LosLobo

Subscription lock resolved. First Known Covid Case Was Vendor at Wuhan Market, Scientist Says - The New York Times

China’s blocking of investigations and scrubbing of data has fueled suspicions about the origins of COVID-19, but the lab leak theory remains unproven. The WHO team’s investigation, with Peter Daszak involved, raised concerns about conflicts of interest. Trump’s handling of the pandemic, including downplaying the virus and delaying action, resulted in over 1 million U.S. deaths and widespread confusion. His focus on political image over public health led to a fragmented response. The hope that Trump could fix the situation now seems doubtful, given his own role in the crisis. Murdoch’s video offers no conclusive evidence on the virus’s origin, instead aiming to absolve Trump for his failed response while scapegoating Fauci and China. Videos and alternative viewpoints are valuable, but they must be weighed against broader expert analysis to uncover the whole truth, especially when political agendas obscure key facts. I suggest viewing all media information with a critical eye and learning how to directly analyze the information and data from studies and reports to form a more accurate understanding.

The claim that there's no evidence of zoonotic transmission doesn't inherently prove a lab origin—it only highlights gaps in the current understanding. This is a textbook example of an argument from ignorance: assuming one explanation must be true simply because another isn't definitively proven. Now, regarding your sources: FBI Director Wray's statement: The FBI has assessed with "moderate confidence" that COVID-19 likely originated from a lab incident. However, "moderate confidence" indicates incomplete evidence—not certainty—and this assessment is not universally shared across U.S. intelligence agencies. US Energy Department's assessment: They also stated this with "low confidence," meaning the conclusion is tenuous and relies on limited or unreliable data. Furthermore, other agencies, including the National Intelligence Council and several scientists, still favor a natural origin. Oversight House report: Congressional documents suggesting a lab leak are based on classified information yet to be independently verified. It's worth noting that Wenstrup and others have a political stake in this debate, which calls for scrutiny of their claims. If we're talking about actual evidence, the closest we have is environmental samples from the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan, which support the possibility of zoonotic spillover. This isn't conclusive, but it aligns with known patterns of virus transmission in wildlife-to-human interfaces. In summary, appealing to fragmented or politically motivated sources doesn't solidify the lab-leak theory—it just underscores the importance of rigorous investigation over speculation.

Wrong!

You keep saying this but provide no evidence. Surely if it was zoonotic and originated from a single wet market animals or animal meat in said market would show the presence of this virus complete with the novel spike proteins so well suited to attach to human cells. Animals were tested and no evidence of this virus was found. There is no such evidence. Why is that? Before we get into the facts, let's address the primary issue here which I suggest is with your logical reasoning, which centers around 'Argument from Ignorance': Argument from Ignorance: Your claim that "no animals were found with the virus" as evidence against zoonosis assumes that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This overlooks the complexities of incomplete testing and delayed investigations. Given the vast range of testing gaps and the market's early sanitation, it’s unreasonable to dismiss zoonosis based solely on the failure to find infected animals in one location. Now let’s examine the other logical flaws in your argument: 1. Strawman Fallacy: You misrepresent the zoonotic spillover theory by suggesting it only relies on finding infected animals in the market. Zoonosis is supported by broader evidence, like the virus’s genetic relationship to bat coronaviruses and environmental traces in the market, not just direct animal tests. 2. False Dichotomy: You suggest that the lack of infected animals in the market rules out zoonosis, but this ignores other plausible scenarios, like infected animals being removed before testing or spillover occurring upstream in the wildlife trade. 3. Cherry-Picking: You focus on the absence of positive animal tests while ignoring other supporting evidence, such as the virus’s genetic ties to bats and its receptor-binding adaptations that make it suited for human cells. 4. Overgeneralization: You dismiss zoonosis based on a lack of direct evidence from one market, but spillover events are inherently complex. For example, it took years to identify intermediaries for SARS-CoV-1. 5. Begging the Question: Your rhetorical question, “Why is that?” assumes the conclusion that zoonosis is unsupported without addressing potential gaps like incomplete sampling or market conditions. Let’s address these logical flaws first, then we can delve into the facts later.

The DEFUSE proposal was rejected by DARPA and never funded, so it had no actual impact on SARS-CoV-2. While the research aimed to explore spike proteins and their potential to bind to human cells, this was part of a proposed study that didn’t go forward. The persistent use of this rejected proposal as evidence is disingenuous. As for Peter Daszak's association with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, while it’s true EcoHealth Alliance collaborated on bat coronavirus research, there’s no direct evidence linking these efforts to the creation or release of COVID-19. The most plausible theory remains zoonotic spillover, as outlined by various scientific bodies, including the WHO. By focusing on an unimplemented proposal, you’re sidestepping the lack of evidence supporting the lab-leak theory and ignoring the stronger scientific consensus on zoonotic origins.

you've now pushed the same mistaken argument about the DEFUSE proposal seemingly ad nauseam, and it's time to set the record straight. The DEFUSE Proposal Was Never Funded or Implemented: First and foremost, the DEFUSE proposal, which you continue to cite, was rejected by DARPA. It was never funded or implemented, meaning it didn’t contribute to any research that could have led to the creation or release of SARS-CoV-2. You keep presenting this as evidence of possible virus manipulation, but the reality is that no such manipulation occurred under this proposal. Defuse Project Rejection by Darpa

Shouldn't Topic name be Luuk-Jek instead of Farang?

O and 'i' are next to each other on the keyboard obviously a typo and strokes can cause vertigo. QED

Are you denying that you told me you have a degree in political science, which supposedly gives you great insight into critical thinking?

You still haven’t proven he was vindicated. "Vindication" doesn’t equal innocence, and it certainly doesn’t mean someone deserves your trust. Would you really give the benefit of the doubt and feel comfortable with your daughter being alone with someone you consider a "vindicated rapist"? Maybe you’ll just see first.

As was Jack the Ripper!

No links? Did the worm from eating roadkill tell you he was 'vindicated,' or did you come up with that on your own?

LInk?

Trump's Pentagon pick was investigated for alleged sexual assault. Who would've thought? Seems sexual assault is a badge of honor and a right of entry into MagaWorld. Just one case here, Gaetz the same, with the rapist-in-chief Trump some 26 cases. Trump Pentagon pick Pete Hegseth was investigated for alleged sexual assault

Is it the autism from the vaccines or the worm, that’s telling you to make this stuff up?

What crimes pray tell?

This post does nothing to support your earlier claims on the topic. It’s a transparent and feeble straw man attempt to distract from the glaring inconsistencies in your prior arguments. A desperate pivot doesn’t erase the B.S. you’ve already laid out—nice try, though.

Well, I can't exactly 'cut and paste' when it comes to discussing scientific and policy issues; the information I shared is sourced directly from credible discussions and hearings, bypassing biased news outlets like the New York Propaganda Post. Here are the sources: Congressional Research Service on gain-of-function research Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Dr. Paul's statement on gain-of-function oversight

That was Rand Paul, the failed ophthalmologist, who only obtained professional accreditation by forming his own unrecognized ophthalmologist association.

And roadkill on every table.

Ah, you’ve brought quite the gish gallop here—throwing in Fauci, gain-of-function, congressional testimony, and the New York Post for good measure. Let’s unpack your chaos. “Fauci changed the definition of gain-of-function” The definition debate exists because “gain-of-function” covers a broad spectrum of research. What Fauci and others pointed out is that NIH-funded research didn’t meet their established criteria for GOF involving dangerous pathogens. That’s not “changing” the definition—it’s clarifying boundaries. As for the NIH website update? It’s standard practice to update language for clarity—not a smoking gun. EcoHealth and spike proteins The congressional testimony confirms experiments involving bat coronaviruses, but no evidence shows these were precursors to SARS-CoV-2. Saying spike proteins “shouldn’t be there” ignores years of evolutionary virology that explains such features appearing naturally. Transparency wasn’t lacking here; some people just ignore the scientific consensus because it doesn’t fit their narrative. NIH “admitting” gain-of-function funding Tabak acknowledged a grant violation related to reporting—not evidence of a global conspiracy or pandemic origins. And Daszak’s and Baric’s statements to Congress reflect ongoing debates over how GOF is defined, not proof of wrongdoing or lab-origin. NYPost as gospel The New York Post isn’t a neutral observer; it leans heavily toward sensationalism. Just because it reports on testimony doesn’t mean it’s unbiased or that the testimony proves your argument. Finally, accusing others of being unwilling to change their minds while clutching at cherry-picked “evidence” isn’t exactly the self-awareness flex you think it is. Science evolves with evidence, but baseless insinuations and misinterpretations? Those don’t hold up. Try grazing on better sources next time.

Here's an unbiased comparison summary of the three main contenders from AI ChatGPT. Verdict MG VS Hybrid: Ideal for those seeking a budget-friendly, well-equipped hybrid with solid comfort. However, expect compromises in resale value and hybrid refinement. Yaris Cross HEV: Best for urban drivers who want Toyota’s top-tier fuel efficiency, nimble handling, and strong resale potential in a crossover package. Veloz Hybrid: Excellent if you need a spacious seven-seater with hybrid efficiency, though its MPV design may not appeal if you prefer a sporty crossover experience. Overall Recommendation: For versatility, fuel efficiency, and resale, the Toyota Yaris Cross HEV stands out as the most balanced choice. If extra space is a priority, the Veloz Hybrid offers great capacity and Toyota’s hybrid benefits. The MG VS Hybrid is a solid option if budget is a higher priority, though with trade-offs in resale and hybrid refinement.

More sheep in US! https://x.com/DVNJr/status/1850528968144814369

Is that why @thaibeachlovers is always trying to pull a 'snow job' on us, though, I understand NZ is a country full of sheep.