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

[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.

 

[Valcazar]

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?

That is probably the strongest evidence I could see the FBI being in specific possession of.
The satellite idea doesn't sound very persuasive to me and the FBI is pretty famously bad at its biological analysis (remember Amerithrax?).

But as a law enforcement agency, having informants who are giving them testimony about something specific would definitely be something they would have that outside researchers wouldn't.
All you need is a couple of them who aren't really all that trustworthy and you can get to "moderate confidence". They would have good reason to believe it, but the informant isn't unassailable and they don't have a way to confirm it. That would fit right in line.

Of course, they aren't telling us what they do have, so that's just wild speculation. But it is a guess that actually sounds pretty reasonable as a possibility.

 

[Valcazar]

Other than proof, what else could it be??

Evidence.
Data.

That doesn't amount to "proof".

 

[Valcazar]

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.

That just means your ideology isn't identical to theirs.

Or, more narrowly, you may broadly share an ideology, but you aren't rabidly partisan so just because they choose to do something doesn't mean you agree.

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.)

Right. All of that is an ideology.
It just isn't the same one as the current GOP.

 

[Valcazar]

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.

You are going to have to show me where this whole line of reasoning comes from.

Evidence is a much weaker word than "proof".

Everything is evidence.
You can argue about whether you think it is convincing evidence or not, but it is evidence.

 

[Valcazar]

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?

Well, Trump (who was the government) said it was a lab leak (sometimes, sometimes he said other things).

The medical establishment said it was most likely zoonotic transfer and that arguments that it was engineered were bad.
This has been borne out to the point where even lab leak enthusiasts claim they just mean a sample that escaped and not an engineered virus.

So I'm not seeing misrepresentation here.

 

[PeteOsborne]

Evidence.
Data.

That doesn't amount to "proof".

Solid proof.
FBI has all three of Hunter Bidens laptops, on one of them must be the file containing how the CIA paid Hunter Biden through money laundring in the Ukraine to finance Ukrainian biolabs, under the supervision of DR. Fauci, to produce covid19, which was then released into an avian bound for Moscow but due to changing winds due to climate change it was blown off course and shit on and infect a scientist from the lab in Wuhan, you know, the one that ended up in the hospital. All an accident.