Covid 19 origin(s)

[Atmo]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

...

Not a single provable citation? Have to call it an op-ed like pretty much all the other speculation in this thread.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Atmo

Not a single provable citation? Have to call it an op-ed like pretty much all the other speculation in this thread.

They aren't hard to find. Here are a few. The top one is most relevant. The researchers had a group of people who were enrolled in a lung cancer study from September 2019 to March 2020 who had given blood samples. The researchers went back to the blood samples, and this time they screened them for the presence of COVID antibodies. They found them in samples going back to September at an 11% rate (see the graph below). This suggests it could have been around earlier. Did it come from China much earlier, or did it come from Italy and then mutate in China from an asymptomatic variant to a symptomatic variant?


Unexpected detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the prepandemic period in Italy

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ful...00891620974755

Genomic epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 reveals multiple lineages and early spread of SARS-CoV-2 infections in Lombardy, Italy

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-20688-x

SARS-CoV-2 was already circulating in Italy, in
early December 2019

https://www.europeanreview.org/wp/wp.../3342-3349.pdf

SARS-CoV-2 has been circulating in northern Italy since December 2019: Evidence from environmental monitoring

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...48969720352402




The other stuff is also easily searchable:

The bogus Steve Bannon-backed study claiming China created the coronavirus, explained

The study’s lead author, the 36-year-old Yan Li-Meng...

https://www.vox.com/2020/9/18/214398...a-study-bannon

[Atmo]

Keyword = Suggests. Like others have said throughout this thread including me, there can only be inferences without proof that at the moment is in short supply.

Also, from reading Alex Ward, it's easy to see that he's a political hack for Politico.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Atmo

Keyword = Suggests. Like others have said throughout this thread including me, there can only be inferences without proof that at the moment is in short supply.

Also, from reading Alex Ward, it's easy to see that he's a political hack for Politico.

Nothing is proven. That is a bad word in science. It is never ever used in studies. Studies show, suggest or demonstrate.

The data shows 11% of blood samples of Italians taken in September had antibodies to COVID. This suggests it was there in maybe August or sooner based on the ramp up timeline and the time it takes to develop antibodies post incubation.

What about hearing it from a Forbes article by Bruce Lee? You can fact check everything yourself.

’Whistleblower’ Claiming China Created Covid-19 Coronavirus Has Ties To Steve Bannon

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.for...ve-bannon/amp/

[Atmo]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Nothing is proven. That is a bad word in science. It is never ever used in studies. Studies show, suggest or demonstrate.

You're confusing science with law.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Atmo

You're confusing science with law.

No.

Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists.

Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove,” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psy...ic-proof%3famp

[serialk11r]

Science can't "prove" anything, everything is statistical based on certain theories and models... Modelling disease spread is pretty easy because n is very high once the disease really gets going, so the uncertainty comes from the beginning of the epidemic where the variance in human contact, viral load, etc. of the first few cases really changes things.

Anyone logical who reads the papers Irace86.2.0 just cited (which I cited earlier in this thread) understands they indicate the location of patient zero is unclear. If the location of patient zero is unclear, then the "coincidence" of labs studying coronaviruses in Wuhan is no longer clearly a coincidence.

I know hardcore anarchist conspiracy theorists with deep training in statistics and biology who love the lab leak theory and try to amplify it as much as possible but they will admit that the probability is low.

[JD001]

Today I learned...

[Capt Spaulding]

Irace86 and serial are correct. Any reputable scientist will admit that all one can do with statistically based analyses is reject the null hypothesis (nothing is going on) with a predictable probability of being incorrect. Any point estimates of parameters are likely wrong with the true population values lying within a statistically derived confidence interval determined by sampling characteristics. See Type 1 vs. Type 2 errors.

[Capt Spaulding]

Originally Posted by JD001

Today I learned...

Just as a reminder, the article tosses around the term "likely hypothesis" rather loosely. Everyone should tread very carefully until the null can be rejected and even then temper what they say and do with the knowledge they could be incorrect.

[MuseChaser]

Originally Posted by Capt Spaulding

...Everyone should tread very carefully until the null can be rejected and even then temper what they say and do with the knowledge they could be incorrect.

We are in complete agreement and that is an excellent point in general. I confess I am a bit surprised that you feel that way, given the vehemence with which you've responded to anyone who may disagree with you or interpret data differently. Thank you for posting that.

[Lantanafrs2]

That post would have been censored here not too long ago. Progress if nothing else

[serialk11r]

"Likely hypothesis" that someone caught it in the field != covered up lab leak. Additionally, if someone caught it in the field, it could've travelled to a bunch of different places before mutating into the strain everyone now considers "original", in which case them catching it in the field is pretty much irrelevant. For all intents and purposes, there's no difference between that and some random person sniffing in some bat dust and travelling somewhere by train or bus or plane.

Inter-parliamentary alliance on China has the same problem as the Chinese government...it would be shocking if they did not insist China is guilty of a cover up and "releasing" the virus.

The WHO and Embaraek himself not long ago were accused of being paid by China. So what's the game plan here, are we going to "restore" the WHO's credibility with more "funding"?

Even if "China released the virus", how much culpability do US government actors have for insisting the virus isn't a problem in 2020 February, March, and beyond? I'm pretty sure there is legal precedent for this kind of thing, and it would not be favorable to many people's "own side".

This is why I don't click on links from the WSJ, NYT, WaPo, and even AP anymore, I just try to live my life like a normal person who doesn't spend tons of time on the dumb internet.

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by JD001

Today I learned...

i dunno, what i'm reading there sounds like a re-hash of what we were already told near the beginning of all of this.

let me know when they figure out who it is/was(i doubt the chinese government will allow them to continue on living once that info is made public). otherwise, there is absolutely no new information in that article...