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

[basketcase]

Do you know that the FBI (and CIA) have access to satellite photos of Wuhan area hospitals in late 2019/early 2020? They know there was increased activity at the hospitals. They can see it.

I think you know where I am going with this. The U.S. intelligence agencies can determine where the center of the outbreak was with some degree of accuracy. They do not have to rely on China's self-reported evidence.

So the FBI has this information and it is very possible U.S. health agencies do not.
CIA? Still silent on the matter.

How many US intelligence agencies disagree with them?

Sorry but you're trying to posit there is proof of a lab leak while also saying that we don't have the information to make that claim. It's amusing but not very productive.

I think they are disturbed (and rightly so) that the government bureaucracies and the media went out of their way to gaslight people in 2020 who felt the wet market theory was too lazy and convenient.

Or too reasonable based on all past research about spread of contagious diseases.



Claims about me and others not being interested in the origins are quite bullshit. I'd be quite interested if you provided proof of bigfoot but knowing that evidence is next to impossible to find, I'm not going to fill the internet with my 'research' on it. Most rational people know that Chinese government has never been transparent with the international community and know that there will never be decisive evidence of the cause. That's why much of the scientific community has supported the common occurrence of zoonotic transfer over the possibility that a lab leak in a highly secure facility caused an outbreak 30 km away in a different part of a huge city. As I said, I'm open to evidence but in the lack of evidence, I'll back the more scientifically plausible conclusion.

 

[basketcase]

Fair enough. But now the White House is saying there is no consensus on the origins of the virus. That's a long, long way from the gaslighting that occurred of anyone who uttered "lab leak" in 2020. This WSJ headline below seems fair based on the quotes.
...

As I said, you admit there is a lack of consensus and a lack of evidence yet you still demand that we accept the idea that it was a leak.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Gee. When people said otherwise, you complained they were political pawns pushing an agenda but when a Trump appointee says something you like, it must be proof. I'm sure you believe that Trump had proof when he made his claims even though no intelligence agencies supported him at the time

Thats not true. Trump claimed he had intel it was a lab leak.
How else would he have known??

And if the FBI has that proof, why do none of the other intelligence agencies, those with a direct mandate to either investigate biological weapons or investigate foreign countries have that proof?

Just because they havent commented yet doesnt mean they arent investigating.

You are all over the place with your futile arguments

 

[WyattEarp]

How many US intelligence agencies disagree with them?

Sorry but you're trying to posit there is proof of a lab leak while also saying that we don't have the information to make that claim. It's amusing but not very productive.

I'm not trying to convince anyone I know the origination of the virus. I was merely countering your claim that the virus outbreak centered around the wet market. Where does that "evidence" come from counselor?

I just thought through your declaration that the outbreak centered around the wet market. I have read the U.S. satellite photos showed increased activity around Wuhan hospitals beginning in late 2019. Do you disagree that the U.S. intelligence agencies might be able to get an idea where the general area of where the virus originated from hospital activity? I believe you said the Wuhan Labs were 30 km away from the wet market. It would seem in a city of about 10 million different hospitals would service city areas 30 km apart.

 

[WyattEarp]

And if the FBI has that proof, why do none of the other intelligence agencies, those with a direct mandate to either investigate biological weapons or investigate foreign countries have that proof?

I think you are out over your skis. The FBI and CIA are the preeminent U.S. intelligence gathering agencies. The other intelligence agencies rely on their investigatory work.

It's easy to think the FBI is is only domestic, but they have a significant foreign mandate in protecting the United States. The clear difference is the CIA has no law enforcement arm and is prohibited from collecting information on U.S. citizens, resident aliens, legal immigrants, and U.S. corporations.

As has been pointed out, the CIA is silent on the matter. If you are trying to diminish the FBI's importance, that's probably not a good path.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

As has been pointed out, the CIA is silent on the matter. If you are trying to diminish the FBI, that's probably not a good path

I'm getting very close to putting this clown on ignore

 

[Knuckle Ball]

Gee. When people said otherwise, you complained they were political pawns pushing an agenda but when a Trump appointee says something you like, it must be proof. I'm sure you believe that Trump had proof when he made his claims even though no intelligence agencies supported him at the time.

And if the FBI has that proof, why do none of the other intelligence agencies, those with a direct mandate to either investigate biological weapons or investigate foreign countries have that proof?

I wonder whether the FBI has some other information based on informants from China that the Chinese were up to something in that lab? It would be the kind of intelligence that scientists would not be able to detect in their research; more like a police investigation?

 

[Valcazar]

Thats exactly what he said. It would have to be proof, what else could it be.

You have an interesting definition of "exactly".

But investigations were still ongoing, he said, adding that he was currently unable to share “a whole lot of details that are classified”.

He didn't say he had proof.
He said details in the investigation are classified.
Presumably, those details support their decision (with moderate confidence) to say they believe that the lab leak theory is more likely.

If he had "proof", he wouldn't be talking about "moderate confidence", now would he - since that means it is plausible and the FBI thinks the sources are credible, but don't actually have the kind of evidence or proof to have a higher confidence.

That you want this to mean " they have proof, but they cant divulge because its classified" is just because you really want it to be true.
He didn't actually say that.

But of course you have trouble putting 2 and 2 together, just like you did from the start of the lab leak theory

LOL.
I get it. You're very emotionally invested and it gets you worked up and silly and reading into things through motivated reasoning.
You don't have to be embarrassed and defensive about it.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

That you want this to mean " they have proof, but they cant divulge because its classified" is just because you really want it to be true

Other than proof, what else could it be??

 

[Valcazar]

Fair enough. But now the White House is saying there is no consensus on the origins of the virus. That's a long, long way from the gaslighting that occurred of anyone who uttered "lab leak" in 2020. This WSJ headline below seems fair based on the quotes.

White House Says No Consensus on Covid Origin

There is no consensus within the Biden administration over the origins of the pandemic, an official said after the disclosure of an Energy Department assessment that the coronavirus likely leaked from a Chinese lab.

www.wsj.com

Per the WSJ article: National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said that President Biden is determined to nail down where Covid started but there continues to be broad uncertainty within the administration about its origins. He declined to comment on the Journal article.

“There is not a consensus right now in the U.S. government about exactly how Covid started,” Mr. Kirby said at a briefing Monday. “We’re just not there yet,” he said. “If we have something that is ready to be briefed to the American people and the Congress, we will do that.”

At the risk of being didactic, note President Biden is determined to nail down where the virus originated. They're just not there yet.

What about all the evidence that basketcase keeps inferring exists?

Not sure what evidence you think he is inferring.
There are numerous studies that support
a) The virus was not man-made.
b) It originally spread to humans in the market.

This remains the main problem for the lab-leak enthusiasts.

a) Most of them want "lab leak" to mean "engineered by humans". The fact that they have mostly backed off from leading with that anymore is due to the evidence supporting natural evolution of the disease. Of course, just in this thread you still have people trying to blur the two - like the guy in the video at Post 103. People still cite the Lancet letter arguing for a natural origin and insist that was "gaslighting" or "shouting down" people who believed in the lab leak - quietly forgetting that lab leak at the beginning was almost exclusively "engineered" and that people who are now claiming lab leak just means a naturally gathered virus that escaped aren't arguing the same thing at all.

b) The market evidence shows a pattern of two lineages spreading with a clear epicenter at the market. That makes most versions of the lab leak story harder to argue for, because that is a very strange pattern for that. It isn't impossible of course - but it is something a lab leak hypothesis needs to engage with and explain and most don't bother.

 

[Valcazar]

Valcazar, we had an interesting exchange awhile back. (Probably more interesting for me than you.) I was contrasting to you another left wing member. I said they were an ideologue and you were a partisan. You disagreed and said that you were an ideologue.

To me, an ideologue is not interested in finding the truth. They are firmly on a political path and the objective is all that matters. That's why social media gets infested with impassioned but clumsy posts usually propped up by biased media reports.

From our days back at MERB, I always think you try to keep an open mind and our disagreements generally come from our political principles rather than ridiculous declarations.

I have a love/hate relationship with the word "ideologue". The connotation is often that idea where the truth is not of interest to them or they are fanatics. But we just don't have another word that is good for "believes in an ideology". Also, everyone has an ideology that shapes their views and assessments of things. So it's kind of a catch-22.

Maybe one day I will do a deep dive through the thesaurus and try to find a word I can use as an alternative.

 

[Valcazar]

Do you know that the FBI (and CIA) have access to satellite photos of Wuhan area hospitals in late 2019/early 2020? They know there was increased activity at the hospitals. They can see it.

I think you know where I am going with this. The U.S. intelligence agencies can determine where the center of the outbreak was with some degree of accuracy. They do not have to rely on China's self-reported evidence.

So the FBI has this information and it is very possible U.S. health agencies do not.
CIA? Still silent on the matter.

Is there evidence of these satellite images of things? (Honestly don't know - haven't seen them used as part of the discussion before, but could have just missed it.)

What would those prove anyway? All versions (outside of some very weird ones) have the outbreak starting in Wuhan. Satellite images of increased activity at Wuhan-area hospitals tells you nothing about either option.
I guess if you saw increased activity at the lab (either the WIV that the FBI pushes for or the WCDC that the DOE does) you might count that as some indirect evidence of something.
But satellite images aren't going to tell you anything about who has fallen ill or where the center of the outbreak is.
I don't see how it is even relevant.

 

[Valcazar]

I think they are disturbed (and rightly so) that the government bureaucracies and the media went out of their way to gaslight people in 2020 who felt the wet market theory was too lazy and convenient.

That's an interesting interpretation of what happened.

Those of us who have pointed out that that government agencies and much of the media misrepresented the information in 2020 are now to be mocked and harassed as angry and overly-sensitive?

Knuckle Ball, there are people on this thread still arguing vehemently that the virus originated at the Wuhan wet market.

How did the government misrepresent the information in 2020?

And yes, I still argue that it originated at the Wuhan wet market because that is still where the evidence points.

 

[WyattEarp]

I have a love/hate relationship with the word "ideologue". The connotation is often that idea where the truth is not of interest to them or they are fanatics. But we just don't have another word that is good for "believes in an ideology". Also, everyone has an ideology that shapes their views and assessments of things. So it's kind of a catch-22.

I don't know. I don't think of myself as an ideologue because to simply put it I don't agree with all the things the Republican party advocates. And some other things don't need to be so rigid. That often throws some of the left-wing ideologues here for a loop. They are operating in this binary mindset so therefore I must be for this and that. They make no room for moderation.

I think limiting government is better than an ever expanding government, but I see the need for certain social welfare including universal healthcare. As a Republican, do I think we need a bloated government with hundreds of agencies? Of course not. (I can't be the only one in this thread here left or right wondering why does the U.S. have so many intelligence agencies.)

 

[WyattEarp]

And yes, I still argue that it originated at the Wuhan wet market because that is still where the evidence points.

That's great, but "evidence" is a strong word. I'm still standing by satellite photos of Wuhan area hospitals could be the key to the answer. I don't think I've heard this from another source. I just know the U.S. had knowledge that something was odd at the Wuhan hospitals from satellite imagery in late 2019/early 2020.

 

[WyattEarp]

How did the government misrepresent the information in 2020?

I am kind of used to these what, where, how questions from you. The Vinnie Barbarino maneuver.

Let me flip it back. How did the government fairly represent the information? And how did much of the media fairly represented the information in 2020 as well?

 

[WyattEarp]

What would those prove anyway? All versions (outside of some very weird ones) have the outbreak starting in Wuhan. Satellite images of increased activity at Wuhan-area hospitals tells you nothing about either option.

It's simple. The lab and the wet market are far enough apart in a major city that there would be different hospitals servicing the area around them.

This is an interesting article which also mentions internet traffic. The FBI (and the CIA) do not want to tip their hand on how much information they can collect and analyze from inside China.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/08/health/satellite-pics-coronavirus-spread/index.html

 

[Valcazar]

How many US intelligence agencies disagree with them?

Four (+ the National Intelligence Council).

This is where we stand right now.

FBI - most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology - moderate confidence
DOE - most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving animal handling or sampling by the Wuhan Center for Disease Control - low confidence
NIC - most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus - low confidence
Four others (unidentified) - most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus - low confidence
CIA - unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information
One other (unidentified) - unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information

Not sure exactly why only 8 seem to be involved - the others might have backed off saying they had no good way to investigate.

 

[Valcazar]

Thats not true. Trump claimed he had intel it was a lab leak.
How else would he have known??

But Trump is also a pathological liar, so that isn't really anything to hang your hat on.

I just thought through your declaration that the outbreak centered around the wet market. I have read the U.S. satellite photos showed increased activity around Wuhan hospitals beginning in late 2019. Do you disagree that the U.S. intelligence agencies might be able to get an idea where the general area of where the virus originated from hospital activity? I believe you said the Wuhan Labs were 30 km away from the wet market. It would seem in a city of about 10 million different hospitals would service city areas 30 km apart.

OK, so this clarifies something I asked earlier.
You think that they saw increased activity in a hospital that implies the outbreak was at the lab?

You are basing that on what?

"Increased activity around Wuhan hospitals" doesn't specify anything of the sort, unless you are talking about one hospital (or a couple in specific) that lend weight to the idea that the outbreak is centered at the lab.

 

[WyattEarp]

Four (+ the National Intelligence Council).

This is where we stand right now.

FBI - most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology - moderate confidence
DOE - most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving animal handling or sampling by the Wuhan Center for Disease Control - low confidence
NIC - most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus - low confidence
Four others (unidentified) - most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus - low confidence
CIA - unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information
One other (unidentified) - unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information

Not sure exactly why only 8 seem to be involved - the others might have backed off saying they had no good way to investigate.

I'm sold. It was Mr. Wang with a live bat in the wet market.