with a calm, well thought out and researched basis for such a claim, no, they should not have been ridiculed and I am unaware of that having happened but I am sure you will tell me who it was, what their evidnece was, and how they were ridiculed.

Yet the wet market story was not based on any science, the source was the Chinese .gov and was promoted to hide our funding of the GOF research at the Wuhan lab.

Interesting double standards you have.

 

[volinbham]

See, why do you have to engage in this hyperbole of "silenced persons" and "laughed out of the room"? Its not helpful and is inexact in the extreme. All it does is make it apparent, ironically enough given the weekend's news, that it is you and not me who is completely unwilling to change your mind.

I'd suggest you reread your post that McDad dug up - reeking with condescension and dismissal of the lab leak theory. At least fess up you were wrong to be so dismissive and insulting and you'll likely receive the same consideration.

 

[volinbham]

Depends on what they said and how they said it. And you need to be more specific than "silenced and ridiculed."

If someone said that without doubt it was man made and did so without any basis in science then yes, they should have been ridiculed. And if someone merely repeated what they heard from some other dubious source, such as a tweet or a blog, without bothering to understand how the source reached his or her conclusion, yes, they should have been ridiculed.

If someone came out with a calm, well thought out and researched basis for such a claim, no, they should not have been ridiculed and I am unaware of that having happened but I am sure you will tell me who it was, what their evidnece was, and how they were ridiculed.

You may want to revisit the early conversations were scientists were saying it looked manmade and Fauci/Collins quashed that. It's all been documented.

 

[Sea Ray]

On this we agree. Its the language of bureaucracy and is very unfortunate here because people don;t understand that it has specific meaning. Do you know whether the FBI position is still with moderate confidence or have they amended that?

Also, did not know Biden ordered the energy Department to study it. Curious as to the back story on that.

I'm not aware that the FBI has amended their stance. The source I gave above is just hours old

 

[lawgator1]

I'd suggest you reread your post that McDad dug up - reeking with condescension and dismissal of the lab leak theory. At least fess up you were wrong to be so dismissive and insulting and you'll likely receive the same consideration.

You need to re-read it. I bashed the anti science take, exactly as I am at this moment.

 

[newyorkvol]

Tweets from November 2019.

 

[Majors]

With the latest acknowledgment of what we already knew in regards to the Wuhan lab releasing a manufactured virus and the current politics of Social Security being a topic. Can we say the virus was released to kill off certain small demographics from the elderly to diabetics? Or we still believing the government?

 

[volinbham]

You need to re-read it. I bashed the anti science take, exactly as I am at this moment.

It wasn't anti-science. The lab leak theory is as based in science as is the natural theory.

Neither was proven via science.

Natural theory = entirely based on past history that this is a way the viruses move from animal to human. The science against it was and continues to be the lack of the transmission chain. That alone suggests the theory may be wrong.
Lab leak = has happened before in China, lab working on these types of viruses, virus emerged at the location where the work was going on, cleavage site on virus appeared unnatural.

Each is based on pieces of evidence and neither is conclusive.

To say the lab leak theory was anti-science at the beginning is simply untrue. Dismissing it out of hand is anti-science.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Laura Ingraham
@IngrahamAngle
4h

Fauci dismissed lab leak theory umpteen times.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5020088/coronavirus-caused-natural-occurrence-lab-leak-dr-fauci

I wish there was a way to let that evil POS know that when I read of his death I am going to throw a party.

 

[kiddiedoc]

Fauci is still standing by the wet market theory

How is this even possible when we can read his emails with our own eyes? Absolute lunacy, just like LG's response above.

 

[hog88]

You need to re-read it. I bashed the anti science take, exactly as I am at this moment.

Where was the science behind the wet market theory?

 

[Majors]

1) The intelligence community said at the time that it appeared to have evolved naturally, likely from the market in Wuhan.

2) My understanding from the reporting this weekend is that this is still the theory of many agencies, but that now the Energy Department says that it started in a lab. (footnote: why the Energy Department studied this issue, I have no idea).

3) However, that is stated with "low confidence" which in technical jargon for them means insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion.

4) Notably, it appears that the agencies that have reached the opposite conclusion have done so also with "low confidence."

I conclude from all of this that it remains the case that there are competing theories and insufficient evidence to decide which one is correct. Of course, that does not stop some people from overstating what they see as a political opportunity to promote what they want the answer to be on both sides.

Same intelligence community who ran on Russian Collusion & Steele Dossier?