Re: OT: A lot better than a Covid death shot!

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