Ok but covid definitely came from a lab

MeAgain · Aug 12, 2023

ChinaCatSunflower002 said: ↑

“I agree one possibility is much more likely than the other. The fact that you can't support your obvious conclusion illustrates that there is no obvious reality to your conclusion. Otherwise you wouldn't have to expend much energy at all, as the conclusion would be obvious.”

Since you clearly don’t agree with me, and you’re saying that one possibility is much more likely than the other, you are saying that you are concluding that a lab leak is unlikely. Either that, or you are making another sticky stretch and concluding that a lab leak is possible, but that the Gain of Function research that Fauci funded has zero to do with it.

But then you post this also,

“I'm surprised you don't do just a little more research into this stuff you post.
The Proximal Origin investigation led by a bunch of republicans with a clear agendas in mind relied on the testimony of two virologists, Kristian Andersen and Robert Garry. These two thought the virus might have come from a Chinese lab. The reported this to Fauci, who told them to contact the FBI.

But after the hearing, and further research they both reversed their claim in a revised assessment by publishing in the journal Nature Medicine in March 2020, “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.”

So you either think a lab leak has nothing to do with Fauci, or you think that it naturally occurred, which again, wouldn’t involve Fauci. This makes sense, since you highly questioned my implications of Fauci from the get go.
Click to expand...

I am saying there are multiple possibilities and you haven't proven your conclusion that it was lab created (and purposely released by someone).

Of course a lab leak is possible, so is a natural origin.
As far as Fauci, I said you haven't proven he has anything to do with it being created or released.

The link I posted about the Proximal Origin, is data I presented, not a conclusion of anything by me.

MeAgain · Aug 12, 2023

ChinaCatSunflower002 said: ↑

But then there’s this post of yours, which you made before I entered the convo.

“As of June 22, 2023

Of the three possibilities — natural, accidental, or deliberate — the most scientific evidence yet identified supports natural emergence. More than half of the earliest Covid-19 cases were connected to the Huanan market, and epidemiologic mapping revealed that the concentration of cases was centered there. In January 2020, Chinese officials cleared the market without testing live animals, but positive environmental samples, including those from an animal cage and a hair-and-feather–removal machine, indicated the presence of both SARS-CoV-2 and Covid-susceptible animals.5 Recently released findings included raccoon dog DNA, pointing to a possible SARS-CoV-2 progenitor. Samples from early cases in humans also contained two different SARS-CoV-2 lineages. Although only one lineage spread globally, the existence of multiple lineages suggests that a SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in animals may have led to multiple spillover events.

5 Recently released findings included raccoon dog DNA, pointing to a possible SARS-CoV-2 progenitor. Samples from early cases in humans also contained two different SARS-CoV-2 lineages. Although only one lineage spread globally, the existence of multiple lineages suggests that a SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in animals may have led to multiple spillover events.

Proponents of the accidental laboratory leak theory stress the geographic location of the WIV in the city where the pandemic began. They point to the presence of the bat coronavirus RaTG13 strain at the laboratory, arguing that genetic manipulations such as gain-of-function (GOF) research may have produced SARS-CoV-2. Most scientists refute this theory because there is considerable evolutionary distance between the two viruses. However, the possibility that the laboratory held a different progenitor strain to SARS-CoV-2 that led to a laboratory leak cannot be unequivocally ruled out. ~ The Origins of Covid-19 — Why It Matters (and Why It Doesn’t)”
Click to expand...

That would be post # 4.
It is data again. It states that as of June 22, 2023 there are three possibilities, natural, accidental, or deliberate.
Most evidence points to a natural origin.

The accidental laboratory leak theory relies on geography, etc. but most (not all, it is never all) scientists reject these theories.
However an accidental leak can't be ruled out.

Nowhere did I express an opinion in that post.

ChinaCatSunflower002 · Aug 12, 2023

MeAgain said: ↑

I am saying there are multiple possibilities and you haven't proven your conclusion that it was lab created (and purposely released by someone).

Of course a lab leak is possible, so is a natural origin.
As far as Fauci, I said you haven't proven he has anything to do with it being created or released.

The link I posted about the Proximal Origin, is data I presented, not a conclusion of anything by me.
Click to expand...

We are just going in circles now. I already just stated all of that.

In the end, I think your most glaring view is not that of natural origin, (although I find that pretty bad as it is), but that the notion of a lab leak you have said explicitly is much less likely to have anything to do with the Gain of Function research that Fauci funded than the possibility that it’s very much related to the Gain of Function research that Fauci funded.

Like I said, if this were a murder trial, your conclusions given the circumstantial evidence are bad conclusions. Sure, it’s possible that there’s no link, but as I said, it warrants heavy suspicion and further investigation, to which you have told me outright is outlandish.

And as I already knew from the very beginning:

I doubt anything that I provide to you will change your mind. That’s because it’s obvious by my Intuition that you drank Fauci’s coolaid and would not be able to accept the fact that he was in any way involved. It’s not just you. It’s MANY PEOPLE.

MeAgain · Aug 12, 2023

ChinaCatSunflower002 said: ↑

We are just going in circles now. I already just stated all of that.

In the end, I think your most glaring view is not that of natural origin, (although I find that pretty bad as it is), but that the notion of a lab leak you have said explicitly is much less likely to have anything to do with the Gain of Function research that Fauci funded than the possibility that it’s very much related to the Gain of Function research that Fauci funded.

Like I said, if this were a murder trial, your conclusions given the circumstantial evidence are bad conclusions. Sure, it’s possible that there’s no link, but as I said, it warrants heavy suspicion and further investigation, to which you have told me outright is outlandish.

And as I already knew from the very beginning:

I doubt anything that I provide to you will change your mind. That’s because it’s obvious by my Intuition that you drank Fauci’s coolaid and would not be able to accept the fact that he was in any way involved. It’s not just you. It’s MANY PEOPLE.
Click to expand...

Pretty good. You intuit a lab release of a virus that you intuit was caused by funding by Fauci.
Further you intuit that I have been indoctrinated by Fauci.

Well, that's pretty solid evidence, I guess. How could I ever question your intuitions?
Obviously you can intuit many truths that the rest of us armed with only facts, logic, and data (and possible counter intuitions) just can't seem to comprehend.

How could I ever argue against your appeal to intuition?

Appeal to Intuition Fallacy

Description: Evaluating an argument based on "intuition" or "gut feeling" that is unable to be articulated,
rather than evaluating the argument using reason.

Logical Forms:

Evidence is given for argument X.
X doesn't match person 1's intuition or gut feeling.
Therefore, argument X is rejected.

Person 1 has a gut feeling about claim X.
Therefore, claim X is true.

ChinaCatSunflower002 · Aug 12, 2023

MeAgain said: ↑

Pretty good. You intuit a lab release of a virus that you intuit was caused by funding by Fauci.
Further you intuit that I have been indoctrinated by Fauci.

Well, that's pretty solid evidence, I guess. How could I ever question your intuitions?
Obviously you can intuit many truths that the rest of us armed with only facts, logic, and data (and possible counter intuitions) just can't seem to comprehend.

How could I ever argue against your appeal to intuition?

Appeal to Intuition Fallacy

Description: Evaluating an argument based on "intuition" or "gut feeling" that is unable to be articulated,
rather than evaluating the argument using reason.

Logical Forms:

Evidence is given for argument X.
X doesn't match person 1's intuition or gut feeling.
Therefore, argument X is rejected.

Person 1 has a gut feeling about claim X.
Therefore, claim X is true.
Click to expand...

Whatever, brah. I have nothing more to say regarding this discussion.

Josh Rapp · Sep 19, 2023

MollyCuddled said: ↑

I never understood why the lab leak theory is so politically charged. Lots of labs have leaks - it’s very difficult to maintain perfect precautions. No one is saying it was done maliciously. Why is it when a conspiracy?
Click to expand...

There are people in power that will release disease after disease for their own reasons we don't understand. A good example would be HIV.

Log in or Sign up

Ok but covid definitely came from a lab

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

ChinaCatSunflower002 Members

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

ChinaCatSunflower002 Members

Josh Rapp Members

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Ok but covid definitely came from a lab

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

ChinaCatSunflower002 Members

MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

ChinaCatSunflower002 Members

Josh Rapp Members

Share This Page

Useful Searches