Best News Segment on the Pandemic

[josie_L]

Leaf, don’t give me that malarkey, the people who fact check and claim the biases in the first place have their own biases!!

I am not denying that there are degrees of bias, but I don’t trust the fact checkers enough to warrant handing over my God-given intellect over to them assuming they themselves are not biased!

Case in point the highlighted part of my text from Media Bias Check, that proclaims there is an ANTI-COMMUNIST BIAS when reporting on China vis a vis the EPOCH TIMES!!

Who says that unless they are sympathetic to communism??

No one in their right mind would say there is an anti-fascist bias and come away smelling of roses!!

 

[OraLabora]

You didn’t see the bits about pseudoscience and false information? Here:

The group’s news sites and YouTube channels have spread conspiracy theories such as QAnon and anti-vaccination propaganda.[

The best that can be said about this Falun Gong news source is that it is “controversial”.

 

[josie_L]

But I’m not a scientist, so you’re (name removed by moderator)ut would either validate or invalidate what’s in the video!!

 

[josie_L]

Again, you refuse to simply watch a video that you could make your own mind up on instead of relying on so-called fact sites that haven’t even reviewed said video/report!

I don’t understand why you wouldn’t want to help fellow Catholics if there is indeed something misleading scientifically in the reportage I posted from EPOCH TIMES!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Leaf, don’t give me that malarkey, the people who fact check and claim the biases in the first place have their own biases!!

Were we talking about fact checkers? I didn’t think so. I was referring to reputation, something the Washington Post and the New York Times have and that Epoch Times can only wish they had.

 

[mrad25]

I am a scientist (applied chemistry and physics). Not a pseudo-scientist. My wife also has sound scientific training as an MD. I have far more faith in the legitimate scientific sources in the mainstream media in spite of their reporting flaws, than a news source known to have promoted pseudo-science, conspiracy theories and fake news.

Legitimate scientists are not perfect, but at least are willing to subject themselves to peer review , something the pseudo-scientific snake oil salesman will never do. Show me peer review of the claims, from people respected as authorities in their fields, and I’ll take notice. Otherwise, I’ve wasted enough time on the topic.

Are you saying the studies presented weren’t peer reviewed? As a scientists yourself you may want to do a better job of reviewing those studies, there was one study not peer reviewed but you may also want to look into that study to see what other scientist and experts in the field say about that study, they listed many reputable PhDs, and credible sources in their outline of the aforementioned paper.

As Hominem? I posted sources. It was their attacks not mine. As for reviewing their methods, please post a link to a peer-reviewed journal article. That is the only way I can properly analyse their claims.

Yes ad hominin. You posted sources to nothing relevant in the documentary. Let’s try to do a better job here. It is up to other researchers to replicate the analyses to support or refute these findings (or so-called ‘scientists’ can immediately criticize these findings without even reading the text!) I’d love to see exactly what and why other scientists can criticize, otherwise, the commentary looks like a political attack. If you make an ad hominem public attack against a scientific paper, it is customary to list the names of those so qualified to challenge merit, and list the key points of merit. Seems like the dispute is over the editorializing and not the facts.

I have far more faith in the legitimate scientific sources in the mainstream media in spite of their reporting flaws, than a news source known to have promoted pseudo-science, conspiracy theories and fake news.

Who is that Bill Gates? The media machine can blunt ones critical thinking apparatus. Why we were subjected to hours of Democratic debates moderated by morons while being ‘spared’ any substantive discussion about the current Pandemic? 25 hours of Democratic debates vs how many hours from real epidemiologist, virologist…pretty much none. I am 100% sure I don’t need to listen to Bill Gates for 12 seconds, nevermind 12 minutes. The truth is not given away for free on television. Maybe try listening to Knut Wottkowsi, Dr John Ioannidis of Stanford University, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg (Germany) instead.

 

[mrad25]

Rush and Hannity are their peer review.

Source for that?

 

[OraLabora]

I watched up to the The Lancet article the documentary referred to. Already it is problematic. First of all the article itself was about clinical characteristics of the virus and not the origins. Second, while it did mention that the first case had no link to the market, the first fatal case did as did 66-69% of the studied cases. Moreover jumping to the conclusion that it was a laboratory-manufactured virus from the fact the first case had no relation to the market, is certainly an unscientific leap. Secondly, The Lancet published a another article titled “Genomic characterisation and epidemiology of 2019 novel coronavirus: implications for virus origins and receptor binding” on February 22. The conclusion does not support the documentary:

Interpretation 2019-nCoV is sufficiently divergent from SARS-CoV to be considered a new human-infecting betacoronavirus. Although our phylogenetic analysis suggests that bats might be the original host of this virus, an animal sold at the seafood market in Wuhan might represent an intermediate host facilitating the emergence of the virus in humans. Importantly, structural analysis suggests that 2019-nCoV might be able to bind to the angiotensin- converting enzyme 2 receptor in humans. The future evolution, adaptation, and spread of this virus warrant urgent investigation.

The documentary said that “no one sold bats at the market”, but the article states that there could be an intermediate host between bats and humans that was sold at the market. That is a perfectly plausible conclusion. Ignoring that possibility, is a major omission.

Josie this is standard conspiracy theory weaving. A bunch of unrelated facts, snippets from a journal article here and there (drawing a conclusion that even the article does not make) is poor scientific reporting.

I wouldn’t waste another minute on it. It is simply a conspiracy theory. I’ve rapidly read both The Lancet articles. They are solid, whereas this documentary already busted its credibility in the first 5 minutes.

 

[OraLabora]

Here is a link to the journal article cited in the video:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext

and the later one on the genomic characterizations:

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(20)30251-8.pdf

That said: is it possible the virus was made in the lab as suggested by the documentary?

You might find these interesting, and written in a more easily understandable manner for laymen:

The coronavirus was not engineered in a lab. Here's how we know. | Live Science

Did coronavirus come from a lab?

The coronavirus is not a bioweapon and most likely originated in animals. However, whether the virus may have leaked from a lab is also being investigated.

www.newscientist.com

 

[josie_L]

They may have had a reputation but they have lost it in the era of Trump most assiduously.

Everyone can clearly see the very prominent liberal bias against much concerning conservatism, one only has to mention their faulty coverage of Nick Sandmann to see how off the rails they’ve become regarding the right or anything approaching conservative/traditionalist views!

In defense, many on the right do similar things but not to the SAME DEGREE and few like the Washington Examiner are exemplar in their reporting.

And fact checkers are important because it seems many resort to these so-called fact checkers to derail or uphold the reputations of media outlets!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

They may have had a reputation but they have lost it in the era of Trump most assiduously.

Wishful thinking.

 

[josie_L]

Right back at you!

 

[mrad25]

Here’s a quick and dirty annotated bibliography that I think shows we COULD have made SARS-CoV2. It doesn’t prove we did, but shows we could. We have already collected, cultured, and even made similar viruses (see below).

PNAS paper 2002 showing techniques to use cDNA to generate RNA viruses.

From the Cover: Engineering the largest RNA virus genome as an infectious bacterial artificial chromosome

The construction of cDNA clones encoding large-size RNA molecules of biological interest, like coronavirus genomes, which are among the largest mature RNA molecules known to biology, has been hampered by the instability of those cDNAs in bacteria. Herein, ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The making of infectious viral RNA: No size limit in sight

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Bat origin of human coronaviruses

Bats have been recognized as the natural reservoirs of a large variety of viruses. Special attention has been paid to bat coronaviruses as the two emerging coronaviruses which have caused unexpected human disease outbreaks in the 21st century, Severe ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Bat Coronaviruses in China

During the past two decades, three zoonotic coronaviruses have been identified as the cause of large-scale disease outbreaks–Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), and Swine Acute Diarrhea Syndrome (SADS). ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Isolation and characterization of a bat SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor

Whole-genome sequences of two novel SARS-CoV-related bat coronaviruses, in addition to a live isolate of a bat SARS-like coronavirus, are reported; the live isolate can infect human cells using ACE2, providing the strongest evidence to date that Chinese ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

(Has Peter Daszak as 2nd to last author next to Zhengli Shi bat woman of Wuhan)

The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate

The 1977-1978 influenza epidemic was probably not a natural event, as the genetic sequence of the virus was nearly identical to the sequences of decades-old strains. While there are several hypotheses that could explain its origin, the possibility that ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A few papers to start with regarding the making of our own chimeric bat coronaviruses:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985/5389864/
(Ralph Baric, Zhengli Shi/batwoman again)

High-Efficiency Targeted Editing of Large Viral Genomes by RNA-Guided Nucleases

A facile and efficient method for the precise editing of large viral genomes is required for the selection of attenuated vaccine strains and the construction of gene therapy vectors. The type II prokaryotic CRISPR-Cas (clustered regularly interspaced ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[josie_L]

I don’t deny that the Lancet articles are solid I,'ve used them myself to uphold certain views I’ve had. But the Lancet doesn’t per se rule out the possibility that the virus may have escaped a lab from an infected individual dealing with bats??

There is such a lab in Wuhan and there were scientists that were studying bats and their multitude of pathogens.

I am skeptical to say the least because this is China whom we are dealing with and they did and have covered up , including destroying evidence/data pertaining to the virus and its origins.

Even Dr. FAUCI (and western media) has admitted that the Chinese government was not forthcoming about the origins of the virus nor would they allow outside foreigners to help them find where it came.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut it was greatly appreciated.

 

[OraLabora]

Possibility does not equal proof.

FWIW I believe that China is probably responsible. But not likely due to a lab accident which is possible, but the Chinese are not stupid and not likely that sloppy.

I think it’s a combination negligence and the need to self-preserve their reputation. The negligence is failure to exert sufficient oversight and control of wet markets and animal husbandry. The need to self-preserve their reputation is not unlike the Church’s coverups of sexual scandals. Along with the need to save face. Both unfortunately very human characteristics not limited to the Chinese.

However a communist dictatorship simply accentuates those foibles. Look at the Soviet attempts to cover up Chernobyl until they realized that the West could detect the radiation fallout and p(name removed by moderator)oint its source.

And even if it was a lab accident with a natural pathogen (man-made has been disproved), the real crime wouldn’t be the accident- the West has them too, look at the 737 MAX- but the coverup. I think we’re past the coverup stage though.

 

[dvdjs]

You might find these interesting, and written in a more easily understandable manner for laymen:

Thanks for these links.

 

[mrad25]

Possibility does not equal proof.

Proof is that we have genetically engineered and made new coronaviruses in the past, dating back to 2000 in fact from the studies I can see. Who knows what more research will indicate regarding this virus. We know bat lady was collecting bats with coronaviruses and studying them at the WIV, and that she was also the first to be able to isolate the S protein from SARS which we have seen on the new virus, and which is the key that allows the virus to penetrate and replicate inside the body. She was also the first person the CRP called in to Wuhan when they knew they had a problem.

FWIW I believe that China is probably responsible. But not likely due to a lab accident which is possible, but the Chinese are not stupid and not likely that sloppy.

They have had 4 incidences of SARs leaks from labs. They have a 10 times higher occupational hazard rate than the US. The French Architect for the WIV lab expressed safety concerns during the construction of the lab. Back in October 2019 China held summits on specifically increasing safety at said Bio-4 level labs.

And even if it was a lab accident with a natural pathogen (man-made has been disproved), the real crime wouldn’t be the accident- the West has them too, look at the 737 MAX- but the coverup. I think we’re past the coverup stage though.

Man-made has no been disproved. It’s being debated currently by many in the field, as you can see from also watching the documentary. With the type of research being conducted at these type of labs, a lab leak could of course happen anywhere in the World. Lots of debates surround shutting down gain functioning research, and in fact Obama did so I believe in 2015 for sometime in the US.

 

[josie_L]

I never said possibility equals PROOF my argument is that that possibility CANNOT be ruled out.

I have no confidence whatsoever that China is telling the truth and every confidence since the beginning of this debacle that it is hiding something.

This is not based on conspiracy but on the manner in which the Chinese have dealt with this pandemic.

Destruction of data, rejection of foreign help/aid, missing scientists and journalists, squelching dissent and dissemination . . . .etc.

You know they are hiding something and that something is linked to the origins of this disease.

 

[OraLabora]

Proof is that we have genetically engineered and made new coronaviruses in the past,

That’s proof of possibility, not proof that this is what happened for this

Man-made has no been disproved. It’s being debated currently by many in the field, as you can see from also watching the documentary.

But not proof either. For my money, the documentary blew its credibility in the first five minutes by taking the Lancet paper out of context and drawing a conclusion that was not even the aim of the paper. And then ignored a subsequent Lancet article.

It’s a conspiracy theory. Nothing more, nothing less, about something that has not yet been thoroughly researched. I don’t discount the possibility that the Chinese are hiding something given the nature of communism, but nor will I jump to conclusions based on the speculations of a source with a poor track record for the truth.

 

[josie_L]

Assuming that that was indeed the FIRST fatal case and assuming what China told us is true regarding the data they gave us (which we now know they have lied about).

And knowing as per the Lancet a third (33%) of the cases were not CONNECTED to the Wuhan market is quite a significant portion of cases unanswered for which should lead to a scientific investigation as to HOW THEY attained the disease??

The basis and objective of this report is to put holes in the Huanan Seafood market virus origins theory (for that is still what it is) and I can’t help but concur that that is looking less plausible despite the less verifiable conclusion the report makes of man-made bioweapons.

There are definitely things which were highlighted that makes one wonder what the heck THE CHINESE scientists WERE DOING studying bats (and pangolins) and seeking ways in which to see how their pathogens/viruses interacted in mice/animals (apes to be specific)???

You should have watched the whole video it might have resolved some of your issues.