Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 3/20/2025 at 12:32 PM, jas007 said:

 There's a lot of evidence floating around that some people conveniently ignore. For example, a certain sequence or certain sequences of the virus were patented by someone (Bill Gates?) well before 2019.The probability of that same gene sequence recurring naturally was infinitesimally small.  So, in all likelihood, the virus was designed for a purpose.  And the drug companies?  They were producing the jabs long before the supposed lab leak.  Or course, the drug companies were given immunity. In any event, they were just contractors.  The jabs were ordered by the government.  

 

I could go on all day.  The point is, it doesn't look good. 

There were over 500 new billionaires created during the pandemic including 40 in the Pharma industry.  How come I missed out on this?

  • Like 1
Posted
36 minutes ago, Presnock said:

There were over 500 new billionaires created during the pandemic including 40 in the Pharma industry.  How come I missed out on this?

I remember when the COVID thing started and Moderna started trading.  Even by April 2020, it was trading in the $50 range.  I saw that, but I figured Wall Street had already priced in the nonsense.  Nope.  Look at the chart.  It went all the way up to $448 or so.  Now it's back down to $25.  

 

Lots of opportunities back then for anyone who realized how much money the government was going to pump into the markets and the economy, and how crazy it could get. 

 

I ended up just doing a lot of trading every day.  I never held anything overnight and normally, I didn't hold a stock longer than about five minutes. 

 

 

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted
On 3/16/2025 at 11:09 AM, richard_smith237 said:

 

 

Do you not find it hugely coincidental that Dr. Shi Zhengli, one of the worlds top virologists and leading expert on Coronaviruses was studying Coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology at the time ?

 

 

 

There were only a very select few labs in the world in a category capable to study viral diseases like covid so no its not surprising. But when you're guessing without facts anything is possible in your mind

Posted
1 hour ago, Dan O said:
On 3/16/2025 at 10:09 PM, richard_smith237 said:

 

 

Do you not find it hugely coincidental that Dr. Shi Zhengli, one of the worlds top virologists and leading expert on Coronaviruses was studying Coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology at the time ?

 

Expand  

There were only a very select few labs in the world in a category capable to study viral diseases like covid so no its not surprising. But when you're guessing without facts anything is possible in your mind

 

That’s precisely my point, Dan O:

 

- Only a very select few laboratories worldwide are equipped to conduct high-level research on coronaviruses.

 

- Dr Shi Zhengli is recognised as one of the world’s foremost virologists and a leading authority on coronaviruses.

 

- At the time in question, Dr Shi was actively engaged in coronavirus research.

 

- The Chinese authorities, specifically the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), withheld or refused to release relevant research documentation.

 

WIV is located just a few miles from the outbreak’s original epicentre in Wuhan.

 

- U.S. State Department cables from 2018 flagged safety concerns at the WIV.

 

- Researchers at WIV were reportedly hospitalised with COVID-like symptoms in late 2019.

 

- The virus contains a furin cleavage site, which is unusual in natural SARS-like coronaviruses.

 

- China destroyed early virus samples and censored data related to the outbreak.

 

- Whistleblower doctors in Wuhan were reprimanded or disappeared.

 

- The Chinese military began collaborating with WIV before the pandemic.

 

- No intermediate animal host has ever been identified, despite years of global searching. WIV was conducting gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses.

 

- In 2021, U.S. intelligence agencies reported moderate confidence in the lab leak theory.

 

- The “natural origin” theory is still entirely unproven, with no concrete zoonotic source.

 

- WIV removed its online virus database in 2019 and has not restored access.

 

 

These are not speculative musings - they are established facts that have no been guessed at.

This isn’t a matter of entertaining vague possibilities in my mind, your accusation of such underscores a flawed critical approach by you towards to my comments.

 

It could be argued that the LabLeak theory is a logical assessment based on clear, verifiable information.

 

Feel free to fact-check any of the above information yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted
6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

That’s precisely my point, Dan O:

 

- Only a very select few laboratories worldwide are equipped to conduct high-level research on coronaviruses.

 

- Dr Shi Zhengli is recognised as one of the world’s foremost virologists and a leading authority on coronaviruses.

 

- At the time in question, Dr Shi was actively engaged in coronavirus research.

 

- The Chinese authorities, specifically the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), withheld or refused to release relevant research documentation.

 

WIV is located just a few miles from the outbreak’s original epicentre in Wuhan.

 

- U.S. State Department cables from 2018 flagged safety concerns at the WIV.

 

- Researchers at WIV were reportedly hospitalised with COVID-like symptoms in late 2019.

 

- The virus contains a furin cleavage site, which is unusual in natural SARS-like coronaviruses.

 

- China destroyed early virus samples and censored data related to the outbreak.

 

- Whistleblower doctors in Wuhan were reprimanded or disappeared.

 

- The Chinese military began collaborating with WIV before the pandemic.

 

- No intermediate animal host has ever been identified, despite years of global searching. WIV was conducting gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses.

 

- In 2021, U.S. intelligence agencies reported moderate confidence in the lab leak theory.

 

- The “natural origin” theory is still entirely unproven, with no concrete zoonotic source.

 

- WIV removed its online virus database in 2019 and has not restored access.

 

 

These are not speculative musings - they are established facts that have no been guessed at.

This isn’t a matter of entertaining vague possibilities in my mind, your accusation of such underscores a flawed critical approach by you towards to my comments.

 

It could be argued that the LabLeak theory is a logical assessment based on clear, verifiable information.

 

Feel free to fact-check any of the above information yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

You are stringing together cherry picked information and then supplying your own interpretation of what it means to match your claim.  There is no proof either way and both scenarios are a possibility, nothing more. The CiA has not given any substantial conclusion as you imply so go back and fact check that. The rest is guessing based on lack of provable data as your support. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Thumbs Down 1
Posted
35 minutes ago, Dan O said:

You are stringing together cherry picked information and then supplying your own interpretation of what it means to match your claim.  There is no proof either way and both scenarios are a possibility, nothing more. The CiA has not given any substantial conclusion as you imply so go back and fact check that. The rest is guessing based on lack of provable data as your support. 

 

Making a 'list of facts' is not stringing together 'cherry picked information' and suppling my own interpretation, its simply listing facts outlined in verified documentation which support that the Lab Leak theory cannot be discounted.

 

I agree - there is no unequivocal proof either way (and there never will while China holds back the data of the work carried out on Corona Viruses back in 2019)... 

So, technically, I agree both scenarios remain a possibility - though I personally, 'believe' the Lab-Leak Theory to be more plausible based on the sources that present both sides of the theory.

 

Additionally, it was you who introduced the CIA into this discussion - not me. Attributing that claim to my argument is a textbook example of gaslighting. It's a common but flawed rhetorical tactic to misrepresent your opponent’s position, then dismantle the distortion to bolster your own case. It’s transparent, intellectually dishonest, and does nothing to advance an serious discussion.

 

Here is my quote: In 2021, U.S. intelligence agencies reported moderate confidence in the lab leak theory 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58361211?utm_source=chatgpt.com

 

 

In 2021, the U.S. intelligence community released a declassified report assessing the origins of COVID-19.

The report concluded that the intelligence community was divided on the most likely origin of the virus, with both natural exposure to an infected animal and a laboratory-associated incident considered plausible hypotheses.

 

Specifically, one intelligence agency assessed with moderate confidence that the first human infection was most likely the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

 

Four other agencies and the National Intelligence Council assessed with low confidence that the initial infection was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with the virus or a close progenitor virus.

 

Three agencies remained unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information.

 

The report emphasised that China's cooperation would likely be needed to reach a more definitive conclusion.

Why is China not cooperating ????

 

 

So, on one hand you are arguing with the 'facts' that I've presented which support the LabLeak theory, then with the other you argue that both the Lab-leak and Natural Outbreak theories remain unproven... 

 

Thus, by your own omission - the  Lab-leak theory, remains plausible.

 

Still want to argue from the fence ???  

 

 

 

 

Posted
3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Making a 'list of facts' is not stringing together 'cherry picked information' and suppling my own interpretation, its simply listing facts outlined in verified documentation which support that the Lab Leak theory cannot be discounted.

 

I agree - there is no unequivocal proof either way - and I agree both scenarios remain a possibility - though I personally, 'believe' the Lab Leak Theory more plausible based on the sources that present both sides of the theory.

 

Additionally, I did not mention the CIA, you did, thats gaslighting by the way, you add a flaw, then argue it as if to strengthen your position - its a flawed and transparent technique of debate. 

 

here is my quote: In 2021, U.S. intelligence agencies reported moderate confidence in the lab leak theory 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58361211?utm_source=chatgpt.com

 

 

In 2021, the U.S. intelligence community released a declassified report assessing the origins of COVID-19.

The report concluded that the intelligence community was divided on the most likely origin of the virus, with both natural exposure to an infected animal and a laboratory-associated incident considered plausible hypotheses.

 

Specifically, one intelligence agency assessed with moderate confidence that the first human infection was most likely the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

 

Four other agencies and the National Intelligence Council assessed with low confidence that the initial infection was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with the virus or a close progenitor virus.

 

Three agencies remained unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information.

 

The report emphasised that China's cooperation would likely be needed to reach a more definitive conclusion.

Why is China not cooperating ????

 

 

So, on one hand you are arguing with the 'facts' that I've presented which support the LabLeak theory, then with the other you argue that both the Lab-leak and Natural Outbreak theories remain unproven... 

 

Thus, by your own omission - the  Lab-leak theory, remains plausible.

 

Still want to argue from the fence ???  

 

 

 

 

You love to ramble dont you.

 

  I was clear on what I wrote. You can string together snippets of information on either side of this issue and then use it to support your own conclusion. Using that Info like that is what you have done and it's called an opinion nothing more. I stated clear either scenario  was possible but currently unproven. 

 

I never gaslighted anything. You can go back and check the "intelligence sources" and see clearly the information came from the CIA report in connection with other intelligence agencies. Regardless it doesn't change the conclusion that was given, it was one possibility without significant verifiable supporting facts.

 

No argument from the fence just a rational position that you cant verify either scenario currently and I'm not claiming either is correct at this point. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Dan O said:

You love to ramble dont you.

 

  I was clear on what I wrote. You can string together snippets of information on either side of this issue and then use it to support your own conclusion. Using that Info like that is what you have done and it's called an opinion nothing more. I stated clear either scenario  was possible but currently unproven. 

 

Go ahead - in the interests of discussion - list the 'facts' supporting zoonotic drift...   I'm prepared to discuss each point without need to dismiss it as 'snippets of information'  or 'stringing together cherry picked information'... . 

 

1 minute ago, Dan O said:

I never gaslighted anything. You can go back and check the "intelligence sources" and see clearly the information came from the CIA report in connection with other intelligence agencies. Regardless it doesn't change the conclusion that was given, it was one possibility without significant verifiable supporting facts.

 

(without rambling)...    China is holding back information from WIV, as such the LabLeak theory cannot be verified.

 

Meanwhile all the information is available regarding the zoonotic drift theory, and that still cannot be verified.

 

1 minute ago, Dan O said:

No argument from the fence just a rational position that you cant verify either scenario currently and I'm not claiming either is correct at this point. 

 

While both Theories are unproven and thus remain theoretically plausible, I 'believe' one theory to be far more plausible than the other, particularly given the information being held back.

 

 

Another critical dimension here is the highly political nature of the issue - this is a geopolitical powder keg. Framing the pandemic as a natural occurrence is far more palatable diplomatically than confronting the possibility that it stemmed from a preventable error by a single nation, especially when that error devastated global economies and lives. The implications of unequivocal proof pointing to a lab origin would be seismic -triggering not just blame, but potential demands for accountability, reparations, and a complete re-evaluation of global biosecurity. It’s no surprise, then, that many find it more convenient to lean on ambiguity.

 

 

 

Posted
54 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Go ahead - in the interests of discussion - list the 'facts' supporting zoonotic drift...   I'm prepared to discuss each point without need to dismiss it as 'snippets of information'  or 'stringing together cherry picked information'... . 

 

 

(without rambling)...    China is holding back information from WIV, as such the LabLeak theory cannot be verified.

 

Meanwhile all the information is available regarding the zoonotic drift theory, and that still cannot be verified.

 

 

While both Theories are unproven and thus remain theoretically plausible, I 'believe' one theory to be far more plausible than the other, particularly given the information being held back.

 

 

Another critical dimension here is the highly political nature of the issue - this is a geopolitical powder keg. Framing the pandemic as a natural occurrence is far more palatable diplomatically than confronting the possibility that it stemmed from a preventable error by a single nation, especially when that error devastated global economies and lives. The implications of unequivocal proof pointing to a lab origin would be seismic -triggering not just blame, but potential demands for accountability, reparations, and a complete re-evaluation of global biosecurity. It’s no surprise, then, that many find it more convenient to lean on ambiguity.

 

 

 

There's nothing to discuss or debate as neither theory can be proven currently, only speculated at.  Lack of facts is not confirmation for either theory of source.

 

Since there is no doubt the virus came from China in either scenario, its no wonder that China is less than forthcoming  for all the reasons you listed and probably some you didn't list.

 

The same with the absent data about the complete US involvement with funding and support for work in the labs on viral research. 

 

You or I can make a case for either being plausible which is what I said but its just opinion and goes nowhere without concrete information. Speculation gets no true answers, only more unverified questions and assumptions

  • Like 1
Posted
35 minutes ago, Dan O said:

There's nothing to discuss or debate as neither theory can be proven currently, only speculated at.  Lack of facts is not confirmation for either theory of source.

 

Since there is no doubt the virus came from China in either scenario, its no wonder that China is less than forthcoming  for all the reasons you listed and probably some you didn't list.

 

The same with the absent data about the complete US involvement with funding and support for work in the labs on viral research. 

 

You or I can make a case for either being plausible which is what I said but its just opinion and goes nowhere without concrete information. Speculation gets no true answers, only more unverified questions and assumptions

 

Apologies for putting part of your comment in bold - but a comment I made in 2021 reflects specifically this point.

 

 

Screenshot 2025-05-19 at 21.11.49.png

Posted
2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Apologies for putting part of your comment in bold - but a comment I made in 2021 reflects specifically this point.

 

 

Screenshot 2025-05-19 at 21.11.49.png

That information does not prove anything except speculation and confirmation bias. Without the data you have no idea the level of research being conducted only that there was funding  provided by the US and research of some type was being conducted by the Dr you are implicating.  Could it have been a lab leak absolutely, could it have been natural occurrence absolutely.  you obviously have decided the direction you are leaning and thats your prerogative. I am reserving judgement. 

Posted
26 minutes ago, Dan O said:

That information does not prove anything except speculation and confirmation bias. Without the data you have no idea the level of research being conducted only that there was funding  provided by the US and research of some type was being conducted by the Dr you are implicating.  Could it have been a lab leak absolutely, could it have been natural occurrence absolutely.  you obviously have decided the direction you are leaning and thats your prerogative. I am reserving judgement. 

 

I quite agree with your judgement, both on moral and scientific grounds, particularly in light of the conspicuous absence of clear, unequivocal evidence to support any single origin theory conclusively.

 

I also freely acknowledge the presence of my own bias. From the moment I discovered that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was located in the very city where the initial outbreak occurred, I was struck by what appeared to be an extraordinary coincidence - one too significant to overlook.

 

That singular fact alone inclined me towards the lab-leak hypothesis. In the time since, I have sought out credible evidence that might challenge or invalidate this perspective.

 

I have yet to encounter sources, or information robust enough to dispel the plausibility of a lab-related origin. Conversely, the zoonotic spillover theory, though not impossible, continues to strike me as less convincing -especially in the context of the failure to identify a definitive animal intermediary, despite exhaustive international investigations.

 

As such, my scepticism endures not out of dogma, but because no alternative explanation has, to date, provided a more compelling account.

 

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




  • Topics

  • Popular Contributors

  • Latest posts...

    1. 17

      Thailand Live Tuesday 20 May 2025

    2. 99

      Transfer of 800K using Wise for 1 Year Extension Visa

    3. 0

      Cash Handout Pause Shock: Phase III Delayed Indefinitely

    4. 0

      Trump’s Call for Ukraine Ceasefire Meets Putin’s Cold Resolve

    5. 1

      Police Sergeant Found Dead in Phatthalung Quarters After Days Unseen

  • Popular in The Pub

×
×
  • Create New...