How many people do you know who died of covid

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

If it was a leak from a lab did the trump administration know about it and why didn’t they take it more seriously?

It was discussed, but then Fauci and some of his supporters had a bogus article published in the Lancet that said that was not possible... and thats what the "experts" (you apparently included), favored and anyone that said differently was deplatformed from facebook, twitter, etc...

You remember that right?

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by texassapper

As usual, you're wrong. The Spanish influenza most likely started in the US with it's first large outbreak at Ft.Riley. The article indicates that it was in a western county or KS that it likely originated. And it was 1918.. not 1917.

I may have gotten the date wrong but my theory still holds true. No one was engineering viruses back in 1918. A naturally occurring virus mutated into a deadly form and was spread around the globe by humans. What’s hard to understand about that. Just because a lab was near where covid appeared is not in itself proof of causality. Evolution is a much better mechanism for the spread of viruses than anything humans can design.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by texassapper

It was discussed, but then Fauci and some of his supporters had a bogus article published in the Lancet that said that was not possible... and thats what the "experts" (you apparently included), favored and anyone that said differently was deplatformed from facebook, twitter, etc...

You remember that right?

I do remember that but covid appeared during Trump’s term. I also remember Trump putting out a lot of disinformation about the virus as well.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-..._United_States

COVID-19 misinformation by the United States

Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic has been propagated by various public figures, including officials of the United States government. The Trump administration in particular made a large number of misleading statements about the pandemic. A Cornell University study found that then-president Donald Trump was "likely the largest driver" of the COVID-19 misinformation infodemic in English-language media.
….

My point is that there weren’t a lot of facts known during the early stages of the pandemic. Rather than deal with the known facts in a rational way Trump and the right wing media instead turned it into a political wedge issue that was detrimental to the country as a whole.

[Iceman]

There is no doubt that it originated in Wuhan China. I don't think that it's a coincidence that that is where they were conducting "Gain Of Function" research.

I don't understand the reason that this research is allowed. Let's mutate viruses without evidence that such mutations could ever occur naturally, yeah, what a great idea. Of course, they can then create a vaccine so when the mutated vires "accidentally" leaks they can make a fortune.

[DayOfTheEagle]

None of you know anything about what you are talking about. You just repeat things that you hear from your favorite biased sources. You certainly don't "know" anything about the origin of this virus or anything else technically relevant on the topic.

One example is Gain of Function research. It is absolutely critical in some studies. Yes, it needs to be carefully controlled and restricted. But to just say it shouldn't be allowed is naive.

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by DayOfTheEagle

One example is Gain of Function research. It is absolutely critical in some studies. Yes, it needs to be carefully controlled and restricted. But to just say it shouldn't be allowed is naive.

Okay, "experten", 'splain to us What critical studies require gain of function research. How should it be controlled and restricted to prevent accidental release? Why is it naive to say it shouldn't be allowed particularly given the example of COVID?

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by farmstud60

I farm and work around animals. It is always a concern to animal to human spreading. Fauci himself even said this early in the Covid-19 days in January and he wasn't concerned about it spreading. When it started to spread quickly it became quite obvious that it leaked from the lab.


The Spanish Flu just a mutation of flu that had been around. Measles totally different virus that doesn't mutate hardly at all.

Originally Posted by Michael8219

The report cited by CBS News in the link below was completed at the behest of the Biden administration and former CIA director William Burns. CIA assessed albeit with low confidence that a research-related origin in Wuhan China of the COVID-19 pandemic is more likely than a natural origin based on the available body of reporting.

http://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/cia-...ce-assessment/

Germany's foreign intelligence service believed there was a 80-90% chance that coronavirus accidentally leaked from a Chinese lab:

http://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz7vypq31z7o.amp

NIH subcontractor or grant funded gain of function research.

Congressional hearings concluded COVID originated from a lab leak in Wuhan.

White House has posted similar facts.

It don’t take a rocket surgeon to figure out where COVID originated. Or the requisite doctorate in virology that the lefties clamor for. Wait Fauci had a lot of degrees didn’t he? Let me get my double masks, 6 foot spacing pole, investments in test kits, Pfizer, and Moderna lined up. And throw out the first pitch at the Nationals game cuz I am the science.

Gimme a freakin break!

"Man, it\'s just, it dang ol\' complicated, you know, man, like a dang ol\' Rubik\'s cube, man."

"Yeah man, I tell ya what. That dang ol\' Corona beer virus man. You just go out there and avoid those dang ol bats man cuz Fawci is throwin out that ol first pitch man.”

“Man, you just click on that ol Wicked pedia man and it will tell you what ‘Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.’ That dang ol Newspeak I’ll tell you what. I read something on that Wicked pedia just this morning and Bill showed me where they changed that ol dang Wicked pedia this afternoon. I’ll tell you what even though Bill was in the army he told the truth man.”

Gentlemen, We've discussed this extensively in past threads. My own belief is that transmission from bats to another species and then to humans is a more likely explanation than others for the origin of the virus. This is based on observations of a French evolutionary biologist, Florence Debarre.

If you're inclined towards anti-Chinese conspiracies, this explanation won't disappoint, and is more likely than "gain of function research" IMO:

Originally Posted by Tiny

Jackie, this new data has a very curious history. The Chinese CDC acquired samples from stalls of the Wuhan market between January 1, 2020 and March 2, 2020. They submitted papers that said the samples that tested positive for the COVID virus contained human genetic material, but no DNA from animals. Furthermore, they concluded that the animals at the marketplace probably weren't the origin of COVID 19.

Now, fast forward to 2023. On March 4, Florence Debarre, a French evolutionary biologist, randomly came across a previously unknown sequence of data from the samples collected at the Wuhan market, while doing other research, on the GISAID virology database. The data had been posted there by Chinese researchers. Based on her analysis, some samples from the Wuhan market that tested positive for COVID did contain animal DNA, from raccoon dogs, bamboo rats, palm civets, and other animals.

What happens next? Well, the data mysteriously disappears from the GISAID database. It's removed, at the request of the submitter.

So why did the data disappear? Well, like I said, at one time the Chinese military was pushing the idea that the USA developed the virus and was using it as a weapon. And China also claimed it shut down all its wet markets, where live animals were sold. Neither of those is very compatible with the idea that COVID 19 was initially transmitted to humans at the Wuhan market.
https://www.science.org/content/arti...sing-sequences

I've submitted a "deep research" question to ChatGPT, to provide estimated probabilities for various hypothesized origins of the COVID-19 virus. I asked her to look through the scientific literature, as well as views of organizations like the WHO, CDC, CIA, etc. And I asked her to weight more recent sources heavily. She's going to take a look at reports by investigative journalists too.

It's going to take her a while to read all that and come up with estimates. I'll post again here when she gets back with me.

[Tiny]

That bitch is good! She got back in record time.

Here are her estimates as to the probability of the origin of COVID:

Laboratory origin via gain-of-function research: 5%

Accidental lab leak with no gain of function research: 20%

Transmission directly from bats to humans: 10%

Transmission from bats to an intermediate animal, then to humans: 60%

Frozen food transported to Wuhan, from overseas (an idea promoted by China) or elsewhere: less than 5%

Multiple origins or prior circulation (i.e., the virus has been circulating for many years in humans): undetermined but very low

Deliberate release as a bioweapon (promoted by some "experts," party members and politicians in China and the USA): 0%

Other animal reservoirs (bats weren't the origin; pangolins or some other species was the culprit: very low

Her complete report didn't lend itself very well to copying and pasting, so I asked her to provide something more readable and she came with this,

Investigating the Origins of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19)

Summary of Major Hypotheses and Estimated Probabilities

This document summarizes current evidence, expert opinion, and institutional assessments regarding the origin of the COVID-19 virus (SARS-CoV-2). The primary hypotheses considered are:

Gain-of-function (GOF) lab origin

Accidental lab leak of a natural virus (no GOF)

Direct bat-to-human zoonotic spillover

Zoonotic transmission via an intermediate host

Other theories (e.g., cold-chain transmission, bioweapon, etc.)

Probabilities are based on scientific publications, WHO and U.S. government findings, and recent expert commentary, weighted by transparency and source credibility.

1. Laboratory Origin via Gain-of-Function Research

Description: The virus was genetically engineered to be more infectious and escaped due to an accident.

Supporting Claims:

Furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 is unusual

Theoretical GOF proposals discussed such insertions

Opposing Evidence:

No signs of engineering in the genome

U.S. intelligence agencies and WHO found no direct evidence of GOF engineering

No known lab sample identical or nearly identical to SARS-CoV-2

Estimated Probability: ~5%

2. Accidental Lab Leak (No GOF)

Description: A natural virus being collected or studied in a lab accidentally infected staff or escaped via poor biosafety practices.

Supporting Claims:

WIV worked on SARS-like coronaviruses from bats

History of lab escapes (e.g., SARS-CoV-1 in 2004)

U.S. Department of Energy and FBI lean toward this hypothesis (with low/moderate confidence)

Opposing Evidence:

No direct evidence of WIV researchers infected or mishandling the virus

Lack of transparency hinders verification

Estimated Probability: ~20%

3. Natural Zoonotic Transmission (Direct Bat-to-Human)

Description: A virus from bats infected a human directly without an intermediate host.

Supporting Claims:

Bats carry related coronaviruses (e.g., RaTG13)

Direct spillovers (e.g., rabies, Nipah) occur in nature

Opposing Evidence:

Known bat coronaviruses are still 4% genetically distant from SARS-CoV-2

Wuhan is not near natural bat reservoirs

Estimated Probability: ~10%

4. Zoonotic Transmission via Intermediate Host

Description: Virus passed from bats to another animal species, then to humans (e.g., raccoon dogs at the Huanan Market).

Supporting Claims:

SARS-CoV-2-positive environmental samples in the market also contained raccoon dog DNA

Early cases clustered at the Huanan market

Prior pandemics followed this route (e.g., civets for SARS, camels for MERS)

Opposing Evidence:

Specific intermediate host not conclusively identified

Wildlife sampling and data access from China remain limited

Estimated Probability: ~60%

5. Other Theories

Cold Chain/Frozen Food:

Promoted by Chinese officials

No strong supporting evidence internationally

Deemed unlikely by most experts

Bioweapon/Intentional Release:

Rejected by U.S. intelligence and scientific community

No evidence of intentional release or modifications consistent with weaponization

Estimated Combined Probability (All Other Theories): <5%

Conclusion

Most Likely Scenario: Zoonotic transmission via an intermediate host (~60%)

Viable Alternative: Accidental lab leak of a natural virus (~20%)

Less Likely Scenarios: Direct bat-to-human (~10%), gain-of-function lab origin (~5%), other theories combined (<5%)

Notes: These probabilities reflect current expert consensus and available data as of 2025. They are subject to revision with new evidence or greater transparency, particularly from Chinese data on animal markets and laboratory activities.

Key Sources:

WHO-China Joint Study (2021)

U.S. Intelligence Community Assessments (2021–2023)

Peer-reviewed studies (e.g., Science 2022 studies on Huanan market)

Expert commentary from virologists and epidemiologists

GISAID-linked genetic data and analysis (Florence Débarre and others)

Independent investigative reporting from The Atlantic, The Guardian, and others



If any of our intrepid amateur virologists would like her compete report, please let me know and I'll send by PM.

[DayOfTheEagle]

Originally Posted by DayOfTheEagle

...One example is Gain of Function research. It is absolutely critical in some studies. Yes, it needs to be carefully controlled and restricted. But to just say it shouldn't be allowed is naive.

Originally Posted by texassapper

Okay, "experten", 'splain to us What critical studies require gain of function research. How should it be controlled and restricted to prevent accidental release? Why is it naive to say it shouldn't be allowed particularly given the example of COVID?

Your questions actually define the very word "naive." Please be more careful, or someone is going to accuse you of being a shill for me. You just make this too easy.

I have noticed that this is a common technique here, though. And of yours. Asking what seem like high-level "reasonable" questions. Intending to intimidate and silence. Well schooled by MAGA. Not working this time, though, Lucy.

Because the answers are simple. Almost common sense. Easily understood by most. Except for those that CHOOSE to misrepresent them. I will leave the detail to the true experts, though (and I have not claimed to be one). But we don't need a lot of detail here. Because again, your questions are actually very simple. And naive.

Gain of Function occurs naturally all the time. A common example would be the development of antibiotic resistance in a virus. Another would be (surprise! surprise!) a mutation in an animal virus that allows it to become infectious in humans.

Exploiting Gain of Function in the lab allows scientists to better understand things like how transmisibility mechanisms in viruses work and other behaviors of organisms. It is used widely in vaccine research, cancer research, etc. Plain and simple, natural processes take too long. Time is money. And lives, sometimes. GOF is a valuable time and money saving tool.

So if you want good vaccines (and most are safe and effective!), and advances in fields like cancer treatment, you owe a good deal of credit to GOF research. (I'm not saying that YOU want those things. Your motives here are entirely different)

I'm not going to bother trying to answer your ridiculous question about how this should be controlled or restricted. How TF would I know? It is enough to say that it is consensus opinion among researchers that IT SHOULD BE. But not indiscriminately. Well-designed studies have benefits that outweigh risks. And there are many, many ethical and regulatory bodies working on these questions worldwide as we speak. Do the research yourself here (hint: libsoftiktok isn't a great one for this)

And your last question is, again, naive. It just is. But you don't really care about the answers. Yet here they are anyway. I believe it is now your turn to denigrate, discredit, deligitimize, etc.