Pompeo says 'significant' evidence new coronavirus emerged from Chinese lab

[rabas]

7 minutes ago, Logosone said:

The famous study you refer to was done by several very able geneticists, who were also among the ones who confirmed that the Chinese genetic study about two strains with one being more virulent was flawed.

The flaw you mention was a single comment on a website about the paper, not the study. The issue was fixed by the authors prior to publication.

 

Currently there are many new studies that verify and now amplify on the original work. One study demonstrated in the lab that the more aggressive strain grows at 270 times the rate of slower ones.

[bendejo]

8 minutes ago, userabcd said:

Probably the worst secretary of state the US has ever appointed.

Well, DT is still in office, which means he can be fired any day now and replaced with .....

Imagine a true-believer Christian millennialist  who thinks the rapture is neigh so all of these international relations trivial.

 

This is where their own dishonesty comes back on them, and hurts everyone else as well: they have been so disreputable in the stuff they put out everything they say is questionable. 

Is this an alternative fact, or perhaps he was joking, or are we, those who are hearing it, getting it wrong?  All of these are regular retraction tactics this bunch uses.

 

 

[Rookiescot]

Would the United States allow China into the USA to conduct any investigation?

[keith101]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

"The best experts so far seem to think it was man-made. I have no reason to disbelieve that at this point," Pompeo said. When the interviewer pointed out that was not the conclusion of U.S. intelligence agencies, Pompeo backtracked, saying, "I've seen what the intelligence community has said. I have no reasonto believe that they've got it wrong."

Covering his <deleted> for an each way bet 50/50 something he said was right .

[AussieinThaiJim]

OMG what a pile of bs!

US intelligence services are completely off the track let alone POTUS!

Look what happened with WOMD and the war in Iraq!

 

you wouldn’t trust one report from US intelligence ever!

[Magenta408]

Mike Pompous has evidence - well show it Mike. Show us what you've got or get off the pot! If you have credible evidence we want to see it. Also, let us know why your not so excellent Dr. FAUSTi contributed to the tune of some $3.7 or perhaps even $37 million to a lab in Wuhan to conduct virology research. Do provide some proof. 

[finnsk]

Normally the Trump administration is not working with truth and evidence.

 

So now the Trump administration have changed ?

 

Every expert said that the virus is not human maked.

 

The chinese make virus research in labs in Wuhan, a nature virus could by an accident get out of the lab, we all know. But where is the evidence ? as the Trump administration said ?

 

If covid is an accident from a lab, I do not believe, any human want it to happends.

 

This time it happends maybe in China, what has happend in labs in American labs, do they tell when something goes wrong, in the american military labs ? Things goes wrong, sh.t happends, when we (the humans) try to make deep research in the complicated nature. 

 

Whatever happends the international experts (chinese, american, european, japan etc) must work together to fight the worldwide diseases. Nothing can be more wrong, what the Trump administration now is doing, to stop the coorperation, and make negative pressure. And nothing can be more wrong what the chinese is doing, when they will not allow international researchers to help, to find out how the virus maybe is starting.

 

We can still not believe Trump or Beijing.

 

 

 

Edited May 4, 2020 by finnsk

[Traubert]

So Mike. The answer is 'yes,' 'no,' 'I don't know.'

 

All for the same question. Good, right.....tell me, can you spell potato?

 

 

[Eric Loh]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

The best experts so far seem to think it was man-made. I have no reason to disbelieve that at this point," Pompeo said. When the interviewer pointed out that was not the conclusion of U.S. intelligence agencies, Pompeo backtracked, saying, "I've seen what the intelligence community has said. I have no reasonto believe that they've got it wrong."

I recommend anyone to watch the embarrassing ABC interview when Pompeo contradict himself in a flat 15 seconds. 
 

Then he rambled on quickly to divert his gut cringing embarrassment and accused China of hiding, concealing and confusing. Isn’t that what Trump is doing - hiding, concealing and confusing as the infections and deaths spiral upwards. Pot, kettle, black comes to mind. 

[robblok]

57 minutes ago, Logosone said:

The famous study you refer to was done by several very able geneticists, who were also among the ones who confirmed that the Chinese genetic study about two strains with one being more virulent was flawed.

 

In this study, which I link below, the authors state a man-made origin is extremely unlikely and the analysis looks very convincing.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

 

My impression was that Trump's argument was that the virus was not man made, but was harvested from bats in a Chinese lab and then escaped.

 

Of course we have seen no evidence of this yet.

Trump needs to get elected and Americans are known to be liberal with the facts. (chemical weapons in Irak anyone). So i have no clue who would believe these stupid claims.

 

The top world virologists havent said a word it was man made so i prefer to trust them over lying Americans. 

 

Of course it could have escaped from a lab but there is no proof for that at all. Trump needs to deflect from all the mistakes he made.

[mickyr55]

The more you hear from the different governments on this epidemic the more confusing it becomes. 

My take on it at this moment leads me to 2 conclusions. 

1, No government has a clue what is going on or how to control it.

2, Something so shocking has occurred in the World of germ warfare that nobody in the know is speaking out, why in the very early stages in China did the authorities imprison the doctor who reported the virus if it was just a new strain of naturally occurring influenza??

[Expat Brad]

Reading the articles tells me one thing. It either came from the PL4 Lab or, it mutated naturally. They have hard evidence that one of these is correct. Meaning that they actually have ZERO hard conclusive evidence!!!

An interesting point is that the US has a research partnership with this very same PL4 Lab in Wuhan. It also has another PL4 partnered lab along with 6 lower level research laboratories elsewhere in China. No mention of this alliance from the press though!!! ????

[Dap]

2 hours ago, Logosone said:

Why was Donald Trump so careful in always emphasizing that it was not man-made but escaped from a lab but Pompeo here appears to say it was 'man-made'?

 

He then backtracked, just silly mistake?

The whole lot of them are somebody's silly mistake, for sure

[Logosone]

9 hours ago, rabas said:

The flaw you mention was a single comment on a website about the paper, not the study. The issue was fixed by the authors prior to publication.

 

Currently there are many new studies that verify and now amplify on the original work. One study demonstrated in the lab that the more aggressive strain grows at 270 times the rate of slower ones.

No, while there were of course comments by eminent geneticists on websites that said that the paper by Lu Jian about the two strains was flawed those comments were preceded by a  very deep analysis from several other geneticists that exposed the flaws of the study itself, which went as deep as using inappropriate software for the study which skewed the results and many other issues. You can read the full debunking of Lu Jian's study, including Lu Jian's responses, here:

 

http://virological.org/t/response-to-on-the-origin-and-continuing-evolution-of-sars-cov-2/418/2

 

The problem with genetic analysis is that it is so easy to get it wrong:

 

"Scientists will also be scouring the genomic diversity for mutations that might change how dangerous the pathogen is or how fast it spreads. There, too, caution is warranted. A paper published by Lu Jian of Peking University and colleagues on 3 March in the journal National Science Review analyzed 103 virus genomes and argued that they fell into one of two distinct types, named S and L, distinguished by two mutations.

 

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/mutations-can-reveal-how-coronavirus-moves-they-re-easy-overinterpret

 

Now the new study you refer to which "demonstrated in the lab that the more aggressive strain grows at 270 times the rate of slower ones" also comes from China. It actually refers to generating 270 times the viral load, however, this study has not yet been peer reviewed. I would note it uses an extremely small sample.  It is here:

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20060160v2

 

Since this study is also from China, I would not believe the hype it has received in the South China Morning Post, which is notorious for posting Chinese propaganda. Since it has not been peer reviewed yet, we shall see if this study stands up to peer review.

 

Clearly Lu Jian's paper on the two strains did not.

Edited May 4, 2020 by metisdead
14) You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.

[ChouDoufu]

2 hours ago, CaptRon2 said:

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your statement? 

You consistent name calling and labeling of  groups is a perfect example of  not working together.

Your post presents absolutely no facts, and it is obvious that proof reading and spell check  have not been employed, so why would we assume you have spent the time to actually do some fact checking or research?

if you are actually sincere about people working together a good start would be with you to stop your name calling and labeling, and maybe even start using some references and facts to support your arguments! 

 

 

that poster provided exactly as much evidence, no more and no less, than the esteemed mr. pompeo has with his assertions.

 

the difference though is our poster friend delightfully added "IMO" to show it was, you know, his opinion.

 

mr pompeo, on the another hand, claimed he had knowledge from super top secret intelligence briefings that are too good for you or me to see.

 

a secret dossier (als fusion gps?) from the same guys that told trump at the end of january, when a city of 11 million was being locked down and millions were dropping dead in the streets canceling their cellphone subscriptions, "don't worry, bro, it's just the flu!"

 

a secret dossier that may be the basis for increased sanctions, covert actions, or yet another gulf of tonkin resolution.

[Tug]

1 hour ago, RoadWarrior371 said:

You chose to believe the Chinese, where if their lips are moving they are lying?  Regardless of how you feel about Trump, no need to 'tug' on China's nut-sack.

This mistrust of this administration has been earned by the constant lies stonewalling and refusal to accept responsibility for anything it has 0 to do with sucking up to China I’m not a rube I’ll not be sucked down some rabbit hole to make excuses for trump 

[ChouDoufu]

8 hours ago, Logosone said:

No, while there were of course comments by eminent geneticists on websites that said that the paper by Lu Jian about the two strains was flawed those comments were preceded by a  very deep analysis from several other geneticists that exposed the flaws of the study itself, which went as deep as using inappropriate software for the study which skewed the results and many other issues. You can read the full debunking of Lu Jian's study, including Lu Jian's responses, here:

 

http://virological.org/t/response-to-on-the-origin-and-continuing-evolution-of-sars-cov-2/418/2

 

The problem with genetic analysis is that it is so easy to get it wrong:

 

"Scientists will also be scouring the genomic diversity for mutations that might change how dangerous the pathogen is or how fast it spreads. There, too, caution is warranted. A paper published by Lu Jian of Peking University and colleagues on 3 March in the journal National Science Review analyzed 103 virus genomes and argued that they fell into one of two distinct types, named S and L, distinguished by two mutations.

 

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/mutations-can-reveal-how-coronavirus-moves-they-re-easy-overinterpret

 

Now the new study you refer to which "demonstrated in the lab that the more aggressive strain grows at 270 times the rate of slower ones" also comes from China. It actually refers to generating 270 times the viral load, however, this study has not yet been peer reviewed. I would note it uses an extremely small sample.  It is here:

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20060160v2

 

Since this study is also from China, I would not believe the hype it has received in the South China Morning Post, which is notorious for posting Chinese propaganda. Since it has not been peer reviewed yet, we shall see if this study stands up to peer review.

 

Clearly Lu Jian's paper on the two strains did not.

we also have the cambridge study finding three variants.

 

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/17/9241

 

 

[Logosone]

17 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

we also have the cambridge study finding three variants.

 

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/17/9241

 

 

Yes, I had seen reports of it when it was not peer reviewed. Was waiting to see the review of it.

 

Did I read this correctly, is Colin Renfrew the archaelogist a co-author of this genetic study?

[ChouDoufu]

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Yes, I had seen reports of it when it was not peer reviewed. Was waiting to see the review of it.

 

Did I read this correctly, is Colin Renfrew the archaelogist a co-author of this genetic study?

appears to be the case!  how could you know that?  amazing!

 

am i correct that the first study with 160 genomes HAS been peer-reviewed, while the extended study with 1001 has not?

 

Since today’s PNAS study was conducted, the research team has extended its analysis to 1,001 viral genomes. While yet to be peer-reviewed, Forster says the latest work suggests that the first infection and spread among humans of SARS-CoV-2 occurred between mid-September and early December. 

The phylogenetic network methods used by researchers – allowing the visualisation of hundreds of evolutionary trees simultaneously in one simple graph – were pioneered in New Zealand in 1979, then developed by German mathematicians in the 1990s.

These techniques came to the attention of archaeologist Professor Colin Renfrew, a co-author of the new PNAS study, in 1998. Renfrew went on to establish one of the first archaeogenetics research groups in the world at the University of Cambridge.  

 

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/covid-19-genetic-network-analysis-provides-snapshot-of-pandemic-origins?from=timeline

[newnative]

4 hours ago, J Town said:

I wouldn't trust this toadie as far as I could throw him, and have you SEEN how YUGE he is?

I think he was appointed because, standing next to him, the super tubbo Trump looks merely tubbo in comparison.  His only job qualification I can see.  

[natway09]

Typical American report. Yes, it was, no if was not, blah blah

Even they can't agree 

Find out first before blabbing to the press

[ChouDoufu]

11 minutes ago, natway09 said:

Typical American report. Yes, it was, no if was not, blah blah

Even they can't agree 

Find out first before blabbing to the press

finding out is not the point.  this is standard propaganda.

 

they do this to get their bit of narrative into the newsfeeds.  trump says it, pompeo says it, it gets picked up and repeated endlessly.  get it repeated enough times, and it gets ingrained in the public conscience.  at that point, no evidence will ever be required, and those left asking for proof are branded as conspiracy theorists or commie disinformation trolls.

 

the other guys do it with their own anonymous kremlin sources and mysterious pee tapes in moscow.

[Tropposurfer]

BS!!! More sociopathic psychopathic rubbish out of the White House.

[Logosone]

37 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

appears to be the case!  how could you know that?  amazing!

 

am i correct that the first study with 160 genomes HAS been peer-reviewed, while the extended study with 1001 has not?

 

Since today’s PNAS study was conducted, the research team has extended its analysis to 1,001 viral genomes. While yet to be peer-reviewed, Forster says the latest work suggests that the first infection and spread among humans of SARS-CoV-2 occurred between mid-September and early December. 

The phylogenetic network methods used by researchers – allowing the visualisation of hundreds of evolutionary trees simultaneously in one simple graph – were pioneered in New Zealand in 1979, then developed by German mathematicians in the 1990s.

These techniques came to the attention of archaeologist Professor Colin Renfrew, a co-author of the new PNAS study, in 1998. Renfrew went on to establish one of the first archaeogenetics research groups in the world at the University of Cambridge.  

 

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/covid-19-genetic-network-analysis-provides-snapshot-of-pandemic-origins?from=timeline

 

Well, archaelogy is a hobby of mine, specifically the origin of the Indo-Europeans and the archaelogist Colin Renfrew wrote one of the key texts on this question. I have his book in my library and remember reading it. He's one of the world's foremost experts on the origin of the Indo-Europeans. He developed the Anatolian hypothesis and his dispute with Gimbutas is one of the most fascinating academic rivalries in our time. I'm amazed that he's the one who submitted this genetic study on the coronavirus.  But turns out he's also an expert on archaeogenetics. It looks like he's a mentor of sorts to the German geneticist Peter Forster, who has done most of the legwork on the "Cambridge" study, and I suspect also on some of Renfrew's own genetic work. So I'm guessing Renfrew submitted the paper for added cachet.

 

Anyway, you are absolutely right, we need to distinguish in that there are two studies by Peter Forster. The one with the 160 genomes was criticised at the time precisely because it only used 160 genomes. As late as April 10th that study was not yet peer reviewed. But yes, I did read that it now was in an article dated 18 April.

 

Peter Forster has now updated his research to include 1000 patients instead of 160, and his conclusions are largely the same, though I am not clear if this has been peer reviewed now. I have not see any major objections or reports of flaws on Forster's analysis.

 

If it turns out Forster's research is solid, it is a major bombshell. Whilst he does not venture an opinion on any strain being more aggressive he has found 3 strains and is certain that Wuhan is not the origin area. He also is certain it originated in September. The tracing is also very, very interesting.

 

The Cambridge study looks very promising.

 

 

Edited May 4, 2020 by Logosone

[ChouDoufu]

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

Well, archaelogy is a hobby of mine, specifically the origin of the Indo-Europeans and the archaelogist Colin Renfrew wrote one of the key texts on this question. He's one of the world's foremost experts on the origin of the Indo-Europeans. He developed the Anatolian hypothesis and his dispute with Gimbutas is one of the most fascinating academic rivalries in our time. I'm amazed that he's the one who submitted this genetic study on the coronavirus.  But turns out he's also an expert on archaeogenetics. It looks like he's a mentor of sorts to the German geneticist Peter Forster, who has done most of the legwork on the "Cambridge" study, and I suspect also on some of Renfrew's own genetic work. So I'm guessing Renfrew submitted the paper for added cachet.

 

Anyway, you are absolutely right, we need to distinguish in that there are two studies by Peter Forster. The one with the 160 genomes was criticised at the time precisely because it only used 160 genomes. As late as April 10th that study was not yet peer reviewed. But yes, I did read that it now was in an article dated 18 April.

 

Peter Forster has now updated his research to include 1000 patients instead of 160, and his conclusions are largely the same, though I am not clear if this has been peer reviewed now. I have not see any major objections or reports of flaws on Forster's analysis.

 

If it turns out Forster's research is solid, it is a major bombshell. Whilst he does not venture an opinion on any strain being more aggressive he has found 3 strains and is certain that Wuhan is not the origin area. He also is certain it originated in September. The tracing is also very, very interesting.

 

The Cambridge study looks very promising.

 

 

it does make sense that renfrew would be a co-author.  he would be well-versed with the use of the software used and the analysis of the data, as similar methods are used for tracing ancient human population movements.

[Pedrogaz]

7 hours ago, ukrules said:

It doesn't need to be 'man made' or 'genetically modified' to escape a research lab.

 

Research labs do research on dangerous things all the time, if the lab is not properly secure and some one screws up then things could leak.

 

So the suggestion that it leaked from the lab which to me looks more likely by the day has nothing to do with what they were doing with the virus in the lab and certainly doesn't contradict intel suggestions that it's not man made or modified in the lab.

 

This has been conclusively disproven by reputable scientists (ie not the likes of Trump or Pompeo)

Indeed published yesterday was the news that the virus in the US came from Italy France or Belgium. This was demonstrated by looking at the make of of different strains of the viruses involved in different countries. Also the different viral strains seem to have been around for quite some time.

[Pedrogaz]

"I would not believe the hype it has received in the South China Morning Post, which is notorious for posting Chinese propaganda. "

 

This is totally wrong. The SCMP is a Hong Kong newspaper notorious for attacking mainland China. The English Language state sponsored organ for the Chinese government is the Global Times.

[Pedrogaz]

5 hours ago, ThaiFelix said:

As always there is "significant evidence" but wont reveal it!!  Its a good thing that Pinocchio is only a fairy tale otherwise these guys would really be in trouble. 

Iraq all over again. Rumsfeld "We know they have weapons of mass destruction. we know where they are..."

Shame no reporter asked "well if you know where they are why not call Hans Blix and tell him so he can find them for you?" But a supine press asked no awkward questions.

[Logosone]

13 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

it does make sense that renfrew would be a co-author.  he would be well-versed with the use of the software used and the analysis of the data, as similar methods are used for tracing ancient human population movements.

Indeed Colin Renfrew would have tried to use genetic population tracing in his work, so he would have been familiar with such data analysis. Amazing how science can converge.

 

Since Peter Forster is the lead geneticist on this I looked him up and he's a bit of an academic superstar, a lifetime member of Leopoldina the German equivalent of the Royal Society, as well as having been elected a member of the Royal Society of Biology in the UK, and of course a Research Fellow of Cambridge University.

 

The latest I could find is this report from Cambridge University itself, dated 30 April, which confirms the research with the 1001 genomes is still not peer reviewed. Interestingly, Forster had requested a message be included at the start that use of his research to show that the virus did not originate in China is a misinterpretation of his research. No doubt because Chinese propaganda already pounced all over this research in an attempt to use to show the virus did not originate in China. Forster clearly thinks this is not the case.

 

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/covid-19-genetic-network-analysis-provides-snapshot-of-pandemic-origins

 

 

Edited May 4, 2020 by Logosone

[Logosone]

17 minutes ago, Pedrogaz said:

"I would not believe the hype it has received in the South China Morning Post, which is notorious for posting Chinese propaganda. "

 

This is totally wrong. The SCMP is a Hong Kong newspaper notorious for attacking mainland China. The English Language state sponsored organ for the Chinese government is the Global Times.

Wrong.

 

The SCMP is now owned by Alibaba. The founder of Alibaba, Jack Ma is a member of the Communist party. 

 

Alibaba's ownership of SCMP led to concerns that the newspaper would become a mouthpiece of the Central People's Government. Among the motives of the Alibaba acquisition was to make media coverage of China "fair and accurate" and not in the optic of Western news outlets.

 

I have seen with my own eyes poor pro-Chinese propaganda emanate from the SCMP.

 

"Editorial page editor Gittings complained that in January 2001 he was told to take a "realistic" view of editorial independence and ordered not to run extracts of the Tiananmen Papers, though ultimately was allowed, after protesting "strenuously", to do so. The editor stated that there had already been sufficient coverage."

 

Reporter Paul Mooney said that the Li Wangyang story was not an isolated incident: Wang Xiangwei has "long had a reputation as being a censor of the news... Talk to anyone on the China reporting team at the South China Morning Post and they'll tell you a story about how Wang has cut their stories, or asked them to write boring articles that China likes to see."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_China_Morning_Post

 

In Hong Kong's journalistic circles the SCMP has been attacked for being pro-China since Alibaba's acquisition:

 

"At the launch of a joint report published by the Hong Kong Journalists' Association and Article 19 in July 2001, the chairman of the Hong Kong Journalists' Association said: "More and more newspapers self-censor themselves because they are controlled by either a businessman with close ties to Beijing or part of a large enterprise, which has financial interests over the border"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_China_Morning_Post

 

Edited May 4, 2020 by Logosone