Anti-vaxx Chronicles

The place to share your thought provocations
User avatar
Intrinsic
Advanced Grower
Awesome Karma Dude
Awesome Karma Dude
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 99 times
Posts: 5181
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:51 am

Anti-vaxx Chronicles

Post by Intrinsic »

Nature was one of the world's most cited scientific journals by the Science Edition of the 2019 Journal Citation Reports (with an ascribed impact factor of 42.778), making it one of the world's most-read and most prestigious academic journals.

The nature article:


When agents from the FBI and CIA flew to New Orleans, Louisiana, last month to talk to virologist Robert Garry about the origins of COVID-19, he was relieved by the depth of their scientific background. “These folks were really knowledgeable, had PhDs in molecular biology, they had read all of the papers in detail,” he says.

The visit was part of the 90-day US intelligence-community investigation into where the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 came from, ordered by US President Joe Biden on 26 May. Like many researchers, Garry, at Tulane University, didn’t know what tack the confidential investigation would take, and felt that a scientific approach was essential. The agents spoke to him about studies, including his own, on coronavirus evolution.

Biden received the investigation’s classified report this week, on 24 August, and an unclassified version was made public today. The topline result is that the investigation was inconclusive. Intelligence agencies were divided on whether the pandemic most likely began because of a laboratory accident, or because of human contact with an infected animal. The only strong conclusion is that the coronavirus was not developed as a biological weapon; most agencies thought, with low confidence, that it was unlikely to have been genetically engineered. In a press statement, the intelligence community writes that it aims to issue more details on its investigation in the near future.

After the WHO report: what’s next in the search for COVID’s origins

Garry says the report exceeds his expectations. “It’s huge to mainly rule out that this is a product of engineering,” he says. He and other researchers aren’t surprised that the intelligence community hasn’t solved the mystery of COVID-19’s beginnings, because outbreak origin investigations are often complicated. The government’s senior intelligence officer, Avril Haines, warned of this outcome on 30 June, in an interview with Yahoo News. At the time, she said arguments could be made in favour of the two competing hypotheses. COVID-19 was first reported in Wuhan, China, where a leading institute studies coronaviruses, making a lab escape possible; and most emerging infectious diseases begin with a spillover from nature, lending weight to that scenario. She said the intelligence community would be working with experts, including scientists at national labs, collecting data and evaluating existing information, and trying to think about them in new ways. “I think the best thing I can do is to present the facts as we know them,” she said.

Many researchers welcome what seems to be a dispassionate investigation, after more than a year of politicization around how COVID-19 began. “I am glad to see us having a more nuanced discussion about this now,” says Stephen Morrison, director of global health policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC. However, researchers also hope that the intelligence community will reveal more about its process, and are keen to hear about further investigations, either spearheaded by the World Health Organization (WHO) or independent of the agency. “This is an immensely complicated problem,” says David Relman, a microbiologist at Stanford University in California. “No one expected this to be figured out by summer.”

User avatar
Intrinsic
Advanced Grower
Awesome Karma Dude
Awesome Karma Dude
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 99 times
Posts: 5181
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:51 am

Anti-vaxx Chronicles

Post by Intrinsic »

You can download the unclassified summary here:

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/document ... rigins.pdf
Screenshot_20210915-074422.png
A more readable copy and paste:

The IC assesses that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, probably emerged and infected humans through an initial small-scale exposure that occurred no later than November 2019 with the first known cluster of COVID-19 cases arising in Wuhan, China in December 2019. In addition, the IC was able to reach broad agreement on several other key issues. We judge the virus was not developed as a biological weapon. Most agencies also assess with low confidence that SARS-CoV-2 probably was not genetically engineered; however, two agencies believe there was not sufficient evidence to make an assessment either way. Finally, the IC assesses China’s officials did not have foreknowledge of the virus before the initial outbreak of COVID-19 emerged.

After examining all available intelligence reporting and other information, though, the IC remains divided on the most likely origin of COVID-19. All agencies assess that two hypotheses are plausible: natural exposure to an infected animal and a laboratory-associated incident.

Four IC elements and the National Intelligence Council assess with low confidence that the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus—a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2. These analysts give weight to China’s officials’ lack of foreknowledge, the numerous vectors for natural exposure, and other factors.
One IC element assesses with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These analysts give weight to the inherently risky nature of work on coronaviruses.

Analysts at three IC elements remain unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information, with some analysts favoring natural origin, others a laboratory origin, and some seeing the hypotheses as equally likely.

Variations in analytic views largely stem from differences in how agencies weigh intelligence reporting and scientific publications, and intelligence and scientific gaps.

The IC—and the global scientific community—lacks clinical samples or a complete understanding of epidemiological data from the earliest COVID-19 cases. If we obtain information on the earliest cases that identified a location of interest or occupational exposure, it may alter our evaluation of hypotheses. China’s cooperation most likely would be needed to reach a conclusive assessment of the origins of COVID-19. Beijing, however, continues to hinder the global investigation, resist sharing information and blame other countries, including the United States. These actions reflect, in part, China’s government’s own uncertainty about where an investigation could lead as well as its frustration the international community is using the issue to exert political pressure on China.

User avatar
Intrinsic
Advanced Grower
Awesome Karma Dude
Awesome Karma Dude
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 99 times
Posts: 5181
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:51 am

Anti-vaxx Chronicles

Post by Intrinsic »

Roller:
Here is a link to the original article, where there is a disclaimer added in 2020, of a "nothing to see here" nature.
haha here's the disclaimer what it really says : there's nothing Roller wants to see here.
30 March 2020 Editors’ note,

March 2020: We are aware that this article is being used as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus.

User avatar
roller24
Technical Admin
Karma Shaman
Karma Shaman
Custom Title: kitchen door admin
Has thanked: 78 times
Been thanked: 95 times
Posts: 1585
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:14 pm
Contact:

Anti-vaxx Chronicles

Post by roller24 »

Intrinsic wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 11:40 am
Roller:
Here is a link to the original article, where there is a disclaimer added in 2020, of a "nothing to see here" nature.
haha here's the disclaimer what it really says : there's nothing Roller wants to see here.
30 March 2020 Editors’ note,

March 2020: We are aware that this article is being used as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus.
What is it disclaiming? There is no dispute that the source was bats.
But there is strong indications that is was being manipulated/engineered through out the article.
They even mention the "new" virus which would infect humans.
Capture2.PNG
This was done in North Carolina, however the bat lady from wuhan is in the list of credits.

The argument is mute at this stage of the game. Solid proof could be revealed today, and nothing would be done.
Your party is completely in control, of the narrative.

I did find this kind of disturbing.
Capture1.PNG
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 866v1.full
It's new, so they haven't tagged it as disinformation yet.

User avatar
Butcher Bob
Karma Bhudda
Karma Bhudda
Has thanked: 137 times
Been thanked: 99 times
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:18 am

Anti-vaxx Chronicles

Post by Butcher Bob »

Intrinsic wrote:
Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:57 pm
Science says you are wrong,
What does science say aboot the over 80,000 samples tested to show natural progression...that ALL came up negative?

Yet when Shi Zhengli admits to working with covid for over 20 years, specifically "gain of function" research for the last 8 years, you find a lab leak to be unlikely.

:roflmao:

Occam's razor :wink:

These four guys lay out their conclusions with supporting studies, research, and data...I did not see that in your article. :dunno:
They took that 80,000 figure, broke it down into specific catagories, with specific data, and gave probabilities of the results.
Did your article reveal anything in that manner?....or is it just telling you what to think?

User avatar
Intrinsic
Advanced Grower
Awesome Karma Dude
Awesome Karma Dude
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 99 times
Posts: 5181
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:51 am

Anti-vaxx Chronicles

Post by Intrinsic »

What does science say?

well the science-based government report, Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins and confirmed in the peer reviewed Nature article.

Quoted from the Summary of Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins. I posted above, You are asking a question that's already been answered
Most agencies also assess with low confidence that SARS-CoV-2 probably was not genetically engineered; however, two agencies believe there was not sufficient evidence to make an assessment either way..
Bob
Yet when Shi Zhengli admits to working with covid for over 20 years, specifically "gain of function" research for the last 8 years, you find a lab leak to be unlikely
.
Yes, kind of like I trust the math.
Those better trained and access to better information than me yanna scientists, I repeat yet again

Quoted from the Summary of Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.
Four IC elements and the National Intelligence Council assess with low confidence that the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus—a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2. These analysts give weight to China’s officials’ lack of foreknowledge, the numerous vectors for natural exposure, and other factors.
One IC element assesses with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These analysts give weight to the inherently risky nature of work on coronaviruses.

Analysts at three IC elements remain unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information, with some analysts favoring natural origin, others a laboratory origin, and some seeing the hypotheses as equally likely.
So if I read it correctly,
5 agencies favored "SARS-CoV-2 infection was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus"

1 agency favoured lab source, solely on proximity not viral structure.

3 no leanings.

Bob..
Asking questions that have been answered. Weak sauce.

User avatar
Intrinsic
Advanced Grower
Awesome Karma Dude
Awesome Karma Dude
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 99 times
Posts: 5181
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:51 am

Anti-vaxx Chronicles

Post by Intrinsic »

roller24 wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:21 pm
...
What is it disclaiming? There is no dispute that the source was bats.
But there is strong indications that is was being manipulated/engineered through out the article.
They even mention the "new" virus which would infect humans.
Capture2.PNG
This was done in North Carolina, however the bat lady from wuhan is in the list of credis

The argument is mute at this stage of the game. Solid proof could be revealed today, and nothing would be done.
Your party is completely in control, of the narrative.

I did find this kind of disturbing.
Capture1.PNG
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 866v1.full
It's new, so they haven't tagged it as disinformation yet.
I assume you meant by my party the Democrat party

And not the community of scientists that are the ones setting the narrative.

Hypothesis: your problem wasn't the origin, it was that Democrats/scientists are challenging your worldview.

About confusing Democrats on science , jes cuz this president is science-based don't assume most Democrats are.

What is it disclaiming? There is no dispute that the source was bats.
unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is true; 
They are claiming they presented no evidence that it was engineered.

Roots
Advanced Grower
Karma Jackpot
Karma Jackpot
Custom Title: nOT-a-BoT
Been thanked: 51 times
Posts: 956
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 3:28 am

Anti-vaxx Chronicles

Post by Roots »

If it was GoF it would be by far the biggest modification of a biological agent ever done.
Something that is not publicly known to be possible or can be replicated by anyone.

User avatar
Butcher Bob
Karma Bhudda
Karma Bhudda
Has thanked: 137 times
Been thanked: 99 times
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:18 am

Anti-vaxx Chronicles

Post by Butcher Bob »

What's weak sauce Intrinsic, is your inability to address the fact that despite extensive testing there is zero evidence to support a natural progression hypothesis. What you keep posting are "conclusions" of people who are telling me what to think, without any data to support their claims. I guess you are just willing to blindly follow. :dunno:

User avatar
Intrinsic
Advanced Grower
Awesome Karma Dude
Awesome Karma Dude
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 99 times
Posts: 5181
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:51 am

Anti-vaxx Chronicles

Post by Intrinsic »

?? There is the above multi intelligence agencies report passed through peer review by experts in the field. Data is the coin of the realm. But you knew that.

Beating a dead horse that's already been answered, twice. is weak.

Post Reply