Covid-19 most likely came from a lab leak,,,,,,,,,duh

[Butler1000]

So why don't you post what the releases say? Could it be that a tiny piece is from a release and it doesn't support the video? As I said, if they actually had evidence, their clickbait title wouldn't play ancient aliens games and phrase it as a question.

They are in the articles. Quite simply 3 employees from the lab were admitted with COVID symptoms, the lab was sited by its own employees as at risk of a leak to the State Dept, and all of this was classified and covered up. As well as more info.

Do you accept this as facts as investigated and released by the Biden Administration?

 

[basketcase]

They are in the articles. Quite simply 3 employees from the lab were admitted with COVID symptoms...

Except that's not what they say. They say that three of the many lab workers got medical treatment for respiratory symptoms during cold and flu season. There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE it was covid and in addition to all the geographic studies and genomic studies, the odds are still in favour of the outbreak happening in the immediate vicinity of the market.

As I said, If they had actual evidence, the title of the vid wouldn't be playing word games.

 

[Butler1000]

Except that's not what they say. They say that three of the many lab workers got medical treatment for respiratory symptoms during cold and flu season. There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE it was covid and in addition to all the geographic studies and genomic studies, the odds are still in favour of the outbreak happening in the immediate vicinity of the market.

As I said, If they had actual evidence, the title of the vid wouldn't be playing word games.

It was Covid. Cripes stop trying to mitigate this. Its a smoking gun. And if they had testing at the time or even knew the disease existed that would have been the diagnosis.

Its patient zero. As in the first. Proof is always going to be circumstantial. Add in CCP coverups and its not difficult to figure out.

 

[Valcazar]

Bullshit..
Here is patient zero

The WSJ itself (who did the reporting) doesn't definitively claim him as patient zero, but apparently you and The Rising are happy to just claim it is "proven" now.

Shit. Even your clickbait video needs to include a question mark.

IDENTIFIED ?

Betteridge's law of headlines.

 

[Valcazar]

2 years ago. This latest is from declassified information released by the Biden Administration. In the last week.

Are you stating you believe the Biden Administration released false information on Covid? Because that is the source of this.

They released the information according to that law?
Cool.

We should be looking at that, then, right?
Not the bloggers who cited "unnamed officials" or the WSJ's summary.

We have this information, so we should talk about it.

Dude. The reporters are reporting directly from the releases. They are available to all.

Exactly!
So you've read them and linked these available releases directly in the thread, right?

I mean, that's what someone who was serious about this would do, and not rely on sources just telling him the narrative he already wanted to believe.

 

[Valcazar]

They are in the articles. Quite simply 3 employees from the lab were admitted with COVID symptoms, the lab was sited by its own employees as at risk of a leak to the State Dept, and all of this was classified and covered up. As well as more info.

Do you accept this as facts as investigated and released by the Biden Administration?

Since that doesn't appear to be what the WSJ article actually says, and everyone else is just reporting on the WSJ article, you have a bit of a problem of clinging to a narrative ahead of the facts again.

It was Covid. Cripes stop trying to mitigate this. Its a smoking gun. And if they had testing at the time or even knew the disease existed that would have been the diagnosis.

Its patient zero. As in the first. Proof is always going to be circumstantial. Add in CCP coverups and its not difficult to figure out.

I love how you're all like "Its a smoking gun" and one paragraph later "Proof is always going to be circumstantial".

We get it. You have a narrative and so you are claiming this confirms what you already believed because that's what other people who tell you the narrative you want to hear say.

But, as you say, there is a law mandating the release of the declassified material, which you have been claiming for days is already released to the public but you refuse to look at or cite directly.

Don't you think "The US government is refusing to release the legally mandated documents" is a more interesting story to pursue here? Isn't that just proof they are covering it up?
Why haven't they released it yet? Why are we only getting it in leaks? Are the leaks a disinformation campaign to cover up the US involvement and blame it on the Chinese?

Spinning tales from incomplete evidence fun!
I see why you love it so much.

 

[Butler1000]

Since that doesn't appear to be what the WSJ article actually says, and everyone else is just reporting on the WSJ article, you have a bit of a problem of clinging to a narrative ahead of the facts again.



I love how you're all like "Its a smoking gun" and one paragraph later "Proof is always going to be circumstantial".

We get it. You have a narrative and so you are claiming this confirms what you already believed because that's what other people who tell you the narrative you want to hear say.

But, as you say, there is a law mandating the release of the declassified material, which you have been claiming for days is already released to the public but you refuse to look at or cite directly.

Don't you think "The US government is refusing to release the legally mandated documents" is a more interesting story to pursue here? Isn't that just proof they are covering it up?
Why haven't they released it yet? Why are we only getting it in leaks? Are the leaks a disinformation campaign to cover up the US involvement and blame it on the Chinese?

Spinning tales from incomplete evidence fun!
I see why you love it so much.

Identify patient zero confirmed by a test from zoological transfer.

 

[Valcazar]

Identify patient zero confirmed by a test from zoological transfer.

Can't.
Very unlikely it will ever be possible. (Index cases in the sense of "the person who was the very first" are very hard to find in most outbreaks of anything, of course. Otherwise you just talk about the earliest known case, but I know you don't believe that one counts.)

There's also the problem that there are two "Patient Zeros" because there are two lineages in the early cases found in Wuhan.
(That's one of those inconvenient details that complicate various lab leak theories.)

But you yourself admit that the WSJ article here doesn't identify this guy as Patient Zero. That's just a supposition you've decided to read in.

Now, if it turns out this guy DID have COVID, that would mean he was an earlier known case than the current earliest known case, but we both know you don't mean "Patient Zero" to mean "the earliest known case" but "the one that started the pandemic" so you still wouldn't have Patient Zero just from the date here.

 

[basketcase]

It was Covid. ...

Wow. Do you know how dumb it is to claim that without the slightest bit of evidence?

 

[basketcase]

Identify patient zero confirmed by a test from zoological transfer.

Another moronic claim. I know I've never claimed that patient zero proved a zoonotic transfer though the geographic analysis of patients sure shows that market as the epicentre.

 

[Valcazar]

Another moronic claim. I know I've never claimed that patient zero proved a zoonotic transfer though the geographic analysis of patients sure shows that market as the epicentre.

His whole argument is "God of the gaps" so you end up with things like this.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

HHhmm........now why would they stop funding??

US stops funding to Wuhan lab scrutinized over possible Covid lab leak

A US review found the Wuhan Institute of Virology 'is not compliant with federal regulations and is not presently responsible'.

metro.co.uk

 

[benstt]

HHhmm........now why would they stop funding??

US stops funding to Wuhan lab scrutinized over possible Covid lab leak

A US review found the Wuhan Institute of Virology 'is not compliant with federal regulations and is not presently responsible'.

metro.co.uk

It actually answers your question in the bitty bit you quoted.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

It actually answers your question in the bitty bit you quoted

I know sarcasm doesnt work on internet, but come on dude that was a layup

 

[benstt]

I know sarcasm doesnt work on internet, but come on dude that was a layup

It comes across a passive aggressive approach to try show that there is a hidden motivation for cancelling the funding. Given the obsession of some to try to prove Trump was correct about the lab leak, people resort to all sorts of weak argument styles.

I know I know.. "just asking questions" and "look here isn't this interesting."

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

there is a hidden motivation for cancelling the funding

Of course there is

 

[basketcase]

HHhmm........now why would they stop funding??

US stops funding to Wuhan lab scrutinized over possible Covid lab leak

A US review found the Wuhan Institute of Virology 'is not compliant with federal regulations and is not presently responsible'.

metro.co.uk

Why would a US agency stop funding research in their main geopolitical rival's labs? Is that a real question or are you just still desperately looking for a way to 'prove' your gut feeling?

 

[squeezer]

Moron who pushes lab leak theory shut down by a scientist.

 

[Valcazar]

It comes across a passive aggressive approach to try show that there is a hidden motivation for cancelling the funding. Given the obsession of some to try to prove Trump was correct about the lab leak, people resort to all sorts of weak argument styles.

I know I know.. "just asking questions" and "look here isn't this interesting."

They don't have facts or evidence, so "just asking questions" and "look here isn't this interesting" and "the implication" is what they use.

 

[Valcazar]

The Ongoing Mystery of Covid’s Origin (Published 2023)

We still don’t know how the pandemic started. Here's what we do know — and why it matters.

www.nytimes.com

This should be an unlocked version.