The prime example of a purposeful campaign to spread disinformation in the name of policy.
2 Likes
One of my good friends, who I have known for 20 years, had a nephew who was a helicopter pilot in Iraq. That nephew spent days flying chemical weapons in Iraq to destruction sites.
If there were chemical weapons in multiple locations in Iraq, it was prudent to deny their existence to keep them out of the hands of terrorists.
Should George Bush take some discrediting to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists? He did.
And I love the way George W Bush made it a point to share the gospel with the leader of the Communist Party in China.
Deflection. I specifically referenced the intelligence linking Saddam to nuclear and bio-weapons, because his use of chemical weapons was a known known. It was the nuke and bio threat that the administration used to sell the war. Now China is the bull’s eye, and your intelligence reports are just as likely to be based on alternative facts from the Ministry of Truth.
Setting the Record Straight: Sen. Levin On Iraq
Sen. Kerry: “According To The CIA’s Report, All U.S. Intelligence Experts Agree That Iraq Is Seeking Nuclear Weapons. There Is Little Question That Saddam Hussein Wants To Develop Nuclear Weapons.”** (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, pp. S10172-10173)
And Colin Powell’s set for fall guy speech at the United Nations.
Raising a tiny vial containing a beige powder-like substance, Mr. Powell explained: “Less than a teaspoon of dry anthrax…about this amount… shut down the United States Senate in the fall of 2001.”
“Saddam Hussein has not verifiably accounted for even one teaspoonful of this deadly material,” he went on to say, still dangling the vial with an unknown substance from his fingertips. “Iraqis have never accounted for all of the biological weapons they admitted they had. This is evidence, not conjecture.”
1 Like
So you don’t consider chemical weapons to be weapons of mass destruction?
YES. THEY ARE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!
Chemical weapons are absolutely, positively, weapons of mass destruction.
But, in anticipation of this attempt at deflection, I specifically stated nuclear and biological weapons, which were both specifically referenced by US intelligence and promoted as pretext for invasion.
So it is naive to trust pronouncements such as you have posted, particularly when the political posturing is transparent.
1 Like
This just came across my Facebook feed.
If I have understood the story correctly, our first data points of the virus (SARS-CoV-2 ) are from patients that were sick. At that point, the virus had already started to spread, so there is no data before the starting epidemic. We have to draw the conclusions based on the virus and the locations of the known patients.
Experts of virus evolution have concluded that the virus looks like a ‘normal’ evolved virus. Very much like a virus of the group and the mutations are such that have been observed in other cases. That suggests that it is a naturally evolved virus, or that someone tried to copy the natural process, making changes that could have happened in the nature.
The location of the first patients suggests that the origin of the epidemics was somewhere in Wuhan. The virus may have evolved much earlier as we only know what happened after it started an epidemic in humans.
Someone may know what happened in the research lab but without that information, we do not know whether the virus jumped directly from an animal to a human somewhere in the area (wet market?), or if the virus was first sampled from an animal, studied in the lab and then escaped. If it did the lab round, the virus may have been a sample of a naturally evolved virus or someone may have altered it - we do not know. There is no open evidence for the latter. As the extra lab round is an additional (unnecessary) complication to the story, simplicity puts the ‘natural’ scenario of a jump from an animal to a human as the primary hypothesis.
Intelligence agencies may have heard or read claims or rumours that are not publicly known. That does not quarantee that the conclusions they report are true. Until someone presents new evidence, there is no reason to believe that their conclusions are closer to the truth than what the experts of virus evolution have concluded.
Whatever the final truth is, does it really matter?
3 Likes
I find this paragraph somewhat internally contradictory.
The intelligence agencies have access to information not generally available to others AND they have access to the generally available information, yet you conclude their conclusions are no more believable than the conclusions of the people with only access to the generally available information. In short, you deem the intelligence communities as have more information and no more credibility.
As for whether it matters at this point: if society would like to avoid another such devastating pandemic, the knowledge of the source of the Covid pandemic can inform those setting guidelines and rules (on matters such as gain of function research) to avoid repeating history.
And it’s known that the CCP was under-reporting deaths at the beginning; effluent from crematoria in the area where COVID started showed far more bodies being cremated than deaths being reported.
2 Likes
Far less than what to do about the anti-medicine idiot in charge of U.S. medicine these days.
1 Like
That is not fully what I meant. It depends on the quality of the information. Even if it would be claims leaked from China or interpretations of an expert, it would not prove that the conclusions are true.
The reports and conclusions are written by individuals who are not neutral and have imperfect knowledge. That is why some of the reports and conclusions are more guesses than conclusions based on facts and knowledge. In addition, political hopes twist the reports - those compiling the reports need to listen what their boss wants and the boss listens to what political leaders hope - otherwise they would lose their jobs.
So, sorry but intelligence agencies have limited credibility today.
2 Likes
Your scenario poses the question of why the wet market? Out of the 10,000+ places the infected researchers could have gone (e.g. universities, restaurants, shopping malls) why does the outbreak start in the wet market, a known hot spot for zoonotic spillovers from wild caught animals? Given the two strains that were found in the wet market, this also requires two separate events of a lab leak to the wet market specifically without it occurring anywhere else in Wuhan.
4 Likes
We need to see the data in order for their conclusions to be believable.
SARS-CoV-1 was definitely a zoonotic spillover. All of the evidence we have shows the same for SARS-CoV-2. This points to policies that do away with wet markets that sell wild caught game and more stringent testing of domestic animal populations.
There is absolutely no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was the product of gain of function research. At the same time, we all agree that BSL-2 guidelines be constantly updated and enforced.
3 Likes
It is unsurprising that there may have been multiple leaks from the lab.
If I recall correctly, just before the outbreak there was a request for proposals from the lab for an overhaul of the air handling and filtration system costing several hundred million dollars.
Why the wet market out of the 10,000+ places where the infected researcher could have spread the virus? Why twice?
Virus is handled in a laminar flow hood, otherwise known as a biocontainment hood. This is by far the most important and most effective means of preventing lab worker infections. These are stand alone pieces of equipment that are not connected to a building’s air handlers.
The air handling in the building outside of these hoods is a tiny, tiny percentage of the overall safety of that lab. If the virus gets outside of those hoods it is usually already too late, and air handlers aren’t going to save you.
I know this because this is my work. I have grown virus, and I have genetically modified viruses. I have handled over 10,000 COVID positive NP swab patient samples (and have yet to have a symptomatic COVID infection). Anyone putting the air handlers forth as evidence for a lab leak is grasping at straws.
5 Likes
I can understand your desire to defend the work of people who do work similar to yours.
Are you personally familiar with the situation at the Wuhan lab, or are you reflecting your experiences onto a facility thousands of miles away?
A $600 million dollar fix is a whole lot of straws.
I have read that about 40% of people are asymptomatic after getting Covid.
I have no such desire. If a lab worker caused a virus to escape the lab then it should be trumpeted to the world. My desires are the exact opposite of what you claim. I am protecting no one, and would gladly out any lab worker that caused a lab leak.
The only person who seems reluctant to follow the evidence is you. You refuse to even address the evidence supporting a zoonotic spillover. It’s almost as if you don’t want to to be a zoonotic spillover.
I am personally familiar with safety protocols associated with handling viruses. Even if they had completely dysfunctional air handlers it would not pose any significant risk, especially for SARS-CoV-2 which is not easily transmitted by aerosolized droplets (compared to viruses like measles). The much more significant risk to lab workers is contaminated surfaces, at least from my knowledge of the virus.
A fix that wouldn’t make a significant impact on SARS-CoV-2 exposure in a lab setting.
If I get infected after handling a sample that contains the Alpha strain of SARS-CoV-2 (one of the early strains from 2020) and I spread it within the community it would be pretty easy to see with sequencing. It would stick out like a sore thumb.
4 Likes
Ok, I note that you are familiar with the standard procedures and not with Wuhan specifically.
Wuhan used laminar flow hoods, the standard procedure. These are basic equipment in all viral research centers. I note that you refuse to address the insignificant impact air handlers would provide. This is true of any research center, not just Wuhan.
CDC guidelines for SARS-CoV-2:
Notice no mention of air handlers.
2 Likes
Yes, I understand your discussion of standard procedures.
There is also this:
And
So your knowledge of general standards and lack of specific practices at Wuhan does not instill confidence.