On 07/03/2024 19:43, Spike wrote:
> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>> On 8/03/2024 1:26 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> On Thu, 07 Mar 2024 11:42:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On a sunny day (Thu, 7 Mar 2024 10:47:50 +0000) it happened Colin Bignell
>>>> <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote i <ns6cnUVBU4EWB3T4nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>>>>> On 07/03/2024 10:10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> Its the evil US its Biological Warfare Department designed COVID
>>>> (Faulty or something was the bad guys name),
>>>
>>> Fauci. That's his name. Remember it.
>>>
>>> https://www.theblaze.com/news/covid-engineered-researchers-chinese-lab-wuhan
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaze_Media
>> It is designed to appeal to right-wing half-wits like Cursitor Doom, who
>> likes his conspiracy theories to be thoroughly absurd.
>>
>> There's not a shred of evidence that Covid-19 was any kind of
>> laboratory-developed virus, and virus labs are actually pretty good at
>> keeping dangerous viruses safely locked up. It's a stupid idea, but
>> Cursitor Doom and Jan Panteltje like it.
>>
>> The wet market in Wuhan is a much more likely source - lots more
>> potentially infected bush meat, exposed to many more people.
>
> The WHO carried out 50000 tests in China on wild animals, and never found
> anything related to COVID.
>
> The WHV is alleged to have a second building further along the same street
> as the one we know about. It doesn’t have any nameplates, and the entrance
> is at the back. No foreigners have been known to visit it.
>

If this mysterious building actually exists, it could just as easily be
an illegal gambling den.

--
Colin Bignell

On 8/03/2024 4:49 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 07/03/2024 16:39, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 07/03/2024 15:15, GB wrote:
>>> On 07/03/2024 15:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 07/03/2024 15:05, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>>>> There's not a shred of evidence that Covid-19 was any kind of
>>>>> laboratory-developed virus, and virus labs are actually pretty good
>>>>> at keeping dangerous viruses safely locked up. It's a stupid idea,
>>>>> but Cursitor Doom and Jan Panteltje like it.
>>>>
>>>> Actually its pretty much the main stream  consensus that the virus
>>>> was cooked up in a lab, and escaped.
>>>
>>> Is that the consensus amongst people who really know what they are
>>> talking about?
>>
>> No. Mainstream is that we will probably never know but that there were
>> no telltale signs of it being spliced together from other known
>> viruses. It has been sequenced and examined very widely which was what
>> made the mRNA vaccines possible once an invariant target protein was
>> identified.
>>
> I think that in fact there *were* telltale signs.

One geriatic nut-case thought that there were, but his arguments weren't
persuasive.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 8/03/2024 4:48 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 07/03/2024 15:15, GB wrote:
>> On 07/03/2024 15:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 07/03/2024 15:05, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>>> There's not a shred of evidence that Covid-19 was any kind of
>>>> laboratory-developed virus, and virus labs are actually pretty good
>>>> at keeping dangerous viruses safely locked up. It's a stupid idea,
>>>> but Cursitor Doom and Jan Panteltje like it.
>>>
>>> Actually its pretty much the main stream  consensus that the virus
>>> was cooked up in a lab, and escaped.
>>>
>>
>> Is that the consensus amongst people who really know what they are
>> talking about?
>>
>>
> As far as I know, yes.

But you don't know much, and don't go to any trouble to find out
evidence that you'd prefer not to know about.

> https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wrap-up-facts-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak%EF%BF%BC/
>
> is a fairly good overview. The problem is that accusing China of being
> uber sloppy was not politically *convenient*. So the default position
> initially was a 'we just dont know'
>
> Apparently now, we know a lot more...

But you can't point to any of this "new: information.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 8/03/2024 6:23 am, Joe wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Mar 2024 19:08:59 +0000
> Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 7 Mar 2024 17:48:04 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/03/2024 15:15, GB wrote:
>>>> On 07/03/2024 15:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 07/03/2024 15:05, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>>>>> There's not a shred of evidence that Covid-19 was any kind of
>>>>>> laboratory-developed virus, and virus labs are actually pretty
>>>>>> good at keeping dangerous viruses safely locked up. It's a
>>>>>> stupid idea, but Cursitor Doom and Jan Panteltje like it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually its pretty much the main stream  consensus that the
>>>>> virus was cooked up in a lab, and escaped.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is that the consensus amongst people who really know what they are
>>>> talking about?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> As far as I know, yes.
>>>
>>> https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wrap-up-facts-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak%EF%BF%BC/
>>>
>>> is a fairly good overview. The problem is that accusing China of
>>> being uber sloppy was not politically *convenient*. So the default
>>> position initially was a 'we just dont know'
>>>
>>> Apparently now, we know a lot more...
>>
>> If they'd made it known that millions of people had died as a result
>> of a release of a Chinese bio-weapon, there would have been an
>> immediate clamor for a massive military response. Saying 'we don't
>> know' gives the West a bit of valuable breathing space to decide how
>> to deal with this emerging threat without triggering WW3. But I do
>> hope China will get it's come-uppance one fine day. They so fucking
>> deserve it.
>
> It wasn't just China...
>
> https://nypost.com/2021/10/21/nih-admits-us-funded-gain-of-function-in-wuhan-despite-faucis-repeated-denials/
>
> https://news.yahoo.com/nih-admits-funding-gain-function-125103852.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAACPGaZ5dUJFM3q5AfcrA5yai45fdGG3fYRStdwAE3MyFcIuuVbjhdODrC9uQ1A6LkPTUjWl_y8le4SgMvvACZ5x16IR1_pOPgESFBYUgzj4cwPwtZk-heYt6_aG9uwn6DGb2nG0XNAx5OppmF3ArrFkja-d9TWqB8_U1lS1BLWYu

That wasn't "gain of function" research. The question examined was
whether "“spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses
circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor
in a mouse model.”

The naturally occurring bat coronaviruses weren't modified in any way.
The question was whether they were potentially dangerous to humans, and
it got the right answer, though nobody seems to have acted on the
information obtained - not that they could have done much.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 8/03/2024 3:56 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Mar 2024 07:22:18 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 07 Mar 2024 14:26:40 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 07 Mar 2024 11:42:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On a sunny day (Thu, 7 Mar 2024 10:47:50 +0000) it happened Colin Bignell
>>>> <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote in
>>>> <ns6cnUVBU4EWB3T4nZ2dnZeNn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On 07/03/2024 10:10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>> Gut health. *So* important!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/alteration-gut-microbiota-affects-severity-and-complications-covid-19
>>>>>
>>>>> A study in The Lancet reported no adverse effects from a man getting 217
>>>>> Covid jabs in 29 months:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(24)00134-8/fulltext#sec1
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Colin Bignell
>>>>
>>>> I never had a COVID shot and have no adverse effects
>>>> Never had a cold in my life, seem to have anti-bodies against it and some other things too,
>>>> like TBC, tested positive with an arm scratch test in primary school, got xrays 2 or 3 times,
>>>> nothing found, Now I am almost 80 ...
>>>>
>>>> Recently was reading that they found a link between COVID shots and long-term COVID.
>>>> Many have died from blood cloth from the COVID shots.
>>>> Many sporters got heart trouble, some died on the playing field.
>>>>
>>>> Its the evil US its Biological Warfare Department designed COVID (Faulty or something was the bad guys name),
>>>
>>> Fauci. That's his name. Remember it.
>>>
>>> https://www.theblaze.com/news/covid-engineered-researchers-chinese-lab-wuhan
>>>
>>
>> Just the geographic "coincidence" is overwhelming, the virus origin
>> being within walking distance of the lab. The timing is telling too.

Twaddle.
> Not to mention that blatant obstruction of the lab and the market by
> the Chinese authorities when the WHO came to investigate.

They weren't all that enthusiastic about being blamed for something that
they hadn't done.

> It was a half-baked bio-weapon and we'd be fools not to take
> appropriate steps now we know what the Chinese are up to.

Except that there's not a shred of evidence that it was any kind of
bio-weapon, and the Chinese would have been careful not to infect their
own population if it had been. One of the IASys biosensor units I worked
on was sold to UK's Porton Down, to look for the plague bacterium. There
haven't been any recent outbreaks of plague in the UK.

>> Megadeaths are not something that someone wants to be remembered for.

Hitler deliberately killed six million Jews - he didn't seem to be all
that anxious about how he would be remembered.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 07/03/2024 22:45, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> On 3/7/24 18:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 07/03/2024 16:39, Martin Brown wrote:
>>> On 07/03/2024 15:15, GB wrote:
>>>> On 07/03/2024 15:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 07/03/2024 15:05, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>>>>> There's not a shred of evidence that Covid-19 was any kind of
>>>>>> laboratory-developed virus, and virus labs are actually pretty
>>>>>> good at keeping dangerous viruses safely locked up. It's a stupid
>>>>>> idea, but Cursitor Doom and Jan Panteltje like it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually its pretty much the main stream  consensus that the virus
>>>>> was cooked up in a lab, and escaped.
>>>>
>>>> Is that the consensus amongst people who really know what they are
>>>> talking about?
>>>
>>> No. Mainstream is that we will probably never know but that there
>>> were no telltale signs of it being spliced together from other known
>>> viruses. It has been sequenced and examined very widely which was
>>> what made the mRNA vaccines possible once an invariant target protein
>>> was identified.
>>>
>> I think that in fact there *were* telltale signs
>
> What's the point of making that assertion without anything
> solid to back it up? Come on, spill the beans or shut up!
>
Others have done so. I cited an article from a US government hearing.

> Jeroen Belleman
>

--
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly
persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid
before him."

- Leo Tolstoy

On 08/03/2024 07:09, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On 8/03/2024 4:48 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 07/03/2024 15:15, GB wrote:
>>> On 07/03/2024 15:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 07/03/2024 15:05, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>>>> There's not a shred of evidence that Covid-19 was any kind of
>>>>> laboratory-developed virus, and virus labs are actually pretty good
>>>>> at keeping dangerous viruses safely locked up. It's a stupid idea,
>>>>> but Cursitor Doom and Jan Panteltje like it.
>>>>
>>>> Actually its pretty much the main stream  consensus that the virus
>>>> was cooked up in a lab, and escaped.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is that the consensus amongst people who really know what they are
>>> talking about?
>>>
>>>
>> As far as I know, yes.
>
> But you don't know much, and don't go to any trouble to find out
> evidence that you'd prefer not to know about.
>
>> https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wrap-up-facts-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak%EF%BF%BC/
>>
>> is a fairly good overview. The problem is that accusing China of being
>> uber sloppy was not politically *convenient*. So the default position
>> initially was a 'we just dont know'
>>
>> Apparently now, we know a lot more...
>
> But you can't point to any of this "new: information.
>
that site is the information dearie

https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wrap-up-facts-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak%EF%BF%BC/

Dont bully me. Take it up with them.

--
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly
persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid
before him."

- Leo Tolstoy

On 8/03/2024 8:05 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 08/03/2024 07:09, Bill Sloman wrote:
>> On 8/03/2024 4:48 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 07/03/2024 15:15, GB wrote:
>>>> On 07/03/2024 15:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 07/03/2024 15:05, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>>>>> There's not a shred of evidence that Covid-19 was any kind of
>>>>>> laboratory-developed virus, and virus labs are actually pretty
>>>>>> good at keeping dangerous viruses safely locked up. It's a stupid
>>>>>> idea, but Cursitor Doom and Jan Panteltje like it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually its pretty much the main stream  consensus that the virus
>>>>> was cooked up in a lab, and escaped.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is that the consensus amongst people who really know what they are
>>>> talking about?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> As far as I know, yes.
>>
>> But you don't know much, and don't go to any trouble to find out
>> evidence that you'd prefer not to know about.
>>
>>> https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wrap-up-facts-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak%EF%BF%BC/
>>>
>>> is a fairly good overview. The problem is that accusing China of
>>> being uber sloppy was not politically *convenient*. So the default
>>> position initially was a 'we just dont know'
>>>
>>> Apparently now, we know a lot more...
>>
>> But you can't point to any of this "new"information.
>>
> that site is the information dearie
>
> https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wrap-up-facts-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak%EF%BF%BC/
>
> Don't bully me. Take it up with them.

There's no information there. There are a few American senators who know
what they want to believe, but no facts at all.

Here is a fact or two that I posted earlier.

https://news.yahoo.com/nih-admits-funding-gain-function-125103852.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAACPGaZ5dUJFM3q5AfcrA5yai45fdGG3fYRStdwAE3MyFcIuuVbjhdODrC9uQ1A6LkPTUjWl_y8le4SgMvvACZ5x16IR1_pOPgESFBYUgzj4cwPwtZk-heYt6_aG9uwn6DGb2nG0XNAx5OppmF3ArrFkja-d9TWqB8_U1lS1BLWYu

That wasn't "gain of function" research. The question examined was
whether "“spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses
circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor
in a mouse model.”

The naturally occurring bat coronaviruses weren't modified in any way.
The question was whether they were potentially dangerous to humans, and
it got the right answer, though nobody seems to have acted on the
information obtained - not that they could have done much.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 08/03/2024 10:55, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On 8/03/2024 8:05 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 08/03/2024 07:09, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>> On 8/03/2024 4:48 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 07/03/2024 15:15, GB wrote:
>>>>> On 07/03/2024 15:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/03/2024 15:05, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>>>>>> There's not a shred of evidence that Covid-19 was any kind of
>>>>>>> laboratory-developed virus, and virus labs are actually pretty
>>>>>>> good at keeping dangerous viruses safely locked up. It's a stupid
>>>>>>> idea, but Cursitor Doom and Jan Panteltje like it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually its pretty much the main stream  consensus that the virus
>>>>>> was cooked up in a lab, and escaped.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that the consensus amongst people who really know what they are
>>>>> talking about?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> As far as I know, yes.
>>>
>>> But you don't know much, and don't go to any trouble to find out
>>> evidence that you'd prefer not to know about.
>>>
>>>> https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wrap-up-facts-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak%EF%BF%BC/
>>>>
>>>> is a fairly good overview. The problem is that accusing China of
>>>> being uber sloppy was not politically *convenient*. So the default
>>>> position initially was a 'we just dont know'
>>>>
>>>> Apparently now, we know a lot more...
>>>
>>> But you can't point to any of this "new"information.
>>>
>> that site is the information dearie
>>
>> https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wrap-up-facts-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak%EF%BF%BC/
>>
>> Don't bully me. Take it up with them.
>
> There's no information there. There are a few American senators who know
> what they want to believe, but no facts at all.
>
> Here is a fact or two that I posted earlier.
>
> https://news.yahoo.com/nih-admits-funding-gain-function-125103852.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAACPGaZ5dUJFM3q5AfcrA5yai45fdGG3fYRStdwAE3MyFcIuuVbjhdODrC9uQ1A6LkPTUjWl_y8le4SgMvvACZ5x16IR1_pOPgESFBYUgzj4cwPwtZk-heYt6_aG9uwn6DGb2nG0XNAx5OppmF3ArrFkja-d9TWqB8_U1lS1BLWYu
>
> That wasn't "gain of function" research. The question examined was
> whether "“spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses
> circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor
> in a mouse model.”
>
> The naturally occurring bat coronaviruses weren't modified in any way.
> The question was whether they were potentially dangerous to humans, and
> it got the right answer, though nobody seems to have acted on the
> information obtained - not that they could have done much.
>
"More than three years have passed since the first case of a new
coronavirus infection (SARS-CoV-2) in the city of Wuhan (Hubei, China).
The Wuhan Institute of Virology was founded in that city in 1956 and the
country’s first biosafety level 4 laboratory opened within that center
in 2015. The coincidence that the first cases of infection emerged in
the city where the virology institute’s headquarters is located, the
failure to 100% identify the virus’ RNA in any of the coronaviruses
isolated in bats, and the lack of evidence on a possible intermediate
animal host in the contagion’s transmission make it so that at present,
there are doubts about the real origin of SARS-CoV-2. This article will
review two theories: SARS-CoV-2 as a virus of zoonotic origin or as a
leak from the high-level biosafety laboratory in Wuhan."

....
"Do these findings close the discussion on the origins of SARS-CoV-2?

No. As can be seen, there are two theories that could coexist or the
debate could be closed by choosing one or the other. Defining chains of
infection and seeking the origin of them is a fundamental aspect of
public health. Therefore, on the one hand, it seems evident that the
transmission originated in the Huanan market. But, on the other hand,
three fundamental questions remain that have not been definitively
answered. First, where did the virus come from? Second, what was the
intermediate animal host? And third, why has the virus genome not been
reproduced 100% in any of the coronaviruses found in bats?"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10019034/

In short whilst there is no *conclusive* evidence one way or another the
balance of probability is that it was made in a lab but not as a
bioweapon. It was an accident.

--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

On 8/03/2024 10:05 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 08/03/2024 10:55, Bill Sloman wrote:
>> On 8/03/2024 8:05 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 08/03/2024 07:09, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>>> On 8/03/2024 4:48 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 07/03/2024 15:15, GB wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/03/2024 15:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>> On 07/03/2024 15:05, Bill Sloman wrote:

<snip>

>> There's no information there. There are a few American senators who
>> know what they want to believe, but no facts at all.
>>
>> Here is a fact or two that I posted earlier.
>>
>> https://news.yahoo.com/nih-admits-funding-gain-function-125103852.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAACPGaZ5dUJFM3q5AfcrA5yai45fdGG3fYRStdwAE3MyFcIuuVbjhdODrC9uQ1A6LkPTUjWl_y8le4SgMvvACZ5x16IR1_pOPgESFBYUgzj4cwPwtZk-heYt6_aG9uwn6DGb2nG0XNAx5OppmF3ArrFkja-d9TWqB8_U1lS1BLWYu
>>
>> That wasn't "gain of function" research. The question examined was
>> whether "“spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses
>> circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2
>> receptor in a mouse model.”
>>
>> The naturally occurring bat coronaviruses weren't modified in any way.
>> The question was whether they were potentially dangerous to humans,
>> and it got the right answer, though nobody seems to have acted on the
>> information obtained - not that they could have done much.
>>
> "More than three years have passed since the first case of a new
> coronavirus infection (SARS-CoV-2) in the city of Wuhan (Hubei, China).
> The Wuhan Institute of Virology was founded in that city in 1956 and the
> country’s first biosafety level 4 laboratory opened within that center
> in 2015. The coincidence that the first cases of infection emerged in
> the city where the virology institute’s headquarters is located, the
> failure to 100% identify the virus’ RNA in any of the coronaviruses
> isolated in bats, and the lack of evidence on a possible intermediate
> animal host in the contagion’s transmission make it so that at present,
> there are doubts about the real origin of SARS-CoV-2. This article will
> review two theories: SARS-CoV-2 as a virus of zoonotic origin or as a
> leak from the high-level biosafety laboratory in Wuhan."
>
> ...
> "Do these findings close the discussion on the origins of SARS-CoV-2?
>
> No. As can be seen, there are two theories that could coexist or the
> debate could be closed by choosing one or the other. Defining chains of
> infection and seeking the origin of them is a fundamental aspect of
> public health. Therefore, on the one hand, it seems evident that the
> transmission originated in the Huanan market. But, on the other hand,
> three fundamental questions remain that have not been definitively
> answered. First, where did the virus come from? Second, what was the
> intermediate animal host? And third, why has the virus genome not been
> reproduced 100% in any of the coronaviruses found in bats?"
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10019034/
>
> In short whilst there is no *conclusive* evidence one way or another the
> balance of probability is that it was made in a lab but not as a
> bioweapon. It was an accident.

A lab source is decidedly improbable.Labs don't hold a lot of viruses
and they keep them confined. A wet market offers a lot more
opportunities for an variants to be generated, and a lot more humans
exposed to a human-infectious variant.

The reason that Covid-19 virus has not been found in bats is that it's
spike protein doesn't latch onto the bat ACE-receptor,

There was a variants of the bat virus found in pangolin's that did have
a have a modified spike protein that would have latched onto a human
ACE-receptor, but it clearly wasn't related to Covid-19.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7926496/

talks about minks and badgers as intermediate hosts of Covid-19.

Badgers were bush-meat items at the Wuhan wet market. It got cleaned out
without anybody bothering to test whether any of the illegal bush meat
was infected.

The absence of evidence of an intermediate host isn't all that
surprising - a variant evolved that did do well in humans, but its
ancestor didn't have to do all that well in it's intermediate host.

The lab origin theory is an implausible theory ,The balance of
probablity doesn't remotely favour an accidental lab origin - labs have
many fewer animals, and they don't want them infecting one another or
the lab workers.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 3/7/2024 10:28 AM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Mar 2024 15:15:10 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 07/03/2024 15:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 07/03/2024 15:05, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>>> There's not a shred of evidence that Covid-19 was any kind of
>>>> laboratory-developed virus, and virus labs are actually pretty good at
>>>> keeping dangerous viruses safely locked up. It's a stupid idea, but
>>>> Cursitor Doom and Jan Panteltje like it.
>>>
>>> Actually its pretty much the main stream  consensus that the virus was
>>> cooked up in a lab, and escaped.
>>>
>>
>> Is that the consensus amongst people who really know what they are
>> talking about?
>>
>
> The anti-lab theory is promoted by people who very much don't want the
> lab origin to be the cause.
>

The anti-lab theory is popular among people who subscribe to the "two
people can effectively keep a secret when one of them is dead"-theory
and "China does enough bad things without having to invent reasons"-theory.

China at least seems to manage their oppressed populations "well enough"
(deliberate scare quotes) such that they don't regularly have to bomb
and strafe 25,000 of them to death in retaliation for when they get
uppity and stage a violent prison riot.

On 3/7/2024 10:28 AM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Mar 2024 15:15:10 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 07/03/2024 15:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 07/03/2024 15:05, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>>> There's not a shred of evidence that Covid-19 was any kind of
>>>> laboratory-developed virus, and virus labs are actually pretty good at
>>>> keeping dangerous viruses safely locked up. It's a stupid idea, but
>>>> Cursitor Doom and Jan Panteltje like it.
>>>
>>> Actually its pretty much the main stream  consensus that the virus was
>>> cooked up in a lab, and escaped.
>>>
>>
>> Is that the consensus amongst people who really know what they are
>> talking about?
>>
>
> The anti-lab theory is promoted by people who very much don't want the
> lab origin to be the cause.
>

The anti-lab theory is popular among people who subscribe to the "two
people can effectively keep a secret when one of them is dead"-theory
and "China does enough bad things without having to invent reasons"-theory.

China at least seems to manage their oppressed populations "well enough"
(deliberate scare quotes) such that they don't regularly have to bomb
and strafe 25,000 of them to death in retaliation for when they get
uppity and stage a violent prison riot.