Do you have a website for your baseless conspiracy theories?
At least we know there were major concerns at Fort Detrick's labs, so that's a very plausible lab leak theory.
?Don’t be permanently stupid. That is not a conspiracy theory. It makes no claim whatsoever about the origin of COVID-19. It is a factual statement that it is not impossible for the virus, any virus, that originated in animals to subsequently escape from a lab if it was been tested and analysed there. Read the conversation that went before. You have just confirmed the validity of what I said by your comment on Fort Detrick’s labs.
What happened with SARS??
Which is it?
It could not escape, or otherwise?
?
Which is it?
It could not escape, or otherwise?
The virus is not sexually transmissible from what I understand. But the subject would need to be more attractive for the possibility arise! Just don't get that PPE punctured before/in case of orifical insertion!
The problem with you idea is that it is a just one link in a highly implausible chain of events best described as a grand conspiracy theory.There is no ambiguity in my statement. Are you having a problem with English?
I note we so can discard poor pangolin and have no clue on how it went from bat to human.
Why would it be discussed in the mediathe fact Huwan lab was playing with viruses (initially extracted from bats) still not really discussed openly in the media.
Once again.... SARS escaped despite all of those measures.The problem with you idea is that it is a just one link in a highly implausible chain of events best described as a grand conspiracy theory.
It implies these things of the Chinese:
The idea the virus "escaped" from a laboratory carries zero credibility. It is transmissible in droplet form, would be a static sample within the lab, and therefore unable to "spread."
- they knew the intermediate host - in which case the Chinese would be out there killing it off, and nobody is aware this to be so
- they had isolated the virus - in which case they have hidden this knowledge. Again unlikely as these are scientific breakthroughs and the lab receives part funding from the USA to publish its coronavirus research
- the virus, in its static form, jumped onto a lab worker's pressurised suit
- the virus then magically penetrated the lab worker's pressurised suit
- despite not being transmissible as an aerosol, it somehow worked its way into either the mouth, nose or eyes of the lab worker
- the lab worker then unwittingly infected other people, but nobody associated with the lab.
So you are not really advancing a lab escape "theory."
You are advancing a conspiracy on a grand scale that involves multiple levels of improbability and security breaches.
I have kept several shillings the tooth fairy left me, so there must be a tooth fairy.
Your lack of logic and evidence for claims is a consistent theme.Once again.... SARS escaped despite all of those measures.
Nah....Your lack of logic and evidence for claims is a consistent theme.
The problem with you idea is that it is a just one link in a highly implausible chain of events best described as a grand conspiracy theory.
There is a great conversation occurring in the comments on this page among some virologists.Theory that Coronavirus Escaped from a Lab Lacks Evidence
The pathogen appears to have come from wild animals, virologists say, and there are no signs of genetic manipulation in the SARS-CoV-2 genome.
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-...virus-escaped-from-a-lab-lacks-evidence-67229
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867420302622
There is a smoking gun indication that the virus have been passaged through VERO E6 BEFORE the insertion of a polybasic furin cleavage site.
These scientists, in order to assay the binding affinity of the S1 RBD portion of SARs-COV-2, constructed pseudoviruses with the SARS-COV-2 with the furin site removed. Termed S fur/mut. What they found is that such a spike enters VERO E6 cells nearly one and a half times more efficiently than BHK cells that expresses the hACE2 receptor. The SARS-COV-2 S with the furin site removed also enters VERO E6 More than one and a half times efficiently than the original SARS-COV Spike.
This mean that the S RBD of SARS-COV-2 binds the ACE2 of VERO E6 more than 1.5 times more efficiently than hACE2, 1.5 times more efficiently than the SARS-COV RBD could on the same cells.
This is way higher than even the heavily skewed calculation of the RBD’s affinity to the pACE2 receptor in that Nature article (which, despite being skewed so much that they even conclude that RaTG13 had more infectivity in humans than SARS, still showed a higher hACE2 affinity to pACE2. Their “pangolin-1” showed even lower pACE2 affinity than SARS-COV-2 in their own models—not what you expect for a virus that was supposed to have been evolved in pangolins)
Normally, an ~1.5 time higher infectivity in an organism than any other host cells is a clear indication that this organism was the intermediate host— but in this time, Physical assay revealed that the Intermediate host was VERO E6.
VERO E6 is a cancerous cell line mutated from the VERO 76 cell lines with attenuated contact inhibition, the VERO 76 cell line itself was mutated from the original VERO cell line in 1968, distinguished by a lower saturation density. Then the VERO Cell line was a cancerous derivative from a monkey cell line isolated in 1962. There is absolutely no way that VERO E6 can even be turned back into the original organism, let lone be found in wild nature in any way. The only place cells like VERO E6 exists and can exist is within a lab.
VERO E6 is used for the cultivation and isolation of viruses from all kinds of sources.
This Spike had a history in VERO E6 before the PRRA furin cleavage site was added in. Which could only mean one thing. SARS-COV-2 have been in a lab before it gets the polybasic furin cleavage site and went into humans.
It is impossible to have come from a lab based on what we know.You have really reached the realms of stupidity. What an overblown pointless response to something you still have not yet grasped.
My statement was not a claim or theory that COVID-19 escaped from a lab. In fact all evidence suggests it didn't and unless I read anything concrete that says otherwise, that is my position too.
My statement was in response to the OP on this current sub-topic making the assertion that it was impossible for it to have come from a lab. That is a false assertion. It is possible and that is all I stated. It seems you don't understand simple logic, or the difference between the words probable and possible.
Avi Schiffmann’s coronavirus tracker is a one-stop shop for all the information about COVID-19 the average person might want to know. It constantly updates with statistics for countries around the world on infections, deaths, recoveries, and rates of change using data scraped from the WHO, CDC, and other government websites. The site often offers new features, like the new survival rate calculator. It also has infections broken down on a map, and pages with some basic information about the virus, including tips for hand hygiene and a list of symptoms.
Although Schiffmann is proud of the work he’s done, he doesn’t want to become a model for how to make a name for one’s self during a pandemic. “In the future, I hope pressure is on the WHO” to make a tool like this, he said, “The responsibility shouldn’t be on some random kid, but it’s obvious that people want to know the statistics.”
Completely different circumstances so your point was an irrelevance.Nah....
You ever get sick of being wrong
The only point of relevance is Rob's, anyone else's point has no relevance.Completely different circumstances so your point was an irrelevance.
The only point of relevance is Rob's, anyone else's point has no relevance.
The only links to relevant posts, is Rob's, everyone else's posts are not from an acceptable source, only Rob's post's are from accurate source's.
If anyone disputes Rob's post's and proves them wrong, Rob has the right to change the debate and ignore previous information.
Wedewob's world.
Fiwst I lost the z on the compute% then the question mask, now the ah.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?