Dresden wrote:johnnyvann840 wrote:Dresden wrote:I would say dont' trust either of them. Trust the scientists, the vast majority of whom are still saying the most likely scenario is a jump to humans occurring in the wild. And push for a full investigation, push for China to release it's lab data. They should be pressured to do so.
Well, here is some VERY VERY strong evidence that this virus came from a lab. I agree, trust the scientists. But, trust the ones who have nothing to gain or lose with their opinions and research. Just the fact that Shi Zhengli and her colleagues failed to include this important sequence that appears in Cov-2 in their published works is quite damning indeed. I'm 100% convinced that it came from the Wuhan lab. All of the incredible coincidental facts like where the virus was first discovered along with the type of research that the lab had been conducting alone is almost enough, but when you combine it with the facts below, I really don't see how it can be debated any longer.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-science-suggests-a-wuhan-lab-leak-11622995184Although the double CGG is suppressed naturally, the opposite is true in laboratory work. The insertion sequence of choice is the double CGG. That’s because it is readily available and convenient, and scientists have a great deal of experience inserting it. An additional advantage of the double CGG sequence compared with the other 35 possible choices: It creates a useful beacon that permits the scientists to track the insertion in the laboratory.
Now the damning fact. It was this exact sequence that appears in CoV-2. Proponents of zoonotic origin must explain why the novel coronavirus, when it mutated or recombined, happened to pick its least favorite combination, the double CGG. Why did it replicate the choice the lab’s gain-of-function researchers would have made?
Yes, it could have happened randomly, through mutations. But do you believe that? At the minimum, this fact—that the
coronavirus, with all its random possibilities, took the rare and unnatural combination used by human researchers—implies that the leading theory for the origin of the coronavirus must be laboratory escape.
When the lab’s Shi Zhengli and colleagues published a paper in February 2020 with the virus’s partial genome, they omitted any mention of the special sequence that supercharges the virus or the rare double CGG section. Yet the fingerprint is easily identified in the data that accompanied the paper. Was it omitted in the hope that nobody would notice this evidence of the gain-of-function origin?
But in a matter of weeks virologists Bruno Coutard and colleagues published their discovery of the sequence in CoV-2 and its novel supercharged site. Double CGG is there; you only have to look. They comment in their paper that the protein that held it “may provide a gain-of-function” capability to the virus, “for efficient spreading” to humans.
There is additional scientific evidence that points to CoV-2’s gain-of-function origin. The most compelling is the dramatic differences in the genetic diversity of CoV-2, compared with the coronaviruses responsible for SARS and MERS.
Both of those were confirmed to have a natural origin; the viruses evolved rapidly as they spread through the human population, until the most contagious forms dominated. Covid-19 didn’t work that way. It appeared in humans already adapted into an extremely contagious version. No serious viral “improvement” took place until a minor variation occurred many months later in England.
Such early optimization is unprecedented, and it suggests a long period of adaptation that predated its public spread. Science knows of only one way that could be achieved: simulated natural evolution, growing the virus on human cells until the optimum is achieved. That is precisely what is done in gain-of-function research. Mice that are genetically modified to have the same coronavirus receptor as humans, called “humanized mice,” are repeatedly exposed to the virus to encourage adaptation.
The presence of the double CGG sequence is strong evidence of gene splicing, and the absence of diversity in the public outbreak suggests gain-of-function acceleration. The scientific evidence points to the conclusion that the virus was developed in a laboratory.
Dr. Quay is founder of Atossa Therapeutics and author of “Stay Safe: A Physician’s Guide to Survive Coronavirus.” Mr. Muller is an emeritus professor of physics at the University of California Berkeley and a former senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
And there's much more in this extensive piece from Vanity Fair... long but extremely informative and thoroughly researched article full of eye opening facts. Really uncovers just how deceptive and disingenuous Shi Zhengli really has been from the beginning. Also, just how far the Chinese government is willing to go to keep the cover up intact. Must read.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins
This article went into a lot of depth about how the US govt. was more or less in war with itself over how much credibility to give to a lab escape hypothesis. Some wanted it dismissed in order to hide the fact that the US funded gain of function research in China as well as here in the US. It's interesting, but also leads to questions about which side is telling the truth.
The biggest question that would shed light on this whole thing is whether or not 3 workers from Wuhan did in fact get sick with COvid like symptoms in fall of 2019. The State dept. claims they have intelligence on this- others say the claim has not been proven. And Chinese spokespeople have said no one at the institute tested positive for Covid antibodies.
One nit picky thing I think the article got wrong is their claim that Wuhan and Shi were doing gain of function research. It is usually defined as manipulating an organism to increase it's lethality or contagiousness. But Shi claims that they never manipulated any coronaviruses in that way- they simple spliced some genetic material together to see how it affected the virus. Possibly a small distinction, but a distinction nonetheless.
On the whole, the article doesn't present any new proof of a lab origin. It goes into a lot of circumstantial evidence, and pokes some holes in the credibility of Chinese authorities and researchers, but that's not the same as providing concrete evidence of a lab leak.
And while one prominent scientist is mentioned as supporting the lab leak hypothesis (David Baltimore), as well as Dr. Redfield, if you do "follow the scientists", what they are asking for (at least those mentioned in the article), is a more thorough investigation. They are not saying they are convinced it came from a lab. " “We needed to create a space where all of the hypotheses could be considered,” Metzl said." This is a far cry from scientific judgement falling heavily in favor the labeak origins.
Hopefully the investigation will have access to the materials they need to arrive at the truth.
First of all, there are so many "credible scientists" who support and go as far as saying they believe that the virus came from a lab. Quay and Muller for example (and, of course, Redfield- who made out to be some kind of wacko for saying it) and there are about a dozen more named in the Vanity Fair piece. Muller is an Emiritus Professor and Senior Scientist at Cal Berkeley. If we were to take count there would be hundreds, thousands of scientists on the lab leak side. Seems that at this point the only ones who aren't are the ones who have something to hide or have something at stake.
You are right about the US Government being heavily involved in trying to cover their own asses because they know they funded gain of function experiments at the WIV and the two other labs doing that kind of work.
The bottom line is that if you just open your eyes and really look at the MOUNTAINS of circumstantial evidence it is overwhelmingly pointing at the lab leak theory. I mean we are talking about OJ Simpson level circumstantial evidence. It goes beyond even being circumstantial in many ways. Did you take the time to open and read some of the attachments in the Vanity Fair article. Jesus, if you can honestly objectively look at the entire body of these investigations and research and just look at the simple facts and timelines of everything that has gone down and still doubt that this came from that lab, I just don't know what to tell you. But, OJ Simpson was acquitted wasn't he? So, I guess some people, even a jury, will sometimes only see what they want to see. Open your eyes and have a little common sense and things are quite obvious.... at least to me they are. It's like Muller, who is as qualified on the subject as just about anyone and has done more digging into the origin than just about anyone, put it, considering the CGG sequence and Shi's attempt to hide it along with the fact that the virus hit the public already evolved into a highly contagious state, and the clear evidence of gene splicing that a 3rd grader could recognize when looking at the data, there is like a million to one chance that this didn't originate in a lab.
Unfortunately, so many weeks and months have gone by that so much hard evidence has already either degraded, disappeared and/or been corrupted or just covered up, that all we may be left with is the huge mountain of circumstantial evidence that is right in front of us. But, the proverbial "smoking gun" may not be there anymore so there will always be people like you who will die on that hill saying "I need to see something more concrete". Over 3.5 million are dead and until the World admits what really happened we are not going to be in the best position possible to take the actions needed to stop it from happening again
) 
